Alternate Solution(s)

[Hooknswoop 19]

1) There is a problem with people being injured/killled under good canopies.

2) The current system of common sense, good judgement and S & TS's is what has allowed this problem to develop and is not fixing it.

3) Some DZ's are enacting very restrictive, no exceptions, policies towards wing loading and experience.

4) A letter was published in this months Parachutist, suggesting a possible solution to the problem.

5) Some people feel this suggested solution is not a good solution.

Does ANYONE have an alternate (better) solution to fix this problem?

Derek

[JJohnson 0]

No I cannot say I have an alternate solution at all. Even though I don't agree with restrictions and regulations...given that there is no way to stop an idiot from hurting/killing themself on a canopy they should not be under....yes something should be done.
Out of curiousity what is the % increase over the last few years in deaths (not injuries) that are directly due to lack of skill coupled with too high of performance of canopy?
Another thought: Wouldn't these measures also require for each canopy to be categorized by it's performance and variations depending on wingloading?

JJ

"Call me Darth Balls"

[FIREFLYR 0]

I think wingloading restrictions would be a good Idea for novice jumpers. Maby,those with under 100? 150? 200 jumps? (I only have 133 and might be effected by a restriction if there was one). But ONLY if EVERY DZ. adopted a uniform standard. If only some dropzones had restrictions those that felt they didn't need / want to be restricted would migrate to other DZs collectively and as groups probably be that much less safe.

I believe people should be let to make their own decisions concerning their safety choices once they have some idea what they're getting themselves into.Remember the bloody asphalt video in drivers ed?

Skydiving is legal after all!
so are motorcycles,crossing the street without looking both ways,drinking bacardi 151,B.A.S.E.,Super Sizing it, double black diamond trails at Kirkwood,Lamborghinis,Frying turkey in your kitchen..........

Ok I'm done rambling who's next

"One flew East,and one flew West..............one flew over the cuckoo's nest"
"There's absolutely no excuse for the way I'm about to act"

[pilotdave 0]

In my opinion, wingloading doesn't kill... low turns do. There's a lot of talk on here about flat turns and flare turns, and avoiding panic turns. I got my A license before the ISP started so things were a little different, but I never learned any of those things. Never taken a canopy course either, so anything I know about canopy control beyond what I learned as a student, I've learned on my own.

Do students now learn these techniques to avoid smacking into the ground if they need to turn low down? If not, wouldn't that be a start?

Dave

[RyanofOZ 0]

I am going with not getting too rule restriction happy and let natural selection take care of it. I can go buy a 1200 cc street bike with no experiance and a table saw, wood chipper, gun, fireworks etc... The list goes on and on. Let the idiots learn from their own mistakes and dont punish people that are having a good time safely.

Oz

[MarkM 0]

Quote

I can go buy a 1200 cc street bike with no experiance and a table saw, wood chipper, gun, fireworks etc...

Most countries place restrictions on how powerful a motorcycle you can buy based on how long you've been riding. The US is a bit of an exception and we get idiots buying a 1000cc rice rocket with a fresh license looking to be road kill.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

The US is a bit of an exception and we get idiots buying a 1000cc rice rocket with a fresh license looking to be road kill.

And that happens fairly frequently. As do folks slicing fingers/hands/etc off with the new saw they bought, etc

IMHO, there needs to be some sort of system in place, at the very least, to keep the FAA from possibly taking action.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[Hooknswoop 19]

Where are all the people that were saying that the letter was a bad idea? Surely they must have a better idea?

Derek

[DBCOOPER 1]

Quote

Most countries place restrictions on

This is America

Quote

let natural selection take care of it

Replying to: Re: Stall On Jump Run Emergency Procedure? by billvon

If the plane is unrecoverable then exiting is a very very good idea.

[slug 1]

>>Out of curiousity what is the % increase over the last few years in deaths (not injuries) that are directly due to lack of skill coupled with too high of performance of canopy?>>

Rather than look at the last few years lets look at when the problem first started.

It started when the canopy manufactor's started producing canopies in different sizes. No more one size fit's all this allowed the skydivers to choose their own wing loading and performance characteristic's.

"The percentage deaths (not injuries) that are directly due to lack of skill coupled with too high of performance of canopy?

Went from 0% to what 50%? Therefor the joke among the old farts

"Who says skydivers are stupid we invented a whole new way to kill ourselves"

R.I.P.

[JJohnson 0]

Good lookin women that jump nekid get to fly whatever canopy they want?

JJ

"Call me Darth Balls"

[councilman24 36]

Quote

1) There is a problem with people being injured/killled under good canopies.

2) The current system of common sense, good judgement and S & TS's is what has allowed this problem to develop and is not fixing it.

The current system has allowed a perceived problem to develop not because of the system but because of the changes in technology. People have been biffing in under square canopies since they were invented. The smaller size and higher speeds have led to fatalities instead of injuries. If I review all of the canopy related injuries (luckily no fatalities) at our DZ over the years as many were on Furys, big Ravens, PD non zp 7 cells, etc as have been on the new pocket rockets. Actually more.

The proposed solution imposing more bureaucracy may be appropriate, but difficult to implement and maintain at smaller DZ's with limited staff (including simply availability of jumpers willing to BE staff) and resources. Building quality relationships with students, giving (and receiving) appropriate advice, concerned riggers interested in the overall safety of their customers, and some limitations imposed by DZO's can and DOES work in the case of smaller DZ's like my home DZ. It may not at Eloy, Perris, or Z-hills.

We should realize that one "solution" may not fit all and strive for a balance.

Do I have a better idea? No, not right now. I haven't had time to formulate an alternative. I too am frustrated and mad about the number of fatalities under open canopies. We've replaced no pulls with no flares. While I've been rated by USPA during times when the DZO didn't care, I hesitate to add layers of ratings and guidelines that may make it more difficult for students to become skydivers.

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

[Ron 7]

Quote

Never taken a canopy course either, so anything I know about canopy control beyond what I learned as a student, I've learned on my own

You pilots license when you were 17 helped.

Most don't have 50 hours when they are 16.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[DBCOOPER 1]

I have a bigger problem with innocent people getting hooked out of the sky while they are doing everything right.

Replying to: Re: Stall On Jump Run Emergency Procedure? by billvon

If the plane is unrecoverable then exiting is a very very good idea.

[pds 0]

training.

compulsary canopy control curriculum.

from my experience attention to canopy control varies greatly during initial training. i receieved little to no structured canopy control training and am lucky to be alive. it took a close call and some well intentioned intervention to call my attention to a need for better canopy skills. i developed said skills to the degree i am able and today am a conservative and able canopy pilot. i aint in no hurry to be cool or dead.

before i knew better i got lucky.

it seems my intention is misinterpreted. i am not trying to throw any shade on the authors or the intention of the document in question. it is my opinion that regulating canopy type and wingloading will prove to be a futile exercise and will be the deal breaker.

remove the clause regarding restriction and regulation and concentrate on compulsary canopy training. thats a bullseye.

namaste, motherfucker.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

remove the clause regarding restriction and regulation and concentrate on compulsary canopy training. thats a bullseye.

That would be great, but there is 2 problems with that:

1) All the best high-speed up-to-date training from the best Instructor(s) in the world would not prevent a 50 jump skydiver from hammering in under a Velocity loaded at 2.6:1.

2) You said it yourself: "before i knew better i got lucky." Newer jumpers don't know what they don't know. A close call can wake them up to that fact, but all too often it goes beyond a close call to injury/fatality. Then it is too late to learn that lesson.

BTW- thank you for focusing on the solution.
Derek

[nicknitro71 0]

Regulate training for HP canopy flight. Regulate WL won't work because the training could still be missing. Also, many skydivers don't have the need to fly HP canopy at high WL.

If I want to fly a high performance plane a private license by itself won't do it. I have to show FAA I can do it and I have the proper trainig. Same for a tail-dragger and so forth. Why can't we do the same? You want to fly a HP canopy at 2.6? Cool here is what you have to learn, show that you have learnt it both in theory and practice. There should also be some different training categories like .7-1.0, 1.1-1.3, 1.4-1.7 and over 1.8. The first two could be embeded in the licesing system. It does not seem like rocket science to me.

Memento Audere Semper

903

[skyyhi 0]

I like the idea of Education - this is the BEST place to put the requirement. . .the more education and training a person receives the better. It won't prevent going in and people making stupid choices but it will help.

People make REALLY BAD decisions - in all things. . .I don't think you can regulate peoples decisions - if they don't make them skydiving they will make them somewhere else. But if those same people are educated and informed - just maybe more of them will make good decisions. . .and less people will get hurt doing stupid stuff.

Disclaimer: I am a newbie folks and my opinion is just that - an opinion. Take it for what it is worth. . .

________________________________________
Take risks not to escape life… but to prevent life from escaping. ~ A bumper sticker at the DZ
FGF #6
Darcy

[Perky77 0]

Quote

. Let the idiots learn from their own mistakes and dont punish people that are having a good time safely.

I agree that people should have comon sense enough to not need these kind of restirictions, However....each person on a smaller/higher performance canopy than they are experienced enough to handle that burns in or is injured in an accident that is publisized does more damage to this industry than any restrictions or mandatory training ever would.

just my 2 cents

"Sacrifice is a part of life. It is supposed to be. It's not something you regret . It's something to aspire to." Mitch Albom

[rendezvous 0]

I agree with you on it.

[Hooknswoop 19]

I see a very comparable situation between new drivers and new canopy pilots. New drivers have seen a lot of vehicle accidents, on the news, in person, etc. They have been shown the consequences of driving like an idiot. They still drive like idiots and get into accidents.

Education, for drivers and canopy pilots is important. It is also severely lacking for both drivers and canopy pilots. There are schools for both that are not mandatory, but people can pay to attend. Not everyone that should does, in fact very few that should do. Unfortunately, education is not the fix-all.

From: Young Drivers: The High Risk Years

"Unfortunately," Dr. Simpson added, "the problem is that so many crashes involve their attitude, not their skills."

“Dr. Simpson points out that what is needed is some kind of system that allows teens accessibility and mobility, but that at the same time gives them an opportunity to gain much-needed experience under conditions of 'controlled risk.' This concept is known as 'graduated licensing.'”

“Peer pressure can, and usually does, override adult rules concerning issues such as obeying the speed limit or using turn signals.”

“With such serious statistics, parents want to know what they can do to minimize the risks that come with teenage driving. Consider these suggestions:”

“Be sure teenagers get plenty of supervised driving even after getting their licenses.”

“Ease teens into more challenging situations, such as highways and mountainous roads, or wet, snowy and icy conditions.“

“Make sure teens stay out of unsafe cars, especially small cars and high performance cars.“

From: Graduated Licensing for Teen Drivers

“Driving is a complicated skill to learn; it takes time and practice.”

“Sometimes young drivers lack driving experience to safely react to traffic situations.”

“Drivers in this age group also commonly engage in more risk-taking behaviors, exposing themselves to dangerous situations on the road.”

The concept is to break the driver’s license down into stages:

“Stage 1: Learner's Permit”
“Stage 2: Intermediate or Provisional License”
“Stage 3: Full License”

http://www.usaweekend.com/99_issues/990905/990905drivers.html is another good reference.

Showing newer drivers pictures of vehicle accidents won’t stop very many from driving poorly. Education would help a lot, but without experience it doesn’t do much. If they don’t use that training, it doesn’t help at all.

Pictures/video/meeting jumpers that have had an incident and education will all help, but will not make a big difference

Derek

[pilotdave 0]

Quote

You pilots license when you were 17 helped.

Most don't have 50 hours when they are 16.

Well, true, but all the flying time in the world isn't gonna do me any good when I'm 40 feet off the ground and realize I'm about to slam into another jumper or something else. I can control a plane on 3 axes.... On a parachute, all three axes are highly coupled. Under normal circumstances, that's no big deal. AFF students are taught to use left toggle to turn left, right toggle to turn right, and that when they turn, they'll dive.

At low altitude, they must be taught how decouple the yaw and pitch axes. I never was (other than by reading how to do it and trying it myself).

If showing competency in flat turns isn't currently a requirement for an A license, it probably should be.

Hooknswoop talked about the similarity between new jumpers and young drivers. Well, in military aviation (possibly civil too, I don't know), they have a similar phenomenon to the increased accident rate among skydivers with 500-800 jumps. At around 1500 hours, accident rates suddenly spike. It's all about overconfidence, trying new things, and complacency. Maybe now that the D license is up to 500 jumps, they should add a canopy control signoff. Just a demonstration of flat and flare turns. Make those "500 jump wonders" get some remedial canopy training if they can't do it properly.

Dave

[pds 0]

derek, are we both speaking english?

Quote

***remove the clause regarding restriction and regulation and concentrate on compulsary canopy training. thats a bullseye.

That would be great, but there is 2 problems with that:

1) All the best high-speed up-to-date training from the best Instructor(s) in the world would not prevent a 50 jump skydiver from hammering in under a Velocity loaded at 2.6:1.


anywhere in the world, right this moment, any jumper with 50 who is flying a velocity at 2.6 has already circumvented the oversight of the s&ta, manufacturer or gear store, and apparently anyone on the ground with at least one good eye. if any one of those parties were aware (and if involved in the aquisition of said canopy by said person should have inquired as to experience level) the jumper would not have been under that canopy. that part of the solution is already in place but is not enacted as intended. = part of the problem.

it would be apparent that this jumper had not been told that xxbraced hp @ 2.6 WILL kill him. this should be part of a compulsory CC class. = part of the solution.

reality: regardless of any regulations, the jumper with 50 @ 2.5 is already smuggling. it happens now and you cannot stop it.

Quote

2) You said it yourself: "before i knew better i got lucky." Newer jumpers don't know what they don't know. A close call can wake them up to that fact, but all too often it goes beyond a close call to injury/fatality. Then it is too late to learn that lesson.

you are correct, i said it myself. COMPULSORY CC CLASS to educate jumpers in many aspects of canopy flight. in addition to practical in air techniques include flight characteristics of the spectrum of canopies at different WL. teach them that lesson before they have to learn it theyself. = part of the solution.

give students a solid education regarding canopies. that is a way to give them a better chance at survival. follow up with refresher or progressively more advanced classes for each subsequent license. = part of the solution.

proposing to add tremendous administrative and policing labor to the existing dz business model which will effect no more change than outlawing guns will stop any progress you expect to make with this proposal. if you outlaw high wingloadings, only outlaws will have high wingloadings. 50 jump chump is signed off for 1.0 wl and knows it. gets something at 2.5 and dont tell nobody. may he gets caught and grounded before he dies, maybe not. then who is responsible? the dz for not catching it? no? then what is the fucking point? where are the teeth of this thing. regulation with no teeth is worse than no regulation.

choose fights wisely. regardless of the positive aspects of your proposal, regulation of WL is going to stop it cold at the DZO level.

i could be wrong. it happens occasionally.

namaste, motherfucker.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

anywhere in the world, right this moment, any jumper with 50 who is flying a velocity at 2.6 has already circumvented the oversight of the s&ta, manufacturer or gear store, and apparently anyone on the ground with at least one good eye. if any one of those parties were aware (and if involved in the aquisition of said canopy by said person should have inquired as to experience level) the jumper would not have been under that canopy. that part of the solution is already in place but is not enacted as intended. = part of the problem.

I agree that is part of the problem. Jumpers can buy canopies they shouldn’t be flying. I recently sold my VX-60 to a guy with 267 jumps and is downsizing from a Stiletto 107. If the S & T A has the authority to do anything and doesn’t, then he will be jumping it this weekend. See a problem here? This isn’t true, just wanted to make a point. Jumpers will be able to get any canopy they want, regulating it at the acquisition level won’t stop very many people.

{quote] it would be apparent that this jumper had not been told that xxbraced hp @ 2.6 WILL kill him. this should be part of a compulsory CC class. = part of the solution.

Same jumper as above, has been told but doesn’t believe it will kill him. He thinks he is good enough handle a VX-60. He doesn’t know what he doesn’t know, until after he has an incident if he is lucky.

Mandatory CC instruction/education/training is part of the letter.

Quote

reality: regardless of any regulations, the jumper with 50 @ 2.5 is already smuggling. it happens now and you cannot stop it.

You can stop him from jumping it very easily. “Nice canopy. Can I see you USPA card?” “Sure, here you go.” “I’m sorry, you can’t jump that nice canopy here.”

Quote

you are correct, i said it myself. COMPULSORY CC CLASS to educate jumpers in many aspects of canopy flight. in addition to practical in air techniques include flight characteristics of the spectrum of canopies at different WL. teach them that lesson before they have to learn it theyself. = part of the solution.

I agree completely. Now how do we make canopy instruction/training/education mandatory. How do we prevent someone from taking the training deciding they can no go fly a VX-60 with 267 jumps?

Quote

give students a solid education regarding canopies. that is a way to give them a better chance at survival. follow up with refresher or progressively more advanced classes for each subsequent license. = part of the solution.

I agree. But that won’t help Mr. 267 jumps with the VX-60.

Quote

proposing to add tremendous administrative and policing labor to the existing dz business model which will effect no more change than outlawing guns will stop any progress you expect to make with this proposal. if you outlaw high wingloadings, only outlaws will have high wingloadings.

It isn’t a tremendous administrative chore. I don’t see ‘bandit’ DZ’s with people pulling at 500 feet being popular. The minimum pull altitude BSR works, why not this?

Quote

0 jump chump is signed off for 1.0 wl and knows it. gets something at 2.5 and dont tell nobody. may he gets caught and grounded before he dies, maybe not. then who is responsible? the dz for not catching it? no? then what is the fucking point? where are the teeth of this thing. regulation with no teeth is worse than no regulation.

Same teeth as the minimum pull altitude BSR. Pull low? Grounded. Sneek a canopy you shouldn’t? Grounded.

Quote

choose fights wisely. regardless of the positive aspects of your proposal, regulation of WL is going to stop it cold at the DZO level.

Some DZO’s are enacting their own policies. They choose to, without any outside influence. They seem to be able to do it and handle the administrative part without a problem.

Quote

i could be wrong. it happens occasionally.

Me too.

I do think this is worth pursuing though. It needs to be fixed and I haven’t seen anyone put forth a better idea.

Derek

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

I recently sold my VX-60 to a guy with 267 jumps and is downsizing from a Stiletto 107.

I'm very surprised that you would do this. I know you wanted to recoup some $$$, but 267 jumps on a cross-braced hanky? Aie-karumba!!!

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over