talking to a dead man

[wmw999 2,123]

A system like the one you described works for me. I'd like it waiverable by someone local, though. Not sure who; S&TA, canopy coach, etc. Obviously not every S&TA would be competent to judge the waiver, but part of being one should be getting expert advice when you need it.

I have about 1200 jumps, 1.14 wing loading.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Ron 7]

Quote

I'd like it waiverable by someone local,

The only problem with it being waiverable is...well EVERY 200 jump wonder I know thinks he is above average in skills.

I did.

I also bet that out of EVERY skydiver that dies...They ALL thought that they would not.

Ron

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

[ERICCONNELLY 0]

I don't fully agree with using just jump #s. I believe some type of stepped progression (can't downsize more than say 0.1 loading) at a step, with required skills to be demonstrated proir to downsizing.

Jump #'s alone really don't tell the whole story, but can be a big part of the story.

Jumping a Batwing 153 @ 1.3 220 jumps

[Ron 7]

Quote

I don't fully agree with using just jump #s. I believe some type of stepped progression (can't downsize more
than say 0.1 loading) at a step, with required skills to be demonstrated proir to downsizing.

The problem there is what do we use as an easy guide to decide a STANDARDIZED "test"? (Make the person qualify for a PRO before they downsize?) And who can give that test? how do we keep from someone "pencil whipping" it to let their buddy jump a pocket rocket...

Jump #'s while not being the best choice on how to regulate....It's easy. We have pull Altitudes based on jump #'s....We don't have a "Skill set" you have to do, or "test" that lets you go from one pull altitude to another.

The goal is to let people get experience before they make choices on how small to go..To limit them (For their own good) until they have enough knowledge to make an informed choice. It also eliminates the peer preasure to go smaller.

Ron

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

[JeffGordon 0]

BSR guidelines for wing loading is a truly good idea. That falls in line with the USPA's objective of promoting safe skydiving without regulation. But we need a lot more than that. Any one with 500 jumps can still kill themselves with a 1.5 wingloading. We need a training program that specificallyaddresses canopy control, and a rating system. I don't mean manufactures or gear stores need to check some ones ratings, but a rating system for canopy flight would encourage people to get the ratings (and associated training)

[dreamsville 0]

Everyone will not be pleased with one any system, and there will always be those who will cry "favoritism" or "politics" if exceptions are made to a jump number threshold for wing-loading. So, I am back to favoring a jump number standard that changes as experience increases (as much as I dislike making rules this way). Of course, there are exceptions to this rule where more experienced jumpers will still need or want coaching who are BEYOND the thresholds.

Related topic, I believe that students should still be trained on canopies similar to the ones they will be jumping when they complete student status. When I started, we had no Mantas. I was trained on Sabers loaded .9 in the beginning and 1.1 when I finished AFP. I would rather see that than someone making a precipitous downsize once they can buy their own canopy (even if that canopy technically falls within the rules), and then get busted up without the instructor around. I can remember when some thought that training students on Sabers and BOC deployment was ambitious.

BTW, I jumped the 1.1 loading (Saber 170 fully loaded out the door) until jump 750. I now jump a Stilleto 135 and 150 and don't swoop aggressively as I want to get more instruction first. From what I have witnessed, there is a lot more that someone with my loading can get out of these canopies than I have asked of them so far, and I'll bet that's true of a lot of jumpers out there. Freefly instructor friends I have jump the Velocity 84's and make it look easy, but then, they spent a lot of practice time to make it look like that.

Be safe my friends. This was a great weekend in the air for a lot of us. Let's make it so we can continue to do so and have a better safety record than the one I have been seeing lately.

Wing loading 1.41, 1406 jumps.
||

I don't drink during the day, so I don't know what it is about this airline. I keep falling out the door of the plane.

Harry, FB #4143

[SkyDekker 1,123]

Quote

Yes, training can help reduce this risk, but the same training will also reduce the lower level risk you or I have when jumping a larger, less loaded canopy.

Thank you and thank you Wendy, you guys certainly ot it accross better than me.

Edited to add Wendy

[wmw999 2,123]

Quote

The only problem with it being waiverable is...well EVERY 200 jump wonder I know thinks he is above average in skills.

Well, yes. But if you have specific requirements to get the waiver (e.g. billvon's famous list, and a signoff by a supervisor, on the next-higher canopy), then the cost of downsizing goes up. Especially if you really only downsize one level or type with each waiver. This provides supervision, and a way for the rich skydiver to keep buying gear one step at a time to prove they too can do everything.

Or something like that.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Ron 7]

Quote

But if you have specific requirements to get the waiver (e.g. billvon's famous list, and a signoff
by a supervisor, on the next-higher canopy),

Agreed, but are you just going to sit on the ground and watch them from the air? Or do you need to be under canopy next to them? Are you just going to trust them that they did the requirements? Is the USPA going to make a canopy control course? How are you going to get the Instructors rating? Is it like AFF where you have to go take a week off of work and have a ground, and air skills test? Is it a written test? Can a guy (S&TA, or I) with just a 1.5 "rating" certify someone to go to a 1.8?

Too many questions....USPA will not touch this...

Or,

Jump # to wingload system:
100 jumps, 1.1
200 jumps, 1.2
300 jumps, 1.3
400 jumps, 1.4
500 jumps, 1.5
>500 Jumps, Unlimited.

Hell the 500 jumps would even go with the new "D" license.

Simple, easy, it will reduce the fatalities, and its easy to type.

Ron

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

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Your first alternative of having to go through a USPA canopy course sounds crazy as it's too much of a hassle for scheduling and just imagine the red-tape that would go along with it. The second alternative (you know 100 jumps 1.1, 200 jumps 1.2, etc, etc, etc) sounds much better as a guideline enforced by your friendly neighborhood S&TA..

Total jumps to date (in a little over 9 months in the sport) is 216. My last 38 jumps are on a Sabre2 loaded at about 1.4:1 (37 of those are stand up landings) and no plans to downsize anytime soon for the next couple of hundred jumps as I realize my current setup is plenty zippy enough for me (especially with the hot and high density altitude months around the corner). Oh and while I do like my front risers for carving turns, I'm not into low hook landings.

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

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Quote

But if you have specific requirements to get the waiver (e.g. billvon's famous list, and a signoff by a supervisor, on the next-higher canopy),

Agreed, but are you just going to sit on the ground and watch them from the air? Or do you need to be under canopy next to them? Are you just going to trust them that they did the requirements? Is the USPA going to make a canopy control course? How are you going to get the Instructors rating? Is it like AFF where you have to go take a week off of work and have a ground, and air skills test? Is it a written test? Can a guy (S&TA, or I) with just a 1.5 "rating" certify someone to go to a 1.8?

Too many questions....USPA will not touch this...

Or,

Jump # to wingload system:
100 jumps, 1.1
200 jumps, 1.2
300 jumps, 1.3
400 jumps, 1.4
500 jumps, 1.5
>500 Jumps, Unlimited.

Hell the 500 jumps would even go with the new "D" license.

do you trust the coach/JM when they sign off on the freefall requirements for each license? arent they already signing off on your canopy control skills to graduate you off AFF?? some people do it in 20 some may take 50 but having strict number requirements is WAY to draconian.

learning curves are different for different people. Some spend more time focused on learning & practicing specific skills on every jump, not on simply landing the canopy. Doing so under supervision by some one who can vouch for your canopy control skills is no different than the system used to "certify" freefall skills. If a coach or AFI is 'pencil-whipping" any of those they are just as wrong in the first place.

no reason to require someone to "Crank out" the H&Ps just to reach an arbitrary number when they have already demonstrated the skills necessary to progress..I agree some kind of mentor and coaching system will greatly benefit everyones flying skills, but lets not slavishly tie it to jump numbers as an indication of ability. That is exactly why we have coach systems in the first place. Lets just start using them better.


[rant]the freedom to risk my life in anyway i chose (that does not endanger another) should be fundamental to american skydiving. anyone who thinks its their job to "protect me from myself" needs to BTFU. the only limiting authority should be the DZO/ST&A providing the altitude who has seen my canopy abilities, not an arbitrary board handing down decrees from the adminsphere[/rant]

250 jumps..currently flying various [email protected] and not planning on downsizing further for at least 100 jumps personal preference not an mandated rule. self determination is more important than safety

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Ron 7]

Quote

but having strict number requirements is WAY to draconian.

why do you think that there are pull altitudes? Answer...Too many people bounced. Do you think you should be allowed to pull at any altitude that you want? Hell if you bounce, you only affect you, oh and the ...DZO...The pilot...Your family...your friends...you make it hard if not impossible for skydivers to get life insurance....

Quote

no reason to require someone to "Crank out" the H&Ps just to reach an arbitrary number when they have
already demonstrated the skills necessary to progress.

Except for the fact that we already do this in several other areas...500 jumps to get a Tandem rating...6 hrs of freefall for AFF, 100 for a coach ticket...20 Ram air jumps for first CRW. I know plenty of people who could have passed AFF with less than 6 hrs...But they still needed it for the course.

All this will do is to make them SAFER...And by doing so lessen the danger to themselves, and every other jumper in the air with them.

Quote

Doing so under supervision by some one who
can vouch for your canopy control skills is no different than the system used to "certify" freefall skills. If a
coach or AFI is 'pencil-whipping" any of those they are just as wrong in the first place.

Oh I agree that you should never "pencil whip" anything...But now you want the USPA to come up with another new program, that has to be run....And new materials....And new teachers...and people have to want that rating...With new certification standards.

Can I at a 1.7 certify you at a 1.9 wingload?
How about the guy with a PRO rating that has never even jumped a 9 cell?

Quote

That is exactly why we have coach systems in the first place. Lets just start using them better.

The curretn coach system really does not cover canopy control....And if it did, are you saying that a guy with 100 jumps under a 1.2 can tell me (A non coach rated person) if I can jump at a 1.8?

Quote

the freedom to risk my life in anyway i chose (that does not endanger another) should be fundamental
to american skydiving.

And this is where you don't get it...When a guy bounces...more than him is affected. The FAA...local goverment ect start looking at the sport...Several people have tried to ban skydiving at certain Airports...hell even whole states. So this is where you miss it...It IS the duty of an organization that is supposed to represent skydivers to "BTFI" Othrewise we would still have no min pull altitudes.

Quote

self determination is more important than safety

If you feel that way, please don't ever jump with me...Or anyone I care about..Or anywhere near me.

You have (according to your profile) under 500 jumps...Of course you don't like this...But this is a prime example of why it is needed...for the good of the sport, not just for YOUR good.

Ron

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

[quade 3]

Quote

[rant]the freedom to risk my life in anyway i chose (that does not endanger another) should be fundamental to american skydiving. anyone who thinks its their job to "protect me from myself" needs to BTFU. the only limiting authority should be the DZO/ST&A providing the altitude who has seen my canopy abilities, not an arbitrary board handing down decrees from the adminsphere[/rant]

OK, I'm definately NOT trying to start a flame war or anything, but I do want to take this a little further logically.

By saying this, are you also saying that pull altitudes or any of the other BRSs listed in SIM Section 2 are arbitarary abridgments of "the freedom to risk my life in anyway i chose"?

The reason I ask is that if the USPA were to put wing loading restrictions somewhere, for it to have any real clout, it would probably have to go into SIM Section 2.

Oh, I forgot to add in some crap . . . about 1,500 jumps and about a 1.3:1 wingloading. BTW, I think we should also add in how many trips to the emergency room we've all taken. Me = 0.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 2,400]

>Your first alternative of having to go through a USPA canopy course sounds crazy . . .

Why? We already do wet water training, it's not crazy or too much red tape. There's already canopy training requirements in the ISP. It can certainly be done. The question is - is it worth it? If it can save 10 people a year, it probably is.

[Zenister 0]

absolutely.

who is going to ground you if you pull at lower than those altitudes? the DZO. who should be able to tell if you are capable of flying a particular canopy safely? the same people who determined if you were skilled enough to be in freefall by yourself and pilot your canopy safely to the ground the first 20 times you did it.


i love this attitude that my personal safety is more important to you than my ability to decide my own fate. as i said BTFU. I am not endangering anyone but myself, by my actions. If I am observed by someone ON THE SCENE to be flying in a manner unsafe to others by all means ground me and or limit how i am flying until my skills progress to the point that i can land the canopy i'm flying safely. There should be no need for ANY new program. Arent coaches and AFIs responsible for ensuring the jumpers under their supervision are acting in a safe and reasonably controlled manner at all times?? are you saying ST&As cant judge wither a jumper is competent or not to land at their DZs???

i guess i shouldnt even bring up BASE jumping..guess that needs to be regulated too?? after all someone might kill themselves doing it..:rolleseyes:

what i am saying is that the only way anyone can judge someone elses canopy control skills is by direct observation i guess just someone who has made 1000 jumps on a spectre loaded at 1.1 is now OK to go fly a Velocity loaded at 2.0?

simple jump numbers should not be the primary means of determining who can fly what at what wingloading. This does not imply that some supervision is not required it is stating that draconian numbers arbitarily imposed have no real bearing on flying abilities

oh well i only have 250 jumps i guess i cant have a valid opinion..this is exactly why people dont like giving out jump numbers as soon as you do anyone with more automatically thinks you cant be trusted to make rational decisions regarding your own canopy choice and flying ability.

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[gemini 0]

Lisa, I hope we would have done the same at our DZ. Locally it is one of the biggest problems with new jumpers that we have. I also agree that a self-imposed wing loading system tied to the licensing and jumper's jump count might be the place to start.

Unfortunately, the flaw we will have is that there is no way to enforce jumper to jumper sales. When we are trying to talk a jumper out of rapid downsizing, word gets around the DZ that he is looking for a ??? sized canopy. He is then approached by another jumper who wants to get rid of his ??? canopy to get a ??.

Any ideas of how to minimize this? Lots of problems have risen from old canopies needing line replacement at a minimum and jumpers not qualified to know that a line set is needed, dtc.

Jim

Blue skies,

Jim

[billvon 2,400]

>self determination is more important than safety

Not always. You cannot jump without a reserve, or after drinking 2 beers, and you can't pull at 500 feet - even if you have really, really good reasons for doing so. We as a sport decide on what's essentially 'reasonable' and what isn't. Usually that decision is based on our experiences, what's 'too risky' and what isn't. Up until now, jumping any canopy at all that you want to jump hasn't been too risky. When we start hitting double digits in fatalities a year from that practice, that attitude may be reexamined.

The best way around this is, of course, voluntary cooperation with canopy loading guidelines, education, and good judgement. All three are sorely lacking right now and the problem is getting worse instead of getting better.

[skybytch 259]

Quote

Oh, I forgot to add in some crap . . . about 1,500 jumps and about a 1.3:1 wingloading. BTW, I think we should also add in how many trips to the emergency room we've all taken. Me = 0

Another couple of interesting tidbits to add to the mix would be the number of low turn incidents you've witnessed... and how many funerals you've attended or how many people you'll never get to jump with again because of them.

[Ron 7]

Quote

oh well i only have 250 jumps i guess i cant have a valid opinion..this is exactly why people dont like giving
out jump numbers as soon as you do anyone with more automatically thinks you cant be trusted to make
rational decisions regarding your own canopy choice and flying ability.

You are more than welcome to have whatever opinion you have.
But when you think you are better quailfied to make choices than people who have MUCH more EXP than you...well thats a lot of ego there....

If I were going to fly Camera...I'd listen to Quade...If I am gonna freefly, I'll go talk to Colon, or Pip..In fact my 2,800 jump ass just spent some time talkin to Pip on how not to kill myself, or anyone else doing freefly. This included him looking at my gear to see if it was freefly friendly...Now at 2,800 jumps I can do a gear check, and how some basic skills down...But I STILL listen to people with more jumps/skills/knowledge than me. Some don't.

At 250 jumps...yep, I don't think you know enough about the sport to decide everything for yourself....When do we stop..

Some guy shows up at the DZ:
Hey man I did a static line in the Army 7 years ago...I don't need instruction or regulations...I was AIRBORNE..Just give me a rig and let me freefall. Hell I can PLF already!

He thinks he knows enough as well (BTW this has happend to me)...

So where is the line drawn?

Druggies think that they have it under control..Drunk Drivers think they are fine to drive.

Like it or not it is the good of the GROUP...not the individual that is important.

Ron

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

[quade 3]

Quote

oh well i only have 250 jumps i guess i cant have a valid opinion..this is exactly why people dont like giving out jump numbers as soon as you do anyone with more automatically thinks you cant be trusted to make rational decisions regarding your own canopy choice and flying ability.

I don't think that at all.

At 250 jumps, you clearly have been in the sport for more than a few days.

And at 250 jumps you may have already seen what happens when somebody goes in. A LOT of folks don't really understand how serious the sport is until they see that first hand.

If, you truely understand what this sport can do to you and are not mearly dazzled by the brilliance of the super stars, then you can usually at least begin to make some sort of informed decision about how you want to deal with certain things.

I believe that in large part the reasons the SIM Section 2 requirements for knowlege and experience exist is to allow you to develop and make those informed decisions.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[quade 3]

Quote

Another couple of interesting tidbits to add to the mix would be the number of low turn incidents you've witnessed... and how many funerals you've attended or how many people you'll never get to jump with again because of them.

Unfortunately, because I jump at a highly attended and year 'round dropzone, I've seen far, far too many.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Ron 7]

Quote

And at 250 jumps you may have already seen what happens when somebody goes in. A LOT of folks don't
really understand how serious the sport is until they see that first hand.

There was this kid...He used to love to pull low. A lot of the guys at the DZ talked to him....Finnaly one of the guy told him...That if he pulled low again, they were going to kick my ass....Opps I meant HIS ass.

I liked to pull low...I didn't have a fucking clue how bad it was..I had 300 jumps and thought I knew it all.

I met another young punk kid. He like to pull low. I told him it was stupid...He told me to sod off. I asked him if he had ever seen a body after a bounce. He said no....So I showed him some pictures of one. And I took him to see where the crater was. He looked sick....But started pulling higher

Edit: to make pulling low past tense (I forgot the damn D)
Ron

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

[billvon 2,400]

>If I am observed by someone ON THE SCENE to be flying in a
> manner unsafe to others by all means ground me and or limit how i
> am flying until my skills progress to the point that i can land the
> canopy i'm flying safely.

We did this a few times. One guy went to Elsinore to permanently cripple himself, the other one did it at Eloy. Unfortunately, people determined to hurt themselves can change DZ's faster than the few 'qualified grounders' can talk to them/ground them. And no, it doesn't work for anyone else to talk to them, because then you get things like:

"oh well i only have 250 jumps i guess i cant have a valid opinion.."

>i guess i shouldnt even bring up BASE jumping..guess that needs
>to be regulated too??

If you're doing it by yourself, no. If you want to use a site that's maintained by someone else, and people start killing themsevles regularly there, expect regulation to come along.

>what i am saying is that the only way anyone can judge someone
>elses canopy control skills is by direct observation . . .

Not true. That's like saying the only way someone can judge anyone's flying skill is by direct observation. Yet I've gotten on lots of big-ways with strangers simply because I've done a lot of big ways and have an AFF rating. An AFF rating requires you to have basic flying skills of the type that you need in a big way.

We could do the same. You want to jump that 1.8 to 1 at 200 jumps? Fine, just complete the Evolution canopy training course - or make a few jumps with the DZO/S+TA watching you land, flare turn, whatever. What? You are fine with that canopy, and you want to get on the next load? Sorry, we don't know your skill level.

And then, of course, a fight ensues - which is why you see DZ's with mandatory inflexible canopy loading limits. It avoids the fights.

>this is exactly why people dont like giving out jump numbers

People don't like giving out jump numbers because they may hear something they don't want to hear from someone with more experience. I have found it's worthwhile to listen anyway, even if you disagree. People who have been in the sport a long time sometimes have good advice to impart. And if not? You can always ignore them. It's a lot better to get some good and some bad advice, then decide which to follow, than no advice at all.

[skybytch 259]

Quote

i love this attitude that my personal safety is more important to you than my ability to decide my own fate.

Well, much as I like you, it's really not your personal safety I'm most worried about. It's the future of the sport I love that worries me.

Quote

simple jump numbers should not be the primary means of determining who can fly what at what wingloading. This does not imply that some supervision is not required it is stating that draconian numbers arbitarily imposed have no real bearing on flying abilities

Ideally we wouldn't be having this discussion - ideally every DZO would make an effort to provide their new skydivers with top quality canopy control instruction and close supervision while they are downsizing. Unfortunately we don't live in an ideal world.

We keep injuring and killing people under perfectly good parachutes and we're going to end up with FAA regulations - which will be far more draconian and make far less sense than what we as jumpers could come up with through USPA. I'm so not for any kind of regulation, but I'm sick and tired of losing friends.

Education and local supervision is the answer, but we aren't making it happen fast enough. Guidelines, recommendations or regulations based solely on jump numbers aren't going to be perfect, and probably aren't going to be "fair" - there are too many variables in the canopy selection equation for blanket wingloading to jump number regulation to be fair to all. But that's where it will end up - because number of jumps is a fairly good indicator of how much experience a person has and for "nationwide" regulations to be workable at all there has to be a recognizable standard for the amount of experience needed to progress down in canopy size.

Oh yeah... 925 jumps, 1.1, 0 ER trips, and it's too depressing to think about how many friends I've lost...

[Zenister 0]

Quote

We could do the same. You want to jump that 1.8 to 1 at 200 jumps? Fine, just complete the Evolution canopy training course - or make a few jumps with the DZO/S+TA watching you land, flare turn, whatever. What? You are fine with that canopy, and you want to get on the next load? Sorry, we don't know your skill level.

and we should do the same..if at say 300 jumps your flying and landing a canopy loaded at 1.6 proficiently you should have no problems going thru say a 10 jump evaluation course to prove your ability. These kinds of classes should be offered at every DZ that teaches you to fly a canopy in the first place and once signed off at one it should be valid at any other member DZ. no need to have arbitrary numbers that say "well..300 jumps you cant be skilled/trained enough to fly a canopy loaded at more than 1.3 you just dont have the experience"

without some sort of certified coaches evaluation you wouldnt even know that AFFI was qualified would you? yet you trust that someone didnt pencil whip his or her certification as well dont you? what about a D license? when you see someone with one do you trust that they met all the requirements or do you wonder if it might have been "pencil whipped" without seeing them fly??

that is my entire argument. a fixed scale does not take into account any level of coaching, currency or natural ability that should really only be judged by someone who has seen an individuals canopy skills and is willing to sign off on that evaluation, jump numbers alone cannot be used as a real yardstick.

still wondering if you think some one with 1000 jumps on a spectre at 1.1 is OK to fly that velocity at 2.0 just becasue they meet the #'s requirement??

do you go out on say a 6+ way HD jump with others based soley on their jump numbers or does demonstrated ability count?? why take the ability of a DZO and their staff to determine relative safety levels out of their hands and put it into an inflexible rule system that makes decisions from afar??

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.