talking to a dead man

[wmw999 2,123]

Quote

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

It's how we check accuracy for the PRO rating, and other license requirements. This is a "watching landings" thing. One advantage of this is that it does allow some leeway on both sides, and criteria like this allow someone who is NOT a high-performance canopy aficionado to have some criteria they can use to reasonably judge someone who wants to be one.

If you live in Nebraska, a high-performance canopy control school might take a long time to get to, and the local S&TA might be into accuracy. But they can tell if you landed crosswind, on target, etc.

There's no reason why these would have to be done in a row -- not all jumps lend themselves. But if you announce you're going to demonstrate a skill, you should try to do it (traffic being an obvious decision-changer at any time).

And, of course, this is for the waiver to the jump numbers. If you get to the higher jump number level, then you're deemed free to go mash yourself into the ground, having acquired 100 more landings.

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)

[mikeat10500 9]

Quote

"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"

From what I've read a guy with less than 40 jumps
can land a Stiletto 107(heavy)...this comes as no surprise,
cause it's not that hard to do! But is it a good idea?

Quote

that is my entire argument. a fixed scale does not take into account any level of coaching, currency or natural ability

A large number of deadly hooks were performed
by some of the best canopy pilots....just an off day!
...mike

-----------------------------------
Mike Wheadon B-3715,HEMP#1
Higher Expectations for Modern Parachutists.

[Ron 7]

Quote

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.

So now you want the USPA to have canopy control courses?...Read my other posts about the problems that will start...then answer them. Your asking for a lot more work...And the USPA will not do it.

Quote

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.

Yeah, and all of the people that died last year all thought they had the skills...and natural ability to handle the canopy they died under.

Quote

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??

Yep better than you at 250 jumps...How many of your 250 are at your current wingload?

Lets look at some Incidents from last year.

Total accidents 33.
From low turns 9.

1. 28 y/o 135 jumps, panic turn 1.0 WL
2. 28 y/o 270 jumps, hook turn 1.6 WL
3. 32 y/o 200 jumps, hook turn 1.7 WL
4. 22 y/o 275 jumps, hook turn 1.63 WL
5. 24 y/o 201 jumps, panic turn ?? Unknown wingload CRW jump
6. 33 y/o 1,500 jumps, hook turn 1.5 WL
7. 34 y/o 500 jumps...no other info Conneticut Parachutes Incoporated
8. 45 y/o 170 jumps, hook turn 1.4 WL
9. 24 y/o 160 jumps, 90 deg turn 1.3 WL

So only 1 had more than 500 jumps.
379 was the average jump #.
1.4 was the AVG wingload.
7 were male, 2 female.
2 Panic turns to avoid an object. (Both Female)
5 Hook turns.
1 low turn (90 deg 160 jumps)
1 unk. (Conneticut Parachutes Incoporated).

So I see a very clear picture here.
20-35 y/o Males, with less than 500 jumps with a 1.5 wingload seem to die A LOT more than any other segment.

Seems simple to me that there is a problem.

There are canopy schools out there...But still people die...
Regulation is the only answer left..People are not going to the schools..Not everyone has access to them.

I have said A LOT...I think you should be able to qualify for a PRO rating under the canopy you have now before you should downsize....If people want to make that a BSR..I think it would be great. But you still need a base line...And brother..Jump #'s is it.

Ron

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

[billvon 2,400]

>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.

That's fine. But if you do that you have to accept what comes with it, and that is that if the DZ doesn't have that 10 jump eval course, and you can't get to a place that does have it, YOU DO NOT JUMP THAT CANOPY. I am all for a way to evaluate skills instead of jump #'s, but every attempt I've seen in the past has ended up as a way that new jumpers can jump very small canopies. Because they are all exceptions to any flexible rule.

>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??

No, but they're a hell of a lot more likely to survive than someone with 100 jumps on a 1.1 spectre trying the same thing. And we have people trying that now. Requiring 1000 jumps would be unfair, horrible, not realistic etc but it would most likely save the second guy's life.

> jump numbers alone cannot be used as a real yardstick.

Often it's the only absolute one we have. I wouldn't let someone with 100 jumps jump a Stiletto 97 if it was up to me. I wouldn't even let him do an "eval" jump, because if you die on the eval jump the eval is sort of meaningless.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

So now you want the USPA to have canopy control courses?...Read my other posts about the problems that will start...then answer them. Your asking for a lot more work...And the USPA will not do it.

nope i want coaches and AFI's to be responsible for signing off saying your OK to jump at the current wingloading you are flying..if thats to high for your abilities it should be pretty obvious to anyone who is teaching canopy control to complete amateurs(unlicensed students)

Quote

Yeah, and all of the people that died last year all thought they had the skills...and natural ability to handle the canopy they died under.

and?? the only life they risked was their own. obviously stupidity and ignorance is painful, as it should be..

Quote

***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 because they meet the #'s requirement??[/qoute] Yeah, and all of the people that died last year all thought they had the skills...and natural ability to handle the canopy they died under.


Yep better than you at 250 jumps...How many of your 250 are at your current wingload?

50.. but its also possible that i am alot more current on the type of landing i do with my canopy than someone who has been doing "accuracy" style landings on lightly loaded 7 cells will be trying to land a completely different canopy than he has been training to. i guess the 1000 jump guy is still safer IYO under the Velocity trying a landing he has much less experience with??

do you think landing military rounds helps very much in landing sport elipticals? other than the ability to PLF well?

Quote

Lets look at some Incidents from last year.

Total accidents 33.
From low turns 9.

1. 28 y/o 135 jumps, panic turn 1.0 WL
2. 28 y/o 270 jumps, hook turn 1.6 WL
3. 32 y/o 200 jumps, hook turn 1.7 WL
4. 22 y/o 275 jumps, hook turn 1.63 WL
5. 24 y/o 201 jumps, panic turn ?? Unknown wingload CRW jump
6. 33 y/o 1,500 jumps, hook turn 1.5 WL
7. 34 y/o 500 jumps...no other info Conneticut Parachutes Incoporated
8. 45 y/o 170 jumps, hook turn 1.4 WL
9. 24 y/o 160 jumps, 90 deg turn 1.3 WL

So only 1 had more than 500 jumps.
379 was the average jump #.
1.4 was the AVG wingload.
7 were male, 2 female.
2 Panic turns to avoid an object. (Both Female)
5 Hook turns.
1 low turn (90 deg 160 jumps)
1 unk. (Conneticut Parachutes Incoporated).

So I see a very clear picture here.
20-35 y/o Males, with less than 500 jumps with a 1.5 wingload seem to die A LOT more than any other segment.

Seems simple to me that there is a problem.

9 !?! whole fatalities?? out of how many total jumps??? that really isnt that many at all..

"but one is to many!!!" once again not your job to save me from myself. Anyone involved in skydiving or any other parachute activity had better know the risks before they get on the plane. The problem is that accidents happen, and happen more often to people without knowledge or training. neither of which you get solely from racking up the numbers.

Quote

There are canopy schools out there...But still people die...
Regulation is the only answer left..People are not going to the schools..Not everyone has access to them.

I have said A LOT...I think you should be able to qualify for a PRO rating under the canopy you have now before you should downsize....If people want to make that a BSR..I think it would be great. But you still need a base line...And brother..Jump #'s is it.

no responsibility is the only thing left. Make sure jumpers have the training available to them and make sure they understand the risks involved with increasing wingloadings. Make sure the coaches and instructors at each DZ pay attention to who is doing what and talk & train their jumpers as they progress from one canopy to the next with increasing wingloading..what we dont need is jumpers throwing out 50 more H&Ps just so they met an arbitrary line that says "now i'm safe to land the next size" without really learning the performance envelope for their canopy

if that means 10 landings in a 10 meter circle, fine. but if someone meets that standard with 200 jumps what difference does it make?

ability not quantity.

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

[amir1967 0]

I must say that I don´t really know what I´m talking about ,but when making such statistics I think we should also look at how many people are at that group and what % of them hooking it in.
Another topic for young people in this sport (me) is I can only take advice from people I trust,and not S&TA, drop-zone owner or someone with 1500 jump just Because they have experience ( I do have to listen just for the reason that I want to jump there) but advise of how to go about landing, flying,or what to buy and when you go to the people you trust

AM67

[dreamsville 0]

After some more thought, any regs based upon jump numbers might be waiverable (ability to downsize by a certain amount early) with a set course on canopy control to be completed to the satisfaction of the instructor.

However, I jump at a larger DZ that might be willing to do this. Well, first, this idea might not work given potential controversy involved in setting the standard for the downsizing. Also, smaller DZs or those who can't afford instructors or find time or people to do this aren't going to benefit. They may feel that this allowance puts them at a disadvantage. Tough decisions. This is a place where we see flaws in arguments, sometimes our own. At least the ideas got exposure.
|

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

[skybytch 259]

Quote

and?? the only life they risked was their own.

Wrong answer. They risked the lives of every person who was in the landing area when they fucked up. They affected the lives of every person who saw it, and many more who weren't even at the dz that day.

Bob probably didn't think jumping his new 1.5 wingloading on a 30 way was going to affect anybody other than him. It did when he flew it into another jumper on final. Bob wasn't so lucky, he died. The other jumper managed to land without injury - but it scared her enough that it was a few months before she got back in the air again and she'll likely always be uncomfortable jumping on larger loads and/or into a small landing area. Not to mention how every person who went out to help or saw it happen, and those who weren't there but knew one or both of the jumpers, was affected by it.

The only way the decisions you make in skydiving won't affect anyone else is if you jump alone, out of your own plane, onto your own property.

[Ron 7]

Quote

nope i want coaches and AFI's to be responsible for signing off saying your OK to jump at the current
wingloading you are flying..if thats to high for your abilities it should be pretty obvious to anyone who is
teaching canopy control to complete amateurs(unlicensed students)

Well you are asking alot of EVERYBODY. I know some people that have no clue they are waiting to die...And I know others that don't know that their buddy is a crater waiting to happen.

Quote

and?? the only life they risked was their own. obviously stupidity and ignorance is painful, as it should be..

But THATS NOT ALL THEY RISKED.....They risk getting a DZ sued...Laws getting passed the FAA getting involved.

Quote

50.. but its also possible that i am alot more current on the type of landing i do with my canopy than
someone who has been doing "accuracy" style landings on lightly loaded 7 cells will be trying to land a
completely different canopy than he has been training to. i guess the 1000 jump guy is still safer IYO
under the Velocity trying a landing he has much less experience with??

Yep..Who said he had to hook it? You will try to hook it, and you might just die...He might just fly the thing very safe....

Quote

do you think landing military rounds helps very much in landing sport elipticals? other than the ability to
PLF well?

Nope, but the military guy that showed up at the DZ sure thought it was all that was needed...But then he was wrong...You know that because you have more EXPERIENCE than him....His buddies thought it he was right. Just like someone with more EXPERIENCE that you might think that you should not have a small canopy...Point is we didn't let the guy jump...no mater what he felt he knew about it...He didn't...Just like you may not. NO MATTER WHAT HIS PERSONAL FREEDOMS WE STEPED ON.

Quote

9 !?! whole fatalities?? out of how many total jumps??? that really isnt that many at all..

Nope not much at all...but it is 9 deaths that if five of them removed their heads from their asses and didn't let ego select canopy size would still be around. And that much less death and destruction in a SPORT....

Quote

once again not your job to save me from myself.

The USPA, FAA both think it IS their jobs to do just that...Thats why we have min pull altitudes, and pilots need training.

And I for one think I have a resposability not to let stupid people do stupid things if I can save them that pain. If more peole were like me, and not like you...We would have less people dead/injured every year...I know its not the "cool" thing to care about people that don't know enough to care about themselves. But it is the right thing to do.

You don't get it, and it is clear you will not...talk to me after you have some more EXPERIENCE in this sport.

How many people have you know to die?

Me WAY to many...Just lost one this weekend.

Ron

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

[dreamsville 0]

The sixth fatality in your list, if I'm thinking about the correct incident (1500 jumps 33yro), also involved a pond swoop into a relatively tight area. While it definitely helps make a valid case, that's a whole 'nother area of risk thrown on top of the wing-loading issue. If I'm correct, it was also a case where the person ignored specific warnings against trying it shortly before the accident. It's hard to help if someone doesn't listen.
|

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

[Zenister 0]

Quote

You don't get it, and it is clear you will not...talk to me after you have some more EXPERIENCE in this sport.

How many people have you know to die?

Me WAY to many...Just lost one this weekend.

wont change my opinion at all, I read, research and evaluate everything i'm involved in rather deeply.

quite a number actually. death sucks. not living in the first place is far worse.

"you never know what is enough until you know what is too much" -W.Blake

sometimes you survive, sometime you dont, you should always learn from those who went before you. education is the answer not restriction.

how many people push the envelope just because some one says it cant be done? far better to teach what is nessesary to learn to survive than create blanket rules in a vain attempt to save the darwin candidates who will likely go in anyway when they try something thier ability and training isnt up to, no matter how many jumps they have under any wingloading...


i never understand why anyone thinks restriction is a better answer than education. I guess its easier and less time consuming to create a blanket ban than it is to actually teaching someone what they need to know to keep themselves alive.

dont you think AFI's are qualified to make decisions about canopy control ability?

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

[PhreeZone 15]

Lets not go into the issue of just gettin injured and not killed. A lot more people do hospital time then die every year. Every time a Skydiver gets injured they affect me by either costing me money directly if they don't have insureance by increasing the price of medical care, or indirectly by making the insurance companies raise my rates since they see skydivers as a high risk group.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[skybytch 259]

Quote

dont you think AFI's are qualified to make decisions about canopy control ability?

The same ones who recommend 1.3 wingloadings to people with 30 jumps who've yet to fly anything smaller than a student canopy loaded at 1.0 or less? Um. Nope. Those people shouldn't even have ratings.

And yes, it does happen. I talk to those newbies every day.

[quade 3]

Quote

i never understand why anyone thinks restriction is a better answer than education. I guess its easier and less time consuming to create a blanket ban than it is to actually teaching someone what they need to know to keep themselves alive.

How can you get people to become more educated if they aren't interested? Making the education one of the requirements would be one way to do that.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Quote

dont you think AFI's are qualified to make decisions about canopy control ability?

The same ones who recommend 1.3 wingloadings to people with 30 jumps who've yet to fly anything smaller than a student canopy loaded at 1.0 or less? Um. Nope. Those people shouldn't even have ratings.

And yes, it does happen. I talk to those newbies every day.

so the chain of responsibility is being broken right there.

Do you think the answer is in adding another layer of restriction (that could just as easily be ignored) or in training the instructors so they can train their students effectively? arent they neglecting a basic reposinbility by making recommendations on wing loading to newbies who lack the knowledge to make thier own informed decision??

IMO here is the root of the problem. it starts with how jumpers are trained right off student status. demonstrate certrain skills (Bill's list is great) to the satisfaction of a responsible, qualified coach and you can downsize. again "pencil whipping" is just wrong at any level.

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

[PhreeZone 15]

>dont you think AFI's are qualified to make decisions about canopy control ability?

Hell no... I know an AFI that has'nt stood up a landing in 500 jumps. I also know an AFI that can't do anything but hook it and it ended up in a hospital trip last year for him.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[mikeat10500 9]

Quote

the only life they risked was their own

Are you sure...could they not have caused a canopy collision...killing someone else? What about those
panic turns...could it not send them through the
packing area (outdoor type) taking someone out with a 40mph knee? Anyone who can reach the gas
peddle can operate a car. But 20yrs of driving experience may come in handy when driving in less than ideal conditions. Thats is why there is a min age
req...it was the best way to judge a starting point.
A good starting point for high performance canopy
use would about 500 jumps. What's the rush?
...mike

-----------------------------------
Mike Wheadon B-3715,HEMP#1
Higher Expectations for Modern Parachutists.

[Zenister 0]

so are you all for laws that dont allow 16 year old to drive 5.0 liter mustangs??

anyone can play "what if" all day long. odds are, if they were unsafe enough to consistently cause problems, someone saw them land badly before and didnt say anything to them.

accidents can and will always occur, should you raise the restriction levels higher the next time a 3000 jump vet goes in at 1.1??

training & knowledge helps to prepare and prevent accidents, not simple accumulation of numbers. experience means nothing if you dont learn anything from your first 500 jumps.

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

[skybytch 259]

Quote

IMO here is the root of the problem. it starts with how jumpers are trained right off student status

Right, that's like my whole point. Until EVERY dz and EVERY instructor are on the same page when it comes to what is recommended to who at what experience level and are teaching the same things in the same way, education is NOT going to affect the injury/fatality rates. Wingloading restrictions based on jump numbers added to the BSR's WILL affect the injury/fatality rates in a postive manner - so the few who are truly capable of flying a high wingloading at a low experience level will have to wait until they've landed a barge a few more times. Sorry but for me anyway the long term survival of MY SPORT is FAR more important than anyone's "freedom to choose their own destiny" - at least as that choice applies to skydiving.

[billvon 2,400]

>so are you all for laws that dont allow 16 year old to drive 5.0 liter
>mustangs??

There are indeed laws that treat 17 year old drivers differently than older drivers in some states (zero BAC tolerance for example.) Since they have less experience they are given less freedom to screw up.

>anyone can play "what if" all day long.

Yep, and they do; it's where many of our regulations come from.

>training & knowledge helps to prepare and prevent accidents,
>not simple accumulation of numbers.

True. However, since you can't get experience without jumping, having _minimum_ levels of required experience can work. Someone with 1000 jumps may not have the skills to jump a 2:1 canopy, but I can say with a lot of certainty that someone with 40 jumps does not. Keep in mind that of the two cases (an experienced jumper who can't jump the 2:1 canopy vs a 40 jump wonder who can) one is deadly, one's just annoying.

[mikeat10500 9]

Quote

so are you all for laws that dont allow 16 year old to drive 5.0 liter mustangs??

When I was 14 I thought it was a crime to make me wait till I was 16 to drive. I was as wild as they come behind the wheel for 2 years...no one got hurt or died. It was not all luck, I had developed some skill
driving at that speed ( in the dark w/headlights off, etc). When I look back I think I was mature enough
to drive at about 24yrs of age. I'm sure some people were mature enough before 16yrs, but a nice
easy to follow standard had been set...16 to drive.
YES...It scares me to see 16yrs old behind the wheel
of a 5.0L HO. Some may be ok...but on average!
(just 'cause you can doesn't mean you should)
That is what I first notice in some new jumpers that concerns me the most....lack of patients.
...mike

-----------------------------------
Mike Wheadon B-3715,HEMP#1
Higher Expectations for Modern Parachutists.

[mikkey 0]

Agreeing very much with Lisa on all her posts in this important discussion. A couple of points:
1) I saw 2 skydivers die 10 days ago - (not directly related to canopy size issues) and I am still affected by it - so I hate people telling us it is their choice if they kill themselves - fatalities are very traumatic for all people involved. Also, there have been fatalities where 2 HP canopies collide during landing. So the argument that its a personal choice stinks.
2) I recently returned to the sport after a break of 11 years - and all I can say is that this situation makes me sick. The equipment as such is so much better, so much safer, the training so much better - and what is happening? The fatality rate is not going down, its going up. This is crap. I used to jump roundies, I jumped large F-111's and very rarely somebody got killed once they had a good main over their head. We did not know the word hook turn and we still had fun skydiving.
I think regulation is needed - full stop. Don't care if some people get upset - as mentioned there are a lot of 14 year old's who are upset they can not get a drivers license. Better to self-regulate pro-actively. European countries have done so - and even if it is not perfect I think they have already seen impovements in regard to accident numbers. I hope common sense prevails before this gets out of hand.

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[Hooknswoop 19]

This thread makes for great reading. My opinion (sorry for it being so discombobulated):

Different people advance their canopy control skills at different rates.

Different wing loadings, landing altitudes (DA), types of canopies, landing at different DZ's, all result in different levels and types of performance out of a canopy.

The higher the performance the canopy, the better the pilot needs to be to safely fly it (maintain the same margin for error).

The higher the performance the canopy, the easier it is to get injured.

The lower performance the canopy, the less likely the pilot will be injured. (An AFFI I knew would land his Manta 288 with the brakes release and not touch the toggles. He would PLF and get up.)

Too many skydivers feel they are the exception, better than their jumps numbers would suggest they are.

Too many skydivers want to be "the cool skydiver swooping down the beer line" before they are ready.

A canopy control class can improve a pilot's skills, reduce the chances of an incident and possibly allow a pilot to learn at a faster rate. This is not universal, and the impact depends on the instructor, the syllabus, and the student. They can be difficult to attend (cost/travel/time).

Landing fatalities and injuries are bad for the sport as a whole.

Self-regulation is better for the sport than if the FAA where to step in to make and enforce regulations.

Fatalities and, to a lesser extent, injuries bring skydiving to the general public's and the FAA's attention, which is bad.

A high profile incident or high number of incidents may force the FAA to step in. I don't see this as likely, they don't have the budget to hire more people to enforce skydiving regulations.

A canopy regulation based solely on jump numbers would in some cases allow a jumper to progress too fast, some too slow (for their capabilities), and some just right. If such a system was adopted, there might be a rush to downsize and be 'grand fathered in', resulting in people flying canopies they are not ready for.

A canopy regulation that allowed waivers would have to have designated, qualified people to sign off the waiver. Not all DZ"s have qualified people that can make this judgment.

A DZO may choose to simply 'cap' the wing loading of their jumpers, avoiding having to make a decision about a pilot's skill and the suitability of the canopy they are/want to jump. (On this one, if a DZO doesn't want to address this issue and institutes a 'cap' on wing loading, then either let the S & TA/Chief Instructor handle it, or don't run a DZ.)

How many DZO's ground someone that shows up at their DZ and is obviously in over their head with their canopy, loosing their business?

Applying a fixed system to a range of people/abilities would be unfair to some. Jumping a canopy that is a size or two (or more) larger than the person can handle doesn't create an unsafe situation, jumping a canopy a size or two (or more) smaller than the person can handle does result in an unsafe situation.

Landing injuries usually only injure the pilot making the mistake, they rarely injure others.

Tracking skill are not keeping pace with canopy performance.

Aircraft pilots are regulated because they can affect the public's safety. There is a big difference between a single and two seat ultra-light.

Creating a flexible system requires qualified evaluators and can be more work as people challenge it believing they are the exception. This is basically what happens now, and varies from DZ to DZ, but is informal with no guidelines.

Is what we have now insufficient? If yes, is a good solution to write some guidelines for DZO's/S & TA's/Instructors, etc. to help make these decisions? What should our 'goal' be? How many injuries per jumps is acceptable? How many fatalities under good canopies per jumps is acceptable? How do we achieve that goal without eliminating/significantly reducing the freedoms that help make skydiving what it is? Any sort of change will restrict some people from down-sizing, making it unpopular. Even some people that wouldn't be affected would be against it, as they would be against any further regulation.

Hook

[mikeat10500 9]

Hook
Can I ask what canopies you jumped from 250-500
jumps, wingload etc?
...mike

-----------------------------------
Mike Wheadon B-3715,HEMP#1
Higher Expectations for Modern Parachutists.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Sure,

Mostly a Monarch 135 (my first canopy, I put 501 jumps on it) @ 1.39:1
57 jumps on a Star-Trac I (Try-out for the USAPT in 96)@ 0.71:1
20 +/- on a Stiletto 120 @ 1.56:1

That is most of them. I jumped a few other canopys between 250 and 500.

Hook