Talking to a dead man, part II and a half...

[freakydiver 0]

Let me throw this one to the dogs. Let's say regulation hit the proverbial fan and USPA or the FAA stepped in and laid the law, I mean, laid down the law with regulatory jump numbers and wingloadings. Would you tend to agree or disagree with the following statement:

In my seriously humble nervous about getting flamed like there is no tomorrow opinion, I would be willing to place a wager that incidents under perfectly good canopies wouldn't be cut by any percentage. Just off the top of my head, but lets just say 1.5 was the wingloading limit under 500 jumps. Lets say Mr. <500 sees amazing Jenny-o (getting sick of Mr. Joe) with 8000 jumps swooping in btween the hanger, some cars, through a swing-set, around a bend, up and over manifest, past the concession stand to order up a drink, and dead accurate center circle. Now, even with regulations in place, what are the regulations going to do when Mr <500 on relatively moderately loaded canopy wants to push the limit and look as cool as he can and tries the same thing and hits the hanger. IMHO, there will always be hot shots using gear they shouldnt be under and unless you want to regulate to the point of <500 jumps on big giant student mantas, how are regulations going to solve anything. You still have Mr. or Ms. ego trying to be like skygod or goddess they just saw hook it in. My fuel for this fire, I had 100 jumps or so when I got my first Sabre, a 135 8 years ago or so. I was 165-170 w/ gear out the door. That puts me at a relatively low wingloading of 1.26 ish. I thought I was the shit. I thought I could easily pull off the 180 swoop into the tight backyard with not many outs (none actually). It backfired, I hit nearly at the same time as my canopy. I left a five inch divot where my face hit. I won the lottery that day and simply walked away from the entire incident with no injuries. I got lucky. I got embarassed and asked many a question from that day forth on the proper way to learn the performance characteristics of my canopy. How would have regulations helped me? I consider my 135 pretty zippy and can get rather decent surfs out of it while being rather tame and its still only at a 1.3 8 years later.

So, do you agree or disagree with my statement that regulations can't possibly catch the things that are going wrong. What we have is people hooking parachutes of ALL wingloadings into the ground with all sorts of different experience levels because it looks fucking amazing when someone does up an amazing swoop. Even on a 1.26 I nearly managed to kill myself.

-- (N.DG) "If all else fails – at least try and look under control." --

[aneblett 0]

Valid point in my opinion. I does look cool and I long to do them. And there will always be those myself included that aspire to be that skilled(someday).

Regulation won't catch everything. What I think it will do is the following should it come to pass. and let me state that I don't have a final opinion on whether it should or not be done [regulation]:It will give DZOs that maybe care but are too scared to look like a gestapo a place to point and say here is the rule and here is why you can't jump that bedsheet at my DZ with your experience (notice I didn't say Jump numbers). It might save some newbies who are still scared about breaking rules that are in print. It will piss of all of the old timers who were in the sport since before the days of regulation and are fed up with it. and last but not least it will piss off the "100 jump wonders"

I don't think there is a black and white answer to this problem. I don't think that the answer lies in regulation alone but in a combination of some of the ideas that were presented in these discussions.

my 2 cents

Age

S.E.X. party #2

..It is far worse to live with fear, than to die confronting it.

[freakydiver 0]

After re-reading my post my real question gets a bit lost. My question is, if regulation were in place, wouldn't uneducated canopy pilots still burn em in trying to look like educated canopy pilots even under moderately loaded canopies as I as well as many other jumpers have?

-- (N.DG) "If all else fails – at least try and look under control." --

[flyer299 0]

I agree that regulations might not be the best answer. For me the best answer is good discussion like these, and then people who read these talking about it with people who don't have access to DZ.com. The best way is for the more experienced jumpers to apply common sense at the drop zone. I know my instructors really helped me out when I showed up with a Hornet 150. I am now very happy with my Spectre 170. The more we talk about it, and the more we talk with the young skydivers (in terms of experience), the better this will get.

[aneblett 0]

Absolutely.

You can't regulate judgement. Which is where it could be argued that some problems arise. Good judment only comes after a lot of experience and some bad judgement too.!

Age

S.E.X. party #2

..It is far worse to live with fear, than to die confronting it.

[skybytch 259]

Quote

My question is, if regulation were in place, wouldn't uneducated canopy pilots still burn em in trying to look like educated canopy pilots even under moderately loaded canopies as I as well as many other jumpers have?

If they can walk - or limp - away from the mistake under a light to moderately loaded canopy - like you did - instead of being seriously injured or dying from the same mistake under a higher loaded canopy... gosh, I just can't see the bad in that.

Besides, "regulation" without a concurrent push toward solid canopy control education being available everywhere isn't going to keep people from making stupid mistakes. Like I've stated in other threads, what "regulations" will do is keep ego driven 50 (100, 200, 300) jump wonders from getting their hands on canopies that are very likely too much for them to handle when the shit hits the fan.

There is no perfect answer. Regulation/recommendations/guidelines regarding canopy choice for jumpers under X number of jumps, put into place now, along with a push for education at all experience and ability levels over the next few years is as close as we're going to get to perfect.

Yes, I do think some form of wingloading to jump number "requirement" for lower experience jumpers will affect the fatality rate from canopy accidents in a positive manner. It will also affect the injury rate from canopy accidents in a positive manner. It may even affect how many jumpers leave the sport before they have 200 jumps because they are scared shitless of the canopy that someone told them they'd be "just fine on."

[freakydiver 0]

I'm confused a bit...

"If they can walk - or limp - away from the mistake under a light to moderately loaded canopy - like you did - instead of being seriously injured or dying from the same mistake under a higher loaded canopy... gosh, I just can't see the bad in that.

Besides, "regulation" without a concurrent push toward solid canopy control education being available everywhere isn't going to keep people from making stupid mistakes. Like I've stated in other threads, what "regulations" will do is keep ego driven 50 (100, 200, 300) jump wonders from getting their hands on canopies that are very likely too much for them to handle when the shit hits the fan."

Specifically, "I just can't see the bad in that."

My point was, even with regulation I'd still most likely be able to get a canopy loaded at 1.26 with 200 jumps and I'd still be able to burn it in because of trying to be a hot shot.

How will regulation cure that ill? How will regulation help that problem??

Wait, you answered my question, "Besides, "regulation" without a concurrent push toward solid canopy control education being available everywhere isn't going to keep people from making stupid mistakes."

Thanks!!!!!!

-- (N.DG) "If all else fails – at least try and look under control." --

[TALONSKY 0]

Regulating wing loading for a specific jump number is not the fix, I think educating the pilots would do a whole lot more. There are very few places that offer canopy control classes but I think that is the answer. I think offering up a lot more classes for up and coming swoopers would help. I know on a personal level, I found it really hard to get a lot of information on high performance landings. I could talk to the swoopers and get some tips but it was not until I took a short version of the Canopy Evolution class taught by Jim Slaton that I really understood a lot more. Swooping takes tons of practice but it does help having some basic concepts and tutoring at the beginning. I would think if any regulation may be one that limits swooping to those people that have taken a canopy control classes would be better for the up and coming and for the old swooper just get grandfathered in.
Kirk
PS. I was writing this while Skybytch replied with a simliar Idea

[skybytch 259]

Quote

My point was, even with regulation I'd still most likely be able to get a canopy loaded at 1.26 with 200 jumps and I'd still be able to burn it in because of trying to be a hot shot.

Not under the guideline that's been tossed around most here in the past few days. Under that guideline the 200 jump wonder would have to wait until he (it's almost always a guy, isn't it?) had 300 jumps to exceed a 1.2 wingloading.

Quote

How will regulation cure that ill? How will regulation help that problem??

How will "education" cure that ill? How will "education" help that problem? And most importantly, for the fifty third time, how can education for every jumper regardless of experience or ability be put into place across the US faster than a simple guideline like the one Brian Germain espouses can be?

I think I'm done with this discussion. I've made my points. Typing the same things over and over gets old after awhile. I'm sure I'll see some of you in the incidents forum come Monday when we're all reading about the latest person to die under a perfectly good parachute.

[mikkey 0]

Amen to what Lisa says (talking about cool women in skydiving )

May I just point to the fatality rate statistics that was provided in the first thread. http://www.iit.edu/~kallend/skydive/fatalities.gif

A couple of points I would like to make:

1) There is a saying: "there are lies, damn lies and statistics" - the graphs make very interesting reading, however they have one major problem: They reflect fatality per 1000 USPA members not per 1000 jumps. So if the structure of membership in the USPA has changed, i.e. average number of jumps per member etc. the statistic can be very misleading. This could e.g. happen if there were many more students (AFF) now then 12 years ago who quickly drop out of the sport again (which would mean more members (students) - less jumps in average. I assume this is the best stats we can get for now.
2) Lets assume that the figures are OK (that the average number of jumps per member is about the same). What I find so interesting is how much the main reasons for fatalities from the 80's - no pull, malfunctions, reserve problems - have reduced. Take landings out and the fatality rate per 1000 members has approximatly halved!! This is probably due to the improved equipment we use and the emergence of better AAD's - especially the Cypres (look at "no pull" numbers since the Cypres came onto the market around 1990).
3) Whilst the fatality rate for landings has gone slightly down per 1000 members it is still double any other reason. We also have to take into account that there is probably at least a 10 to 1 "injury rate" - i.e. for every one who gets killed hooking into the ground there are 10 survivors with (often serious) injuries. This is probably not the case with the other types of problems...
So if you take all those people into account that are maimed for live by these landing accidents you have a very high accident rate.

You want to do something about it? Uniform regulations together with a better training and rating program is the only way. Even if a few people get pissed off.

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

[rgoper 0]

while wing load is most certainly a determining factor in a lot of incidents, i am of the opinion that a higher than 1.1:1 to 1.8:1 could be safely flown providing no "tricks" were attempted. it's not the wingloads that are killing our sky divers, it's bad decisions and low ground turns, mid air collisions, etc...bottom line, ignorant stunts pulled at low altitudes are asking for it. DISCLAIMER: i do not condone, or reccomend higher than a 1.1:1 for jumpers with less than 300 jumps, and increasing your wing load to be "in vogue" is a foolish and generally fatal mistake.

--Richard--
"We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist"

[mikeat10500 10]

Ok in 1997 I took my instructor "A" course(like USPA BIC).
I am a careful canopy pilot jumping a Cruiselite 220 @ 0.8:1 wingloading.
I have never attempted a fast landing of any kind. I don't feel the need to.
I am doing good on the course and I know I will pass with flying colors( oh boy!)

Jump#127...I take up a load (IAD) of my fellow candidates and the course conductor.
The winds are blowing like f*&king crazy and the A/C is up and down 6' at a time.
My spot really sucks (like way too short) and my students( not real ones of course)
are blowing off the DZ. I am screwing up bad, 2 off the DZ and the course conductor
will be next out the door...wile I concentrate on me screwing the up spot some more,
the course conductor
has the pilot lower each jump run until I put out the course conductor out at 2500'.
Ok...I went from being a super instructor( in my head) to a total screw up in one load.
Out the door I go after them...I decide I could save some face by landing off with one
of my lost students. There he is in a back yard...do I sink it in...oh God no...I hook it
strait down in the back yard(alt=75' aprox)...too high and over shooting right at the
bathroom window
( I could see inside...that is how close I was), hard right 90 plus deg going to overshoot
into the trees(alt 20' aprox)...hard left at the ground, witch I had noticed sloped down
a hill into the woods...aim at slope...contact ground at 25mph plus at almost 0 deg angle
sliding down hill dragging canopy behind me until my feet reach the woods...stop!
Now I get up and dust off some grass pick up my gear and walk away without a scratch.
If I was jumping a fast canopy maybe I would not have done this, but my head was not in the
right place at the time so maybe I would have killed myself...who knows.
Money is what stopped me from having a canopy fast enough to die on. Not all new jumpers are
poor enough to save themselves. I hate the idea of regulation ( cause someone might make me
jump with an AAD or take my round reserve away) but I think I see a trend in canopy selection
that is less than safe enough.
...mike

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

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

while wing load is most certainly a determining factor in a lot of incidents, i am of the opinion that a higher than 1.1:1 to 1.8:1 could be safely flown providing no "tricks" were attempted. it's not the wingloads that are killing our sky divers, it's bad decisions and low ground turns, mid air collisions, etc...bottom line, ignorant stunts pulled at low altitudes are asking for it. DISCLAIMER: i do not condone, or reccomend higher than a 1.1:1 for jumpers with less than 300 jumps, and increasing your wing load to be "in vogue" is a foolish and generally fatal mistake.

It's niave to think that it's only people performing 'tricks' low to the ground are dying. More often than not I think it's people who saw something that scared them and then made a bad decision. These are the people who are dying under high performance, and even not-so-high performance canopies.

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[rgoper 0]

Quote

More often than not I think it's people who saw something that scared them and then made a bad decision.

yeah, i guess this is what caused the swoop deaths, and the jumper who landed in double fronts. a lot of sky divers are trying to emulate more experienced sky divers who are proficient at swooping and canopy control. if you look at this months parachutists, you'll find a vast majority of the deaths and injuries were caused by low ground turns and making bad decisions at kow altitudes. what i meant by "tricks" is that if you fly a high wing conventionally, no risers, no carves or 180's, 360's etc the possibility of incidents would subatantially and immediately decrease. i could mention a few incidents, but won't in respect for the deceased jumpers and their families. as far as seeing something that "scares" you, be ready with a contingency plan for every possible scenario, and training will kick in, and fear will not. if i would have freaked the other day, i wouldn't be here now.

--Richard--
"We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist"

[BlindBrick 0]

Quote

Specifically, "I just can't see the bad in that."

My point was, even with regulation I'd still most likely be able to get a canopy loaded at 1.26 with 200 jumps and I'd still be able to burn it in because of trying to be a hot shot.

The idea of wing-loading restrictions is not to prevent you from hooking it in. They are merely intended to improve your odds of surviving such a mistake.

-Blind

"If you end up in an alligator's jaws, naked, you probably did something to deserve it."

[rgoper 0]

Quote

The idea of wing-loading restrictions is not to prevent you from hooking it in. They are merely intended to improve your odds of surviving such a mistake.

any canopy can be hooked in no matter what the wing load, and low ground turns kill just as fast on lightly loaded squares. i've seen AFF students biff in hard flaring too early, then letting the toggles go, that's fugly.

--Richard--
"We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist"

[skytash 0]

But regulations can help with judgement. Taking a different example from UK regulations (sorry if this has been mentioned before):

You are not allowed to jump a pin-pull (pull-out) until you have 200 jumps in the UK. The story I heard which gave rise to this rule is that someone who had been jumping a BOC had borrowed pin-pull gear, didn't find the handle and never pulled.

There is strictly no reason why someone with less than 200 jumps shouldn't be able to jump a pin-pull as the problem was unfamiliarity with the deployment menthod rather than number of jumps.

What this *did* do for me, is that once I had 200 jumps I enquired about pin-pulls, asked people I trusted about why the regulation exists, how pin-pull works, and thought about whether to convert. As it happens, I still haven't got the money to get a new container and don't see the point of getting my current one converted, so am still jumping BOC.

My point is, that with a regulation in place, you encourage people to seek education and they can then make an educated decision as to what to do.

tash

[nacmacfeegle 0]

Interesting point Tash.
The other difference I've seen between the UK and the US, is that our CCIs are much more willing to pull jumpers to one side and have a word in their small and shell like. They even ground people who are flying outside their skill envelope, normally after several warnings.
I'm pretty sure the US equivalent S&TA, has similar powers, but I believe they are a little more reluctant to exercise them. Perhaps for fear of being labelled a nazi, perhaps for commercial reasons.
Its draconian, I'll grant you, but it might work if the safety people and DZ operators got a little tougher on people who are intent on flying in a 'dangerous' manner.
If regulation comes they will have to fill this 'policing' role anyway, so why not self regulate in advance.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[skydivejersey 0]

You can't legislate for a lack of common sense.

If someone pitched up at a DZ weighing 300lbs with 50 jumps and a Stilletto 106 (firstly the boss dog should refuse to let them go) but not before that individuals common sense is knocking on the back of there head saying this isn't really a good idea.
People need to be aware of there own abilities or it will bite them on the ass.

Quite frankly some people are just idiots. Legislation isn't going to change that and isn't going to stop them hurting themselves. Just read the Darwin awards....

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"You can't legislate for a lack of common sense."

Absolutely, but you can stop the fools getting on your plane. The application of common sense then becomes a commercial decision.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[Ron 7]

Quote

That puts me at a relatively low wingloading of
1.26 ish. I thought I was the shit. I thought I could easily pull off the 180 swoop into the tight backyard
with not many outs (none actually). It backfired, I hit nearly at the same time as my canopy. I left a five
inch divot where my face hit. I won the lottery that day and simply walked away from the entire incident
with no injuries. I got lucky. I got embarassed and asked many a question from that day forth on the
proper way to learn the performance characteristics of my canopy. How would have regulations helped me?
I consider my 135 pretty zippy and can get rather decent surfs out of it while being rather tame and its
still only at a 1.3 8 years later.

Well you are still walking....

What would have been the result if you had a 1.6 WL?

The goal of regulation is to allow the person to gain experience and knowledge BEFORE he gets the super duper canopy at some wasu wingload.

He can take that time and attend as many canopy control class as he wants. Then he can use a reasonably loaded canopy to learn the things he was told....After some time, he can then get a more progressive wingload...And implement the things he learned..

The problem is that it is harder to learn when you are dead.

Ron

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

[freakydiver 0]

" (it's almost always a guy, isn't it?)"

I hope you are joking. Actually, hell, you are probably correct. I had a long discussion with my old DZO about this last night and low and behold, perhaps I am swayable over to the regulation side a small tiny bit now. I still believe that all of the points everyone has brought up are extremely valid. Please forgive me for being so up into this discussion, but I as well as all of you don't want to see any more useless deaths in our beautiful sport. I also believe that limiting someone with between 200-300 jumps to 1.2 is really conservative if they are current and flying smart. Maybe we need to really organize ourselves and put some good brainpower into really thinking this out. For instance (taken from bits and pieces of everyons suggestions), how about milder regulations as well as mandatory canopy skill class in the AFF progression where an individual is at the very least introduced to the individual (oops sorry, to the guy ).

Sky (i dont like the word bytch, do you mind if i call you skyLady)... I m not trying to get on you in these forums, I hope you know that. We are all here because we want to see improvement. My only point in starting this new thread was to see what people thought might happen with just regulation in place and nothing more. I've spoken with you a few times on the phone and you have been extremely helpful to me and brutally honest in a couple of instance which makes me a safer jumper and for that you have my 100 pecent gratitude.

Anyhow, whats next, how do we move forward?? I am in total agreement, we need to move forward YESTERDAY...

Have a good one all.

-- (N.DG) "If all else fails – at least try and look under control." --

[jimmytavino 16]

Quote

After re-reading my post my real question gets a bit lost. My question is, if regulation were in place, wouldn't uneducated canopy pilots still burn em in trying to look like educated canopy pilots even under moderately loaded canopies as I as well as many other jumpers have?

........ .... can anyone explain to me why novices and intermediates are so "hung Up" about HAVING to do High performance landings..?..
what is the attraction....????.. I would much prefer watching someone else try it,,, than to feel I HAVE to do such landings on EVERY jump..... man what happened to "the jump isn't over until you are SAFELY on the ground"....???....Are people today so UNsatisfied with the excitement and exiliaration of a "plain old skydive",,, that they MUST create added
risk,,, at the bottom of it... man... Give me a safe and accurate stand up landing (sometimes a ONE footed stand up..,,,,) ANYTIME.... I believe THAT demonstrates better knowledge of canopy flight, much more consideration to your fellow jumpers who are also flying final landing patterns, and certainly MUCH more finesse'....than does "cranking a front riser 180" and carrying so much speed,, that you pucker up,,,,,,and then "save yourself"
(or NOT ) just as you get to the ground.......Granted jumpers like to stretch the limits, and TEST themselves,,,, but in reality,, it is more difficult to consistantly do Accurate, Gentle, Soft landings ON Target,,,,than it is to swoop...... and in my way of thinking MUCH much more satisfying..not to mention safe........If you want to be a "show off"..knock yourself out...... you literally might do JUST that......peace
signed....... an UN-dead Man.....
"downsizing??????.... for me it has mostly been Upsizing", my momma didn't raise no fool...... but she sure taught me how to recognize one and how to steer clear of them...... PostScript..... absolutely NO offense intended to those careful, deliberate, cautious and well practiced canopy pilots out there,,,,
and you know who you are.....You each have my respect. My post is aimed at the novice and intermediate folks,, who because they spend alot of time on the ground,,see landing after landing. They watch and then try to emulate the
swoopers who they see safely accomplishing such High level canopy maneuvers...... Chill out brothers and sisters,,, your time will come,,,, but only if you are careful, deliberate, and yes lucky,,,, Learn how to crawl, then walk,, then run , then sprint,,,, BEFORE
you declare yourself ready to strap on a Rocket Pack, and start to do "relative work with terra firma".
Carry too much momentum into a freefall RW formation, and maybe you can mange to avoid hitting it,, or your buddies, can "brace" for your dock,,, and absorb you,,,, Carry too much momentum into a CReW formation and maybe you can dance away from an entanglement, or rely on a cutaway to save you,,,,, Carry too much momentum into a "Ground RW" situation,,,,, baby .... "dirt don't give"..then the only thing getting "carried" will be you........... so go easy... Our common goal should be..... NO
annual injuries or fatalities due to jumpers having poor landings under fully functional parachutes....
How does that sound????

[aneblett 0]

Quote

........ .... can anyone explain to me why novices and intermediates are so "hung Up" about HAVING to do High performance landings..?..
what is the attraction....????..

I can make you a list:
1. Coolness factor
2. The belief that one has "arrived" when one can do HP landings.
3. Just another aspect to our multifaceted sport to get into.
4. More Rush after the freefall.
5. Acceptable risk (what is acceptable to some isn't to others. This is much like Whuffos who don't understand why we jump. shouldn't we just be hapy to be alive?Some just don't know the risks and that is another story all together. )

I can go on on this list but I don't think it is necessary. Debating why people do it isn't going to solve anything. Whuffos call us crazy right? we still jump.

Quote

Give me a safe and accurate stand up landing (sometimes a ONE footed stand up..,,,,) ANYTIME.... I believe THAT demonstrates better knowledge of canopy flight, much more consideration to your fellow jumpers who are also flying final landing patterns, and certainly MUCH more finesse'....than does "cranking a front riser 180" and carrying so much speed,, that you pucker up,,,,,,and then "save yourself"
(or NOT ) just as you get to the ground.

matter of opinion I suppose. I don't agree with those that screw up landing patterns to do an HP landing. If they need to they should land out to do so but I guess that for many that would be a direct contradiction to the coolness factor.

Quote

Chill out brothers and sisters,,, your time will come,,,, but only if you are careful, deliberate, and yes lucky,,,, Learn how to crawl, then walk,, then run , then sprint

Amen to that

age

S.E.X. party #2

..It is far worse to live with fear, than to die confronting it.

[Clownburner 0]

This discussion makes me wonder if we might borrow a page from the old Driver's Ed book and do a section at the end of training when people are being signed off to dive solo, covering the dangers and possible effects of landing mistakes and throwing in some better canopy control training while we're at it.

Kind of a 'Red Dropzone' effect - perhaps if more newbies fully understood the dangers, and had SEEN the possible effects, they'd be less inclined to start trying to swoop right away.

Just a thought...

7CP#1 | BTR#2 | Payaso en fuego Rodriguez
"I want hot chicks in my boobies!"- McBeth