Canopy Training Idea

[Hooknswoop 19]

After giving a lot of thought to each of the issues raised about the WL BSR idea, I have come up with this (rough draft of an idea):

A generic canopy control course for the "B", "C", and "D" licenses. We could pool our resources, design a "B" course, "C" course, and "D" canopy course syllabus and Instructor's text. On a rainy day or scheduled in advance, an Instructor could go over the material and sign off the requirement on the license application. Same idea as water training without the hassle of a pool, water gear, and getting wet.

It automatically grandfathers in current license holders since they already have the license and make canopy training/education mandatory for each license. No new BSR or restrictions. Simple, mandatory training/education. The hard part would be putting together the material.

We could also increase the canopy requirements for the "B", "C", and "D" licenses from just some accuracy requirements. Include a crosswind landing, a rear riser landing, flat turn downwind to base, base to final at or above 200 feet, etc. Make them waiver-able requirements for extraneous circumstances such as knee injuries, unsuitable canopy, insufficient arm strength, etc.

How about a modified accuracy requirement? For example, landing within X feet (meters) of target without landing beyond it, or in front of it, or without landing to the left of it, or to the right of it? I mean a half circle accuracy target with the flat edge that moves to another side once you successfully hit it for a total of four jumps.

What do you think?

Hook

[nightjumps 1]

It has potential, Derek. Plus, it wouldn't cost any more money for an extra dive since one could incorporate it into a dive flow.

[Hooknswoop 19]

I think most Instructors would give the course for free too, or maybe a beer. We could make the material down-load-able from USPA's web site, so materials would be free. I don't think it could hurt. The real problems are making a course that everyone accepts that isn't too "watered down" and pencil whipping it. I think the solution to both of those is making a very good course that people will agree with and see the value in.

Hook

[nightjumps 1]

I would teach it for free. WHat I like about your idea is that I've been hearing "Educate, Don't regulate" for so long I'm about to puke. Cause my argument is, "How's your education program working so far?"

I recently started a DZ www.tulsatandems.com and my partner and I decided - No hook turns allowed.

No one is putting together an education program. I would be a lot more receptive to doing away with such a restriction if folks actually got educated.

I am also willing to participate and support your endeavor. Please let me know how I can help.

Keith

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Please let me know how I can help.

Write it

Hook

[Michele 1]

This is something which I think can work...

Let me know what I can do to help, Derek...and while I write, I am not qualified to write something like this. So don't ask! But you've got my support, pending the final draft!

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[sducoach 0]

Oh sure..............
You're the brains, we're the brawn.....................

LOL

Thanks for the call.

Enjoyed.

Blues,

J.E.

James 4:8

[nightjumps 1]

You laugh, Derek. But, that happens to be my strong point. I teach communications in college and am a Project Manager in corporate America.

You draft up the tenets of criteria for each license and I'll puff it up in USPA BSR lingo for submission.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Cool, I'll send you what I have with some ideas and see what you think.

Hook

[nightjumps 1]

Deal.

[VectorBoy 0]

Quote

A generic canopy control course for the "B", "C", and "D" licenses.
It automatically grandfathers in current license holders since they already have the license and make canopy training/education mandatory for each license.
__________________________________________________
Hell no everybody has to pass the test or is this another do as I say not as I do thing?
If you think we low time jumpers are going to take grief from the experienced jumpers that claim we are the danger without making the 2000 jump experienced jumpers pass the same test you are high!
Although I will never argue against the guys that have a "pro" rating and have demonstrated it in real life DEMOs. There are a bunch of D rated people that do shame to their D licsence.
There should be no grandfathering if you say you can do it PROOVE it!

• Quote

[freeflyz 0]

there should be no grandfathering if you say you can do it PROOVE it!

[andy2 0]

IMHO accuracy, or lack thereof, really isnt the problem that kills people. I think it's reckless behavior, doing hook turns before being actually ready, not looking out for others. A lot of people could do 10 hop & pops from 3.5k with no traffic and do slow ass straight in approaches and get it. But put that same person in a crowded traffic situation, and have them wanting to 180 their small canopy, well...

Thats just my opinion though. Derek, good idea, this is the kind of thing I would actually WANT to take, and not do just because its a BSR.

---------------------------------------------
let my inspiration flow,
in token rhyme suggesting rhythm...

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

IMHO accuracy, or lack thereof, really isnt the problem that kills people.

I agree to a point. People aren't aiming for the peas and femuring in generally. They do get nervous and stressed landing off in a tight area leading to poor decisions, i.e. low turns or missing the off DZ landing spot.

Quote

I think it's reckless behavior, doing hook turns before being actually ready, not looking out for others. A lot of people could do 10 hop & pops from 3.5k with no traffic and do slow ass straight in approaches and get it. But put that same person in a crowded traffic situation, and have them wanting to 180 their small canopy, well...

Very true. The requirements have to made so that everyone can do them, from someone that wants to fly a Spectre at 0.8:1 to someone that flys a Stiletto 97 at 1.7:1, or even greater range than that.

Hopefully between the classroom training and demonstration of skills they will be better canopy pilots, have more confidence in an off-DZ landing situation and better understand their abilities and their canopy. It isn't ideal but without being restrictive or a very complicate system, it won't get any better. Restrictive and complicated will receive a lot of opposition. I am trying to aim for the best canopy training/education program that will be supported enough to be put into effect and used.

Quote

Thats just my opinion though. Derek, good idea, this is the kind of thing I would actually WANT to take, and not do just because its a BSR.

Thanks for the feedback, this is exactly the type of response I was looking for. A great idea that nobody wants is useless. People have to look at a program and see the value in it. If enough people think it is a good idea, most of the people that don't want to do it, stand a good chance of being convinced and doing it.

The 'my license was harder to get than your' boasting might actually help this idea. "You may have your "D" , but when I got mine, I had to have 500 jumps and go through a bunch of canopy training and demonstrate canopy skills that you didn't". Not grand-fathering current license holders in wouldn't be fair. They have the license, we can't take it away. We would offer the canopy training/education to current license holders of course, but it would be optional. If it was a good enough program, current license holders would take it anyway.

Hook

[PhillyKev 0]

I like it...but...it's going to be a lot of work to design a course that can be used widely, taught by many, and modified appropriately to individual circumstances.

I still think a skill test requirement is a better option. That way you still have the option of learning on your own or from experienced "non-coaches" or take a pro course if you can/want. Then the type of training is A) not set down in writing so it can evolve and grow B) able to be decided by the jumper what method of training they want to use.

Here was my shot at the skills to be tested:
All standing up and judged for accuracy -
-At least 1 no/light wind accuracy landing
-At least 1 moderate wind accuracy landing
-On one of the above drop a mat or similar marking device at the point where they are supposed to land when on final and have them avoid it as if it's an obstacle. And don't count accuracy, just avoidance.
-At least 1 cross wind landing
-At least 1 (light) downwind landing

This could be the "B test". Decrease the accuracy zone for higher licenses, or change skills tested?

Also, I still think a general wingload guideline should be associated with this. Not as a requirement, but a general recommendation. Just so that newer jumpers who actually do read the SIM see it in print and maybe ask why those recommendations exist.

It also gives fuel to DZs to maybe institute their own limits much like many do in relation to wind speed and licenses.

[Ron 7]

Quote

men to that... I agree with that 100%
Been reading this Wl BSR on how to determine who jumps what..real easy give them the same test that
you do to get your pro rating.Land in the same spot 10 times in a row BEFORE down sizing..Which I've seen
people with 1000's of jumps that can't do it. End problem

This was in my original proposal...

I still stand by it.

If you can't do this, then you can't fly the canopy you have now..And should not down size.

I have done it under a Star Trac I, Sharpchutter, Stiletto 107, Velocity 96, Extreme 88.

Ron

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

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

I still stand by it.

If you can't do this, then you can't fly the canopy you have now..And should not down size.

I just don't see the correlation between accuracy and safe hp landings. They're 2 different disciplines. Yes, they're both canopy flight, but they're approached in a different way. I'm not saying you don't need to be able to be accurate, but I don't see how testing only accuracy is going to make people safer when they hook it.

[ladyskydiver 0]

I like this idea.

Life is short! Break the rules! Forgive quickly! Kiss slowly! Love truly, Laugh uncontrollably. And never regret anything that made you smile.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

I just don't see the correlation between accuracy and safe hp landings. They're 2 different disciplines. Yes, they're both canopy flight, but they're approached in a different way. I'm not saying you don't need to be able to be accurate, but I don't see how testing only accuracy is going to make people safer when they hook it.

The training has to be generic enough to encompass low performance canopy pilot and high performance canopy pilots. We can't make a low performance canopy pilot demonstrate a hook turn landing. The classroom portion could cover HP landings strictly from an educational point of view. Dangers, recommendations, etc.

Demonstrating accuracy under any canopy demonstrates a certain level of ability to fly it.

I don't have a solution that would be accepted that would limit HP landing incidents beyond some classroom training.

Hook

[Ron 7]

Quote

I just don't see the correlation between accuracy and safe hp landings. They're 2 different disciplines. Yes,
they're both canopy flight, but they're approached in a different way. I'm not saying you don't need to be
able to be accurate, but I don't see how testing only accuracy is going to make people safer when they
hook it.

A large number of accidents is people turing to avoid an object...This will help in a direct way.

I only did the Pro thing in a "Normal" accuracy approach for the Star Trac I and the Sharpchutter. (I did do one landing on the Velocity straight in to show the S&TA to sign off my PRO recurancy). But the 107 , the 96 and the 88 we done with hook turns.

There is more to hooking than just being at the right attitude...You aso have to avoid objects on the ground,and people in the air.

Because if you can do the PRO thing...Trust me you learn about canopy flight...Try it.

Ron

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

[AndyMan 7]

Sounds great to me.

Now we just gotta figure out whats in the course...

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[riggerrob 558]

I can see a correlation between high performance hook-turns, blade-running and accuracy.
It does not matter how many miles you can turf-surf. If you miss the first gate, you score zero.
I also believe that hook-turning skills should be practiced by people who only fly docile parachutes. The hook-turning, cross-wind landing, down-wind landing, etc. exercises should to taught as ways of avoiding the doofus who cut you off on final approach.
Finally, I do not believe that 1,000 jump, self-proclaimed "Stiletto pilots" should be "grandfathered. If they want to earn the next license, they should have to demonstrate canopy skills in front of an S&TA, judge or instructor.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

I can see a correlation between high performance hook-turns, blade-running and accuracy.
It does not matter how many miles you can turf-surf. If you miss the first gate, you score zero.
I also believe that hook-turning skills should be practiced by people who only fly docile parachutes. The hook-turning, cross-wind landing, down-wind landing, etc. exercises should to taught as ways of avoiding the doofus who cut you off on final approach.

I agree, hence the flat turn, downwind to base, base to final, with accuracy requirements.

Quote

Finally, I do not believe that 1,000 jump, self-proclaimed "Stiletto pilots" should be "grand fathered. If they want to earn the next license, they should have to demonstrate canopy skills in front of an S&TA, judge or instructor.

They would have to be grand fathered in the sense if they have a "C" license before the change, they have a "C" license after the change, without having to demonstrate skills or take the training. If they want to get their "D" license, then they will have to take the training demonstrate the skills. This is the same as what will happen when the license requirements change in September. If you have 100 jumps and a "C" license, you won't lose you license and only have a "B" after the change. But you would need 500 for the "D" instead of 200. That is what I mean by grand fathering.

I think now we need to start designing a proposal for the BOD. We need to design the classroom portion of the proposal and the required skills demonstration for the "B", "C", and "D" licenses. I threw out a couple of ideas, we need more. Either post'em or PM with ideas. Nightjumps is going to be working with my canopy course, but we need as many ideas and as much information as possible.

Hook

[Ronnie 0]

I think the only requirement for the B license should be flat/brake turns. Let's keep it simple and thorough. The lack of this skill seems to injure or kill a lot of inexperienced jumpers, especially when they lack the experience to make sound judgments up high. They should demonstrate this skill on say, 5 jumps. An instructor or S&TA can sign off the requirement. What do you think?

[Hooknswoop 19]

The "B", "C", and "D" canopy skills requirements should build upon and review the "A" license requirements. Reviewing them is especially important if the jumper has downsized. I tell jumpers getting their first rig, or new canopy to go back and do all the "A" license stuff under the new canopy because it will perform differently.

In September, the license requirements will change to:

A license: 20 jumps
B license: 50 jumps
C license 200 jumps
D license 500 jumps

The Canopy skills for the "A" license (on the 2 page card) are:

http://www.uspa.org/publications/form.pdf/ALicProfCard10-02.pdf

{}= my notes

1. Plan and fly a landing approach pattern that promotes smooth traffic flow and avoids obstacles.

2. Demonstrate a stand-up landing

3. Perform a braked approach and landing {I don't approve of this requirement because of the potential for injuries from flaring from the half braked position}

4. {Doesn't exist on the card, typo, I guess}

5. Land within 20 meters of a pre selected target on at least five jumps {20 m = 65.6 feet}

6. Perform rear riser turns (brakes set and released) {one jump}

7. Above 1000 feet, perform a maximum-performance 90-degree toggle turn, followed immediately by a turn of at least 180-degress in the opposite direction (two times)

8. Above 1000 feet, perform front riser dives and turns (may be waived if insufficient strength)

9. Accurately predict the presence and effects of turbulence in the landing area

USPA requires 9 different skills requiring a minimum of 6 jumps to complete, if multiply skills requirements are completed on the same jump, i.e. rear riser, stand-up landing, and accuracy for the "A" license.

In the next 30 jumps to get to the "B" license, what canopy skills should USPA require a jumper to demonstrate/learn? Currently the requirement is "landed within 10 meters of target center on ten jumps" The jumper has probably transitioned to rental gear or there first rig at this point and may be demoing canopies.

Quote

I think the only requirement for the B license should be flat/brake turns

Definitely flat turns. I teach flat turns once a jumper has learned to fly a pattern and land safely. I want them to focus on those skills first before I add to it.

But I think there should be more.

Refine the accuracy requirements to include stand-up landings within 10 meters (32.8 feet) and a smooth, predictable landing pattern that "promotes smooth traffic flow and avoids obstacles"?

More rear riser turns with the brakes set (practice to avoid collisions after opening) and brakes released (practice in the event of a brake line failure)?

More front riser turns and dives?

Another review of turbulence?

Refining the accuracy requirements, adding flat turns and reviewing the "A" license requirements, probably under a new canopy I don't think is too much. Opinions?

For the "C" license, another 150 jumps, what do we add? The current requirement is: "Landed within 5 meters of target center on 20 jumps". Fairly good odds the jumper has either changed canopies again or has jumped someone else's canopy.

How about a 2-hour or so class on canopy control?

Refined accuracy requirements, land within 10 meters (32.8 feet) on 16 jumps, 4 for each half circle. 4 jumps landing within 10 m without over-shooting, 4 jumps landing within 10 m without under-shooting, 4 jumps landing within 10 m without landing to the right of the target, and 4 jumps landing within 10 m without landing to the left of the target. Which 'half' of the accuracy circle they were going after would have to be pre-declared?

More flat turns, to include, a flat turn downwind to base, base to final, simulating being cut off in the pattern?

More front riser turns and dives?

More rear riser turns, brakes on and off?

"D" license canopy control requirements ideas:

The "D" is 300 jumps beyond the "C" license of 200 jumps. Current USPA requirement is "land within 2 meters {6.56 feet}of target center on 25 jumps." The jumper mostly likely has downsized at least once since earning the "C" license and has probably jumped several other canopies.

How about:

A 4-hour canopy control class covering canopy control skills, theory, and gear maintenance.

Crosswind accuracy, within 5 meters of target center with a 90-degree crosswind, at least 5 mph wind, all stand-up landings, 10 times.

First point of contact on landing, dead center of target, 5 times, standing up.

Rear riser landing.

Flat turn 90-degree at or below 500 feet.

Double front riser approach (waiver-able).

Rear riser turns, brakes on and off.

Hook