Canopy Training Idea

[sducoach 0]

Hook,

Sign me up. I'll support any method that will attempt to reduce the "S.L.A.M.'s" (Stupid Low Altitude Maneuvers) going on. In fact I'll even proof read old Night's BSR type BS.

As far as grandfathering................... well, I'm not one yet but I'm old enough to be!

Blues,

J.E.

James 4:8

[masher 1]

I'm not going to add anything on the canopy control side, just a suggestion for your accuracy.

How about introducing pre-declared landings. The APF has the following setup:

B (50 jumps): 7 consecutive nominated jumps within 25 m.
C (100 jumps): 20 landings within 10 m and 5 consecutive nominated jumps within 20 m.
D (200): 20 landings within 5 m.
E (500): 20 landings within 1 m.
F (1000): 20 landings within 1 m and 20 consecutive nominated jumps within 5 m.

--
Arching is overrated - Marlies

[Hooknswoop 19]

Whatever the requirements for the "D" license, they would have to be easier than the PRO rating requirements to be accepted.

The USPA PRO rating requires 10 pre-declared jumps, within 5 meters of target center, where if you miss one, you have to start over at #1. They all have to be stand-up landings and you have to stay within the 10 meter circle.

Each of the accuracy landings would have to be pre-declared in order to get an "I", "I/E", or "S & TA" to witness the landing. But having to start completely over if they miss one would be too close to the PRO rating requirements.

How about, for the "D" license, 3 stand up landings in a row, pre-declared (they don't have to be consecutive) within 5 meters. Miss #3 and start over at #1? Basically 3/10ths of the PRO rating requirements? Or maybe make it 3 within 10 meters?

Is that in line with what you are thinking?

Hook

[masher 1]

by consecutive, I don't mean one after the other, but the declared jumps need to be consecutive.

ie. jump jump declare jump jump declare declare jump jump jump declare.

If you fulfill the requirements on the declared jumps, then those are consecutive nominated jumps.

.

The PRO rating is for demos right?

Our display licences are (amongst other things):

Display D: Just need your B licence.
Display C: D licence and 20 consecutively nominated landings within 20 m.
Display B: E licence and 20 consecutively nominated landings within 5 m.
Display A: F licence and 20 consecutively nominated landings within 1 m.

--
Arching is overrated - Marlies

[masher 1]

I would make it at least 5 consec. nom. jumps within 10 m.

If you scale the nominated jumps between the C and F licence, then D (your C) would be 10 within 15 m and E (your D) would be 15 within 10 m.

.

and to answer your question, yes it is in line with what I'm thinking.

--
Arching is overrated - Marlies

[Ron 7]

You could still make it ten, and all standup, but you could make the target bigger.

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

[wmw999 2,155]

Or you could make it ten, and include proper (i.e. GOOD) PLF's as acceptable.

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

Or you could make it ten, and include proper (i.e. GOOD) PLF's as acceptable.

My only issue with PLF's is that if you have to PLF, then you messed up somewhere, and that it is showing your lack of ability to fly the canopy...

A PLF is a very good way to prevent you from getting injured AFTER you screw up.

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

[Hooknswoop 19]

OK, what we have so far:

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.

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.

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"?

How many?

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)?

How many?

More front riser turns and dives?

How many?

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.

5 landings within 10 meters, standing up (or good PLF), pre-declared, consecutive.

We are definately getting somewhere.

Hook

[Pablito 0]

Great, Idea Derek, If there is anything that i can help please let me know and I will do my best to help you.
Cielos Azules
Pablito

"If you don't overcome your fears they will overcome you first"
Shady Monkey/6Segundos Rodriguez/AKA Pablito

[riggerrob 561]

Quote

Or you could make it ten, and include proper (i.e. GOOD) PLF's as acceptable.

Wendy W.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I disagree.
PLFs are indicative of sloppy approaches.
Also planning to PLF vastly increases the chances of injury.
The primary reason BASE competition organizers insist on stand-up landings is to reduce injuries. If I recall correctly, the only guy who was injured at one of the first BASE competitions was the guy who "reached" for the target.
All accuracy jumps for USPA licenses should include stand-up landings.
This also relates to standards for demo/PRO/exhibition jumps. The crowd only remembers if you A: lived, B: landed in the correct stadium and C: stood up your landing.

[kallend 1,653]

Quote

This also relates to standards for demo/PRO/exhibition jumps. The crowd only remembers if you A: lived, B: landed in the correct stadium and C: stood up your landing.

I bet they remember the ones hauled away in ambulances too.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Sorry for the rant, but here we go:

The recent landing incident, 1.4: with 100 jumps, prompted me to bump this back up. A proposal is being put together, but more ideas would still be helpful.

What does bother me is, would this canopy training and education based on licenses had made a difference in this latest, almost classic incident? The jumper in question could have very easily only had an "A" license still and not had the canopy training/education that would be required for the "B" license. They definitely wouldn't have had the "C" or "D" license training/education.

Getting the "B", "C", and "D" licenses isn't mandatory and a lot of jumpers don't bother. Therefore the proposed canopy training/education wouldn't be mandatory. I don't think increased canopy training/education for each license will make much of an impact if jumpers are flying canopies at such high wing loadings before they even have the enough jumps to qualify for the next license. What good is a canopy control class required for the "B" license when the jumper doesn't have enough jumps for the "B" and isn't going to get it when they do?

The canopy wing loading and increased canopy training/education BSR proposal kept getting watered down at each objection until we have what we have left, which seems like it will do very little. How many preventable incidents, how many DZ's making their own, inflexible and very restrictive wing loading limit policies, how many 911 calls, how many life flights is it going to take?

How much preventable carnage are willing to accept?

I am all about pushing limits. I like high wing loading, small canopies, intentional cutaways, hook turns, etc. I am not an old, has-been spouting "You young wipper-snappers are gonna shoot your eye out!" But jumpers can't come out the gate going Mach 3 with their hair on fire. I like to see people progress. I have always said the best an Instructor can hope for is when one of their students becomes better surpass the instructor's abilities. I am not trying to hold anyone down. I am trying to help them survive to live long enough to be better than me. In all things moderation, including excess.

Hook

[Zenister 0]

Quote

How much preventable carnage are willing to accept?

ive been asking this since the start. what is an acceptable 'failure' rate? what is an 'acceptable injury ratio. i think you have to ask what is an acceptable success rate as well, and to answer either you need data.

something we all pretty much agreed we dont have.

some people do not, will not listen no matter how much education, knowledge and experience is offered and/or given to them. When they do not the results are spectacularly unpleasant, and get orders of magnitude more attention and exposure than any other single successful dive short of the 300 way.

lets be careful not to let the failures limit those who do listen, have and continue to learn, progress and succeed without bloody fanfare and emotional outrage.

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

[skr 1]

I am really glad you guys are making this effort
and I want to make a couple (meta) points:

First is that in order to get any of this to happen
at the USPA level the members of the safety and
training committee need to get lots of email with
people's ideas. That's not headquarters safety
and training (Jim Crouch & Kevin Gibson) but
the board members: Mike Perry, Mike Mullins,
Jan Meyer, Jesse Farrington, Sherry Butcher
and DJan Stewart.

And you need to get your regional directors
to ask Mike Perry to put it on the safety and
training agenda for the next board meeting.



Second is that at the last board meeting there was
a handout from Kevin Gibson on a possible draft
page for the next SIM on this very topic and you
can ask your regional director person for a copy
so you can see what they're thinking and give
feedback (to the safety and training committee).



Third (my soapbox, I mean contribution to this
effort) is that we need to create the social view
that serious downsizing and swooping are specialized
activities. Serious downsizing is not the default path.

Normal jumpers jump gentler canopies suitable for family
use. People who want to get into this specialized
activity get further training on how to do it.

The problem is not the accomplished napkin swooper
making 100 meter surfs, it's the herds of people blindly
imitating them because serious downsizing and swooping
are currently presented as the normal progression.



Fourth is that it would really help if DZO's and gear
manufacturers and dealers would get behind this effort.

I don't know how to do that, but I'm sure it's true.



So thanks again for all the effort you guys are putting out.

I don't know why it's so hard to get something like this
into existance but that's how it is. The good news is
that eventually it changes and then all the new people
stand around and wonder how they could have been
so stupid in the old days.

Skr

[skr 1]

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

Aaaahhhhh! No! Wait!

Please use plain English!

I'm convinced that that SIM Sludge formulation is the main
reason people don't read the SIM.

Every time I try, I start feeling sick about 3 or 4 inches into it
and give up.


I found out at the last board meeting that USPA buys its
SIM Sludge sentences from the same company that
manufactures the FAR Sludge.

The FAA buys it by the ascii ton and USPA buys it in
smaller lots, but it's the same stuff.

Skr

[nightjumps 1]

Hey Skratch - tell DJan Nightjumps (Bigun) said, "Hi." And, I was supposed to tell DJan to tell you that Pete Morris says, HI too. He and I just started a dz - tulsatandems.com

Anyway, your input on direction to Derek is appreciated. And, while I understand your concerns regarding the SIM sludge factor, writing it up one way only to have them tell us to write it another would be counter-productive. I've worked in many bureaucracies where submission format is as important at getting your thesis read as much as it is about content.

The bottom line is; if its already formattted in a style they recognize, they will be more receptive. If they were receptive to plain english, that's how the SIMs would read now.

I'm not as interested in style as I am in results. For years, folks have been singing the "Educate, don't regulate" song, but nobody is dancing to the tune. So Derek and I will put something together.

Sometimes the powers that be just need something to throw darts at. We may not make a lot of progress, but we will at least get some attention.

The real goal is for someone... anyone to address the issue of canopy control education. On my Dz, we do not allow "Hook Turns" - at all. It would be nice if we had some kind of formalized licensure or education program that we could point at for the skydivers to educate themselves to a level of proficiency, rather than experiment themselves to injury.

That is the goal.

Keith

[b1jercat 0]

IMHO as a new jumper all the canopy maneuvers would be best for me right out of the chute.( no pun intended) At least if you start with the new people in the sport the extra training you propose would soon be the norm.

blue skies

jerry

[robskydiv 0]

Great idea Hook. I especially like the accuracy part. The flat turns, and rear riser landing are also good. Keep it up. Let us know about your final draft before you submit it. We can all show support to our regional directors for this modification.

[relyon 0]

Quote

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

So essentially you're saying everyone should get PRO rated before before downsizing. That's ridiculous.

Bob

[Ron 7]

Quote

So essentially you're saying everyone should get PRO rated before before downsizing. That's ridiculous.

No, what ridiculous is when you can get a guy with 100 jumps thinking he can handle a 1.4 loaded canopy without any idea of what it takes.

And its ridiculous to think just because you have not died under the canopy you have now is an indication that you know what you are doing.

The PRO rating is not that hard. And if you can't do it, then you could always downsize according to the rules we have proposed about a hundred times.

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

[VectorBoy 0]

Quote

Quote

So essentially you're saying everyone should get PRO rated before before downsizing. That's ridiculous.

No, what ridiculous is when you can get a guy with 100 jumps thinking he can handle a 1.4 loaded canopy without any idea of what it takes.

And its ridiculous to think just because you have not died under the canopy you have now is an indication that you know what you are doing.

And 300 tippy-toe landings since then doesn't mean a thing either, luck its just luck and another thing........

[kallend 1,653]

Quote

Quote

Quote

So essentially you're saying everyone should get PRO rated before before downsizing. That's ridiculous.

No, what ridiculous is when you can get a guy with 100 jumps thinking he can handle a 1.4 loaded canopy without any idea of what it takes.

And its ridiculous to think just because you have not died under the canopy you have now is an indication that you know what you are doing.

And 300 tippy-toe landings since then doesn't mean a thing either, luck its just luck and another thing........

So you're saying that anyone that can perform better than you is simply lucky? That seems a bit pompous.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Designer 0]

The hardest thing to learn might be our limits?We take chances,try new things.Holding back a little bit seems to work out most of the time.The baby step deal.It,s quite surprising how much you learn doing the basic canopy flying survival skills.

[Ron 7]

Quote

And 300 tippy-toe landings since then doesn't mean a thing either, luck its just luck and another thing

If your landings require luck....you have large issues.

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