freakydiver 0 #26 July 10, 2003 I keep trying to come up with a good analogy to this whole canopy loading thing because it is perhaps the toughest issue the skydiving community has ever had to deal with IMHO. I was talking with one of my good buddies the night before last about it. He has never jumped. He however races streetbike. It really hit home when he started talking about how there are always riders who are on bikes to big for their britches. There is no regulation amongst bike retailers, nor is there any regulation with regards to insurance companies who insure riders other than the premiums that come from owning a 1300cc race bike. Could it be that simple? I asked him the following question - "So blah, how do people know that they are getting in over their heads?" His answer - threefold - "First, if you walk into a dealer and ask for a 1300, they will ask you your experience time and time again. They want you as a return customer, not as another statistic. Granted, all you have to do is lie to get the bike you want." Secondly, "Some people just plain do not get it nor will they ever get it." Thirdly, "When I'm teaching the basic skills course a great deal of time goes into explaining the different choices there are out there in terms of bikes and engine sizes." A great deal of time goes into teaching new riders about engine sizes and bikes I ask? Yes he answers. Hmm, I think. ALL JUMPERS are REQUIRED to go through some sort of instruction to finally arrive at their first license while ALL MOTORCYCLISTS are not. Hmm, I think again. Why the hell not incorporate some sort of canopy size / shape education into the AFF progression? What would be so damn difficult about teaching students about the desire in the community to downsize and swoop and to show them why downsizing and swooping is really a much bigger beast than it seems. We have the answer already in place and we have yet to utilize the solution. As stated prior - they all have to go through some sort of instruction to receive a license, how hard would it be to talk about canopies for an hour, show some video, show broken legs caused by perfectly good freaking canopies??? "Let Darwin rule" - horseshit, although I understand your sarcasm a lot of people really think this. Although I tend to think that way as well, I do thouroghly (sp, yah right! ) enjoy the presence of most skydivers out there (excpet for a few jackasses here and there). I don't want to see anyone hurt as much as the next person. I paid attention in my instructional phase of skydiving and would've paid attention if they were showing morons hooking it in and hitting the ground the same time their canopies did. -- (N.DG) "If all else fails – at least try and look under control." -- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nicknitro71 0 #27 July 10, 2003 An 18 year old kid can go ahead and buy a R1, a vette, and a gun. Do you accept that? I think education works better than rules, as simple as that. As for USPA regulating WL it's a tough call. WL by itself does not work because a 120 Lb novice under a 120 canopy is going to be much faster than a 280 Lber under a 280 canopy. It ain't that simple. Yes you can make tables and charts to be updated every year with newer canopies and so forth. Will that solve the problem? I don't think so but they can always try. We should emphasize more canopy control nowadays than anything else. Again only education will solve this issue IMHO. As for the motorcycle analogy, it's a good one. I used to teach MSF classes while in college and I cannot tell you how many kids I convinced not to get fast bikes as their first ones. I see way too many squids on the road riding with shorts, popping wheelies, and slow down below the speed limit before turning because they don't have the first clue how to do it. Then the same kids end up in hospitals missing skin, limbs, neurons, and lives. Again all this because of lack of education. We have a licensing system, god damn let's put it to use. Let's include canopy skills, flight theory, a bit of aerodynamics and so forth on every jump during training. Very few instructors do that. All the emphasis is on the damn freefall but in order to successfully complete a freefall and make another one a jumper must land safely.Memento Audere Semper 903 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ianmdrennan 2 #28 July 10, 2003 QuoteWL by itself does not work because a 120 Lb novice under a 120 canopy is going to be much faster than a 280 Lber under a 280 canopy. Thank god someone finally mentioned that again. WL by itself skips over anyone who is a lightweight. I sent this recommendation to my USPA rep: Up to: 100 jumps Max 1.1 Wing load - Min size 170 200 jumps Max 1.2 Wing load - Min size 150 300 jumps Max 1.3 Wing load - Min size 150 400 jumps Max 1.4 Wing load - Min size 135 500 jumps Max 1.5 Wing load - Min size 120 Just my thoughts. Blue skies Ian IanPerformance Designs Factory Team Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #29 July 10, 2003 Quote200 jumps and a 1.5 is the combination of the most dead people last year under canopy...It would do nothing. That has NOTHING to do with the wingloading and EVERYTHING to do with the canopy pilots judgement. It is the pilots job to do the research and know the ins and outs of what he is flying. I could have never learned how to fly a crossfire2-97 at 1.9 had I not got my skinny ass under that canopy and slowly learned to fly it. I do not support wingloading regulations. I think if joe 200 jump wonder wants to fly at 1.7 then let him. But limits the maneuvers he is allowed to perform under the loading. Make him do 50 jumps in double fronts if he wants to start swooping. Then make him do another 50 90degree carves. Then another 50 120-180 degree carves. Then the snap hook if he is ready. Make a canopy coach sign off on those maneuvers as they are observed. This has a closer chance of working than wingloading regulations. Make a canopy pilot try and learn to swoop on a canopy with a short recovery arc and fatalities will rise. I would bet my rig on it. I put these regulations on myself because I knew it was the smart thing to do. It was my decision to jump on a higher performance wing. I did my homework. I was VERY VERY cautious. If someone jumps on a hp wing without self regulating themselves then they are going to bounce and learn the hard way. Hopefully they live and learn. Using your brain = survival Not using your brain = maybe not Stop trying to blame lack of blanket regulations concerning wing loading for the deaths and injuries and start blaming the canopy pilots themselves. Part of what makes skydiving "canopy flight" fun is pushing the limits. Challenging myself. It is virtually me against the swoop. Me against the ground. I accept that challenge each and every time I fly a parachute no matter what size it is. If I die or bounce IT IS NO ONES FAULT BUT MINE AND I ACCEPT THAT. Every person that has left us or been injured under canopy MADE THAT SAME DECISION. That is what makes this sport so much fun. Quit yer bitchin. Rhino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #30 July 10, 2003 QuoteI do not support wingloading regulations. Pay attention. Bill's latest proposal is talking simply about putting the WL chart into the SIM. No regulalation, no forced education, no nothing. Just a little bit of ink on a sheet of paper. QuoteIf I die or bounce IT IS NO ONES FAULT BUT MINE AND I ACCEPT THAT. That's good, but while you accept the blame, we're left to clean up the mess. Literally, someone needs to scrape you off the ground; figuratively, there's the PR nightmare after another 'out of control' skydiver dies under a perfectly good parachute. QuoteEvery person that has left us or been injured under canopy MADE THAT SAME DECISION. That is what makes this sport so much fun. Quit yer bitchin. I don't think that's true. I think some people fly bigger canopies because they're not ready to take the risks associated with smaller, faster parachutes. I've seen these people get taken out by someone on a parachute too small and too fast for them to handle. What about them Rob? It isn't all just about you. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sducoach 0 #31 July 10, 2003 Bill, I've asked this question before and you did not answer so I'll try again. Where does it state in the FAR's, (in as much that BSR's and SIM's cannot be enforced anyway without the BOD doing it, and at that they can only revoke any license, rating, or membership you may hold.) that an S&TA can ground anyone! I like what you are attempting to do but man, you are pushing the rope against a 500# gorilla. The difference is the gorilla has teeth. The BSR's and SIM don't! How many posts on this subject are you going to birth? You've got one of those "green names", kill it. Make it a petition, have all the experts sign it, and take it to the BOD. Blues, J.E.James 4:8 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #32 July 10, 2003 QuoteWhere does it state in the FAR's, (in as much that BSR's and SIM's cannot be enforced anyway without the BOD doing it, and at that they can only revoke any license, rating, or membership you may hold.) that an S&TA can ground anyone! They don't need a FAR to ground someone. "Hi, you're grounded, you can't get on any of our airplanes." That has all the teeth it needs. If the S&TA or DZO say you're not getting on their planes, I'll bet you $50 that you don't. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skycat 0 #33 July 10, 2003 QuoteQuoteWL by itself does not work because a 120 Lb novice under a 120 canopy is going to be much faster than a 280 Lber under a 280 canopy. Thank god someone finally mentioned that again. WL by itself skips over anyone who is a lightweight. I sent this recommendation to my USPA rep: Up to: 100 jumps Max 1.1 Wing load - Min size 170 200 jumps Max 1.2 Wing load - Min size 150 300 jumps Max 1.3 Wing load - Min size 150 400 jumps Max 1.4 Wing load - Min size 135 500 jumps Max 1.5 Wing load - Min size 120 Just my thoughts. Blue skies Ian Ian Underloading can be a problem also. In your recommendation, until I have 500 jumps I wouldn't be able to jump a canopy at 1:1. That leave me at a huge disadvantage when it comes to learning how to fly a canopy. Now I definately agree that me under a 120 @ 1:1 is going to be faster than someone on a 280 @ 1:1, but anything under a .8 WL leaves me with that "the canopy is flying me" feeling and backing up under winds that students can jump in is definately no fun. How do I know? I'm 120 out the door. If you want to do Min sizes, try this: upto A) 150 (There are DZs that put girls my size on ZP 150s during thier later levels of AFP) WL - .8 A-B) 135 WL - .9 B-C) 120 WL - 1 C-D) 105ish WL - 1.15 D+) any size for the record that would put me in violation since I have 350 jumps and jump a crossfire 104 @ 1.2 and a stiletto 97 @ 1.3Fly it like you stole it! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #34 July 10, 2003 How about rewording that to "Within the manufacturer's guidlines".quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FlyGuy 0 #35 July 10, 2003 I don't agree with the whole wingloading thing here, becauseit seems too difficult to enforce. What happens if you gain 10 pounds in the off season? Now you are over the limits. What are we going to do have a scale at the loading area?? Just a thought here, you have to get water training before you can get your B license. Why not have mandatory advanced canopy training before you can get an advanced license, or even to get your A license. I also think that a "canopy coach" rating is a good idea. To have someone "reliable" to go to for canopy control questions might go a long way. I truly believe that education is the key here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sducoach 0 #36 July 10, 2003 Bet's on. You hit the point as the only person who can "ground" you is the DZO. An S&TA can tell you all day long your grounded and unless the DZO says "yes you are grounded", nothing will happen. You did miss the point , an S&TA has NO authority through the USPA or FAA to ground anyone. Blues, J.E. PS You're grounded...................James 4:8 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gale 0 #37 July 10, 2003 I have stayed out of this whole debate, but read everything, and I think this statement is really interesting. Quote at has NOTHING to do with the wingloading and EVERYTHING to do with the canopy pilots judgment. Of course! People with bad judgment are going to make bad decisions about wing loading. Kind of like people with bad judgment are going to make bad decisions about driving, or parenting, or any other behaviour. But you can't make rules about judgments. You just can't. You can't say, well that 13 year old has great judgment so THEY should be able to drive, whereas that 17 year old with bad judgment shouldn't. It's not possible. Yup, they have a test. But you have to meet the minimums to take it. Kind of like what's being proposed in some of these thread. Dumb people will make dumb decisions. We, as a society still TRY to protect them from themselves - even if it doesn't always work. Making rules about someones actions is all you CAN do. Just a thought. GaleI'm drowning...so come inside Welcome to my...dirty mind Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ianmdrennan 2 #38 July 11, 2003 Skycat, First, remember these are recomendations. QuoteUnderloading can be a problem also. In your recomendation, until I have 500 jumps I wouldn't be able to jump a canopy at 1:1. That leave me at a huge disadvantage when it comes to learning how to fly a canopy. So you're telling me you need to fly something small to learn canopies? I'm sorry but I have to totally disagree with you here. The only thing you gain from smaller canopies is more speed and less room for error, so it's learn or get hurt. Well, to me, that's like saying to a 16 year old here's a mustang 5.0 if you're still alive in 2 years you've learn't everything ok. My wife (130 out the door) spent her first 165 jumps on a 170. She jumped in almost all conditions that I did (I had a 120 at the time) and didn't go backwards, and I see plenty of lighter and smaller people do it all the time. Unless you were jumping some ragged out PD there's no way you should be going backwards in 15 mph winds (maybe not too fast forwards, but enough). The wind argument is one I hear often and my response is almost always this...if it's so windy that you're going backwards, maybe you shouldn't be jumping anyway? I can't tell you the number of times junior jumpers have gone up while the more experienced (not necessarily jumps, but time in the sport) sit on the ground recomending not to go up and wait for the winds to come down or get less squirrly. QuoteB-C) 120 WL - 1 I've seen enough light people break themselves to know that the above isn't a good idea. Just remember we're trying to come up with recomendations, so if the S&TA feels you can handle your 104 - fine, but the recomendations have to be written for the averages, not the exceptions. For the record I'd rather see education be effective that any sort of regulation/recomendation.....unfortunately it seems most of us (and myself included in my earlier years) are incapable of that as we think of ourselves as indestructable and "it'll never happen to us"....well....it does. Blue skies IanPerformance Designs Factory Team Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ianmdrennan 2 #39 July 11, 2003 QuoteHow about rewording that to "Within the manufacturer's guidlines". eh?Performance Designs Factory Team Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #40 July 11, 2003 QuotePay attention. Bill's latest proposal is talking simply about putting the WL chart into the SIM. No regulalation, no forced education, no nothing. Just a little bit of ink on a sheet of paper. Fair enough.. QuoteThat's good, but while you accept the blame, we're left to clean up the mess. Literally, someone needs to scrape you off the ground; figuratively, there's the PR nightmare after another 'out of control' skydiver dies under a perfectly good parachute. I know this better than you can imagine.. If you are looking for a safer sport take up golf. Skydiving is inherantly risky. When accidents happen they tend to be bad. QuoteI don't think that's true. It is called a waiver. And if ANY OF YOU don't know what you are getting into and the risks involved in canopy flight much less skydiving YOU NEED TO TAKE SOME SERIOUS TIME OFF. QuoteI think some people fly bigger canopies because they're not ready to take the risks associated with smaller, faster parachutes Their are risks with lightly loaded canopies just the same. Again you can't blame wing loading. It is all on the pilot. ALL ON THE PILOT. That cannot possible be debated. QuoteI've seen these people get taken out by someone on a parachute too small and too fast for them to handle. What about them Rob? It isn't all just about you. What about them? If they were "taken out" by a canopy that is too small and too fast for them to handle it WAS THEIR FAULT FOR NOT DOING THEIR HOMEWORK. It wasn't the canopies fault. It is cause and effect. Cause was a bad judgement call while under canopy. Effect as you call it is scraping them literally off the ground. I watched a jumper at Rantoul last year fly himself virtically into the swoop pond. We did cpr on him for 20 minutes and he died right there in our arms. The canopy wasn't to blame THE BAD JUDGEMENT CALL WAS. Seriously people... You can't blame wing loading on people dying. That is a cowardly thing to do. Put the blame where it is due. On the pilot that made a mistake. It is all about one thing... ACCOUNTABILITY... To ones self and others around you. Rhino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #41 July 11, 2003 QuoteOf course! People with bad judgment are going to make bad decisions about wing loading. Nope... The wingloading isn't to blame. It is not learning to fly the wing. That is to blame. And that is the canopy pilots fault. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #42 July 11, 2003 A few things here, first, you took my reply apart sentence by sentence. The original was a coherent set of ideas, it's completely different when viewed in the context you give us in your reply. Anyhow... QuoteWhat about them? If they were "taken out" by a canopy that is too small and too fast for them to handle it WAS THEIR FAULT FOR NOT DOING THEIR HOMEWORK. It wasn't the canopies fault. It is cause and effect. Cause was a bad judgement call while under canopy. Effect as you call it is scraping them literally off the ground. What I was relaying was my witnessing the people on the smaller, more docile canopies (because they chose to be) taken out (think canopy collision and being run over on the ground) by people flying smaller, faster, canopies that they couldn't control. Think of it as someone in a parked car being run over the 16 year old in the 5.0. My point was, and still is, it's not just you (the guy flying the shit-hot canopy beyond his skill). It's everyone. QuoteSeriously people... You can't blame wing loading on people dying. That is a cowardly thing to do. Put the blame where it is due. On the pilot that made a mistake. Exactly. Noone wants to ban small canopies, as a matter of fact, Bill's proposal will allow you to fly whatever the hell you choose. You can graduate AFF and jump a Velocity 79 if you like. The point though of these proposals is to get education for the pilot, not the canopy. Quote It is all about one thing... ACCOUNTABILITY... To ones self and others around you. Accountability to the dead guy you just ran over is great. I'm sure he'll appreciate it. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nathaniel 0 #43 July 11, 2003 Quote Brian Germain's canopy progression. Thats not an answer. Where did he come up with them? Does he have mystical powers or did he just make it up? Quote Because those are unreasonable. How can you prove they are more unreasonable than Brian's famous numbers? What's your standard of proof? What makes one set reasonable and the other not? nathanielMy advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sducoach 0 #44 July 11, 2003 Experience........................James 4:8 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nathaniel 0 #45 July 11, 2003 if that's the only explanation we can come up with, these numbers are sunk. what part about experience gets us to these numbers and not different numbers? Let's be honest with ourselves. Nobody knows, the numbers just look good. The exact numbers are essentially meaningless. It's a mistake to codify meaningless numbers into our training curricula. How about instead every year the USPA does a survey of jump #s and wingloading, and publishes that instead of scribbling in the BSRs or the SIM. At least these numbers would be grounded in the real world. S&TA's would have something real to refer to when it comes time to step in and talk to at-risk jumpers. nathanielMy advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,370 #46 July 11, 2003 Of course, to get a proper statistical sample, they'd have to keep polling, right? And if an education plan is put into effect (or are you against that), then it's meaningless, because with somewhat mandatory & somewhat codified education, fatalities and serious injuries will drop. Just a whole lot slower than if you had a wingloading at the beginning, too. The long-term desired result is to have more people with experience, either their own or others'. It's all about how much damage is OK on the way there. 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) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
okalb 104 #47 July 11, 2003 Quote*** Where did he come up with them? Does he have mystical powers or did he just make it up? *** Brian has done quite a few more than 101 jumps and knows more about canopy flight than you or I could ever hope to. It is a little thing called experience, when you get some maybe your opinion will mean something. Right now frankly you don't know what you are talking about.Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lauras 0 #48 July 11, 2003 QuoteThats not an answer. Where did he come up with them? Does he have mystical powers or did he just make it up? OK, seriously Nathaniel, you're just making yourself look foolish now. You may pontificate all you want about statistics, but in this sport, experience and practical knowledge are meaningful. Get back to me when you've racked up eight or nine thousand jumps over the next 15+ years, made an art of canopy flight and designed a few canopies like Brian has. You can learn quite a lot by reading Brian's canopy owners manual. I'd be willing to bet that it would help you a great deal. www.bigairsportz.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sducoach 0 #49 July 11, 2003 Quote Let's be honest with ourselves. Nobody knows, the numbers just look good. The exact numbers are essentially meaningless. Now there's an idea. honesty. Truth is, numbers do equate to experience but not necessarily knowledge. Hang around and you'll see the changes that occur due to deaths. Fact is this is all meaningless. None of this could be enforced, even if every post on the thread were the absolute truth and not just some experts opinion. That's a funny thing about people. Death is black or white. Opinions are simply shades of gray while experience is something you gain right after you needed it. If you survive. Blues, Be safe. J.E.James 4:8 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nathaniel 0 #50 July 11, 2003 Quote Of course, to get a proper statistical sample, they'd have to keep polling, right? To keep the results up to date, they should periodically re-poll, yes. But a good random sample of a few thousand people will do the trick for each poll. Or we could make it a required part of the membership renewal to list the smallest of your primary mains...maybe just harrass the lifetime members periodically =) Then we wouldn't need statistics at all. I dont think we should count on education as a silver bullet. Someone described on this forum a canopy control class with an appalling post-class landing injury rate. Irrespective of the accident rate I think dissemination of knowledge is Good, so in principle I could go along with increased education. nathanielMy advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Page 2 of 9 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
lauras 0 #48 July 11, 2003 QuoteThats not an answer. Where did he come up with them? Does he have mystical powers or did he just make it up? OK, seriously Nathaniel, you're just making yourself look foolish now. You may pontificate all you want about statistics, but in this sport, experience and practical knowledge are meaningful. Get back to me when you've racked up eight or nine thousand jumps over the next 15+ years, made an art of canopy flight and designed a few canopies like Brian has. You can learn quite a lot by reading Brian's canopy owners manual. I'd be willing to bet that it would help you a great deal. www.bigairsportz.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sducoach 0 #49 July 11, 2003 Quote Let's be honest with ourselves. Nobody knows, the numbers just look good. The exact numbers are essentially meaningless. Now there's an idea. honesty. Truth is, numbers do equate to experience but not necessarily knowledge. Hang around and you'll see the changes that occur due to deaths. Fact is this is all meaningless. None of this could be enforced, even if every post on the thread were the absolute truth and not just some experts opinion. That's a funny thing about people. Death is black or white. Opinions are simply shades of gray while experience is something you gain right after you needed it. If you survive. Blues, Be safe. J.E.James 4:8 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nathaniel 0 #50 July 11, 2003 Quote Of course, to get a proper statistical sample, they'd have to keep polling, right? To keep the results up to date, they should periodically re-poll, yes. But a good random sample of a few thousand people will do the trick for each poll. Or we could make it a required part of the membership renewal to list the smallest of your primary mains...maybe just harrass the lifetime members periodically =) Then we wouldn't need statistics at all. I dont think we should count on education as a silver bullet. Someone described on this forum a canopy control class with an appalling post-class landing injury rate. Irrespective of the accident rate I think dissemination of knowledge is Good, so in principle I could go along with increased education. nathanielMy advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites