Canopy loading restrictions take 3

[Enano 0]

Quote

To be quite honest with you - I think the ability for someone to think plays a much larger role in survival than experience does. Sort of

Yep, I totally agree...

Nothing change the facts that you are responsible for your decision I believe

I believe that 1.1 is very good for 20 or 30 jumps up, until you got over 100+ then you change to 1.2 1.3. .h. and you stay in this new 1.2 1.3 W.L. for a couple hundred jumps and when you are over 5 or 6 you star playing with the Wind Loading your self, I don’t think there is nothing wrong to get to know the canopy your are jumping, take the time to land any direction you want and be comfortable doing this, at the end of the day the canopy skills are not include in any canopy or wind loading, you have to improve the skill by your self, if you are in a 1.1 wind loading you still can get hurt even kill, but you have more time to deal with the mistake you make, as your skill improve in the 1.1 W2.L. and the more comfortable you feel under the canopy at 1.1 you probable are going to be flying your canopy much better than the person how just downsize fast and didn’t took the time to learn the skills on the canopies that are slow an fast enough for you to learn it.


Enano

have a braing?? use it...

42 and don't forget your towell

[rhino 0]

Quote

You have to have a system in place to PREVENT canopy pilots from getting themselves in trouble

The only system that will do that is grounding everyone,. Again we aren't playing putt putt golf we are skydivers. This is not the safest thing in the world.

Rhino

[Ron 7]

Quote

There you go thinking you are the man because you have jump numbers. Jump numbers mean nothing. Your
skygod attitude is one of the things that I do not like about this sport.

And "Know it alls" with very litte experience, that don't listen and think they know better is the thing that pisses me off most in this sport...So I guess we are even huh?

And my jump #'s mean I have done 3,000 times what you have only done 400, or Nathans 100.

So who should know more? You, him, me?

I have shoes with 400 jumps.

I'd bet on me.

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

[Ron 7]

Found This

Well, another DZ joins in with WL restrictions.

You will see more of these.

I wonder why they are putting htem into place? If it is insurance reasons, or just tired of watching peopl get carried off.

I'll call and then up date this when I know.

Ron

Edit: Clicky fixed...Thats what I get for being fancy

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

[Hooknswoop 19]

The link didn't work, but I think this is what you are referencing:

"Do to unfortunate circumstances we have to abide by this wing load chart. We will not give in to its contents, so please do not ask.

Skydive Coastal Carolinas

Maximum Allowable Canopy

Wing Loading for Skydivers

Jump Range Max. Wing Load allowed
Non-licensed 0.8
21 to 100 1.1
101 to 200 1.3
201 to 400 1.4
401 to 600 1.5
601 to 800 1.6
801 to 1,000 1.7
Over 1,000 Use Proper Judgment"

Hook

[mikkey 0]

I just signed up for a Canopy Flying Seminar with Rob McMillan and Drew Lipinski (who are canopy "gods" here "down under") for the first week-end in August. The guys have done it a few places around Australia. I'll post if something interesting comes up hat might contribute to this discussion...

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

[billvon 2,400]

>And "Know it alls" with very litte experience, . . .

I think you've both made your point by now. Rhino's not going to come around to thinking that inexperience is a handicap; he's not going to convince you of his point of view either no matter how much you argue. You've both expressed your opinions - they are no more or less valid the 20th time you express them than the first.

[apoil 0]

Quote

A = 1.0
B = 1.25
C = 1.50
D = Unlimited

If these were the limits I like the idea.

Rhino

you know what? so do I.

But I don't think they will significantly impact the number of incidents.

Why? Because anyone who would pay close attention to these limits would have probably followed a safer progression in any case.

The people who get hurt will probably do so once they have the experience to get hurt.

Check this out, from a dropzone I attended recently.

Guy shows up, and has never jumped there. He is asking some questions about the Xaos over manifest (this sounds like it was a subconscious way of saying that he knew he was in over his head)

The S&TA's were more authoritative, but I just asked him questions (I don't work there).

Turns out he has 700 jumps, 400 under a stiletto 135, and he's hooking up a xaos 104 never having jumped a cross braced before (at a dropzone he's never jumped before). I pointed out that this is a downsize of about 4 sizes, that the crossbraced is a very different animal (I myself only tried one twice). And that he's a little bit shy of the general experience level (jump numbers) usually recommended to fly one. He was grateful for the help and advice.

The S&TA's called his home dropzone where his name wasn't really recognized and they said that they generally require 1000 jumps before they let people jump a cross braced (a decent rule of thumb, that I'm sure is waivered in cases of highly current, highly talented pilots).

Bottom line, this guy wasn't permitted to commit suicide at that dropzone that day. The system, as is, worked. If S&TA's aren't doing this at your home dropzone, then maybe that's where the problem lies.

But nothing in these wingloading BSRs would change this situation.
In fact the reverse just might occur. With the added burden of policing the younger canopy pilots, people might even pay less attention to the D license holder with unlimited restriction.

[rhino 0]

Quote

Turns out he has 700 jumps, 400 under a stiletto 135, and he's hooking up a xaos 104 never having jumped a cross braced before

I hear you.. That Xaos is really meant to be loaded though. The Xaos21-98 I had felt like a BOAT. If flew like a 120. I probably should have been in the 85-88 range. And that would have been from a Crossfire103, before that a Diablo110.

That is a big jump I know.

Just food for thought.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Hey I liked those wing loading restriction values used by this Carolina DZ. They allow for some adventure by the up and coming canopy pilot, but still enstill some sort of canopy progression structure.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[apoil 0]

Quote

You and several others in this discussion have shown a complete disregard for the experience of others and a complete lack of respect for your "elders" in the sport. It is just that attitude that is pushing us to the point where a BSR to regulate canopy wingloading is necessary. If more of the lowtime jumpers would listen to the experienced ones, this whole thing would be a non issue.

Sadly, I wish this were true.

At under 100 jumps, I was told by someone with 1000 jumps who was just loving his stiletto - "when you get a stiletto you will love it" and "you've got to get a stiletto". I looked at him like he was from mars.
Because I knew I'd die if I got one. And I learned that from my friends who were starting out, like me, and actively learning about what kills people in the sport.

I also had an experienced guy say things like "you need 1.4 or 1.5 wingloading to get a proper landing from your canopy". He had thousands of jumps, I had maybe 400 and was not comfortable jumping a wingloading like that just yet. He was offering it as advice to people of all levels. Ironically, he had been invited to a dinner, where a young girl was considering buying a canopy that some thought was a little beyond her abilities. It was a spectre loaded at about 1.1 and she was a tiny little thing. It had been hoped that this more experienced individual would have offered some more words of caution. This girl eventually bought that canopy, and died flying it. From a classic low turn maneuver to avoid an obstacle.

So I've always said "one of the first survival skills you learn in this sport is who NOT to listen to" and unfortunately, all too many experienced people offer advice that is not appropriate to the skill/experience level of those to whom it is being offered.

[apoil 0]

Quote

That would work as well as making fatalities illegal.

This I like... Anyone who is killed in the sport should be permanently grounded and stripped of their USPA membership.

[apoil 0]

Quote

Jump Range Max. Wing Load allowed
Non-licensed 0.8
21 to 100 1.1
101 to 200 1.3
201 to 400 1.4
401 to 600 1.5
601 to 800 1.6
801 to 1,000 1.7
Over 1,000 Use Proper Judgment"

That's just out of control.
My downsizing progression was highly conservative, but even I was at 1.8 before 1,000 jumps.

They are honestly going to tell someone at 900 jumps that he can't load more than 1.7? There's such a wide range of experience at those jump numbers that it's impossible to nail it down. Some 900 jump folks shouldn't be over 1.4 perhaps, and some are just fine jumping at 2.4. Regardless, the person who shouldn't be jumping the high wingloading at those jump numbers is going to hurt himself just the same at 1.7. That's why these rules always seem to be either not nearly enough (restricting wingloadings only up until 200 jumps or so) or far too much (restricting them for people with the skills and experience to handle them).

[Ron 7]

Quote

That's
why these rules always seem to be either not nearly enough (restricting wingloadings only up until 200
jumps or so) or far too much (restricting them for people with the skills and experience to handle them

And thats why the first one I wrote only had regulation to 500 jumps. At some point you have to trust that a guy has enough experience to know what he should or should not be doing. I personally don't think it is at the 300 jump level, and the landing fatalities seem to show that as well.

And there was a way to test out of the regulation if you could PROVE you had the skills.

I don't mind making EVERYONE test out, but that has a snowballs chance in hell of ever happening.

The best thing we can do is to provide a guidline for "normal" canopy progression, with a way for those that want to to test out to a higher wiingload.

Quote

21 to 100 1.1
101 to 200 1.3
201 to 400 1.4
401 to 600 1.5

Is not that far from the:
100 1.1
200 1.2
300 1.3
400 1.4
500 1.5

That I wrote about. (Thanks to Brian)

Its not perfect, but it is a start.

And if that person is truely a good canopy pilot, then they could PROVE it, and downsize.

Ron

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

[Hooknswoop 19]

You think that is out of control?

Check out this from http://www.skydivekansas.com/policy_lic.htm

"CURRENT USPA MEMBER

PROOF OF JUMP CURRENCY

CYPRES OR ASTRA AAD

EXIT WEIGHT NOT TO EXCEED RESERVE LABEL

ABSOLUTE MAXIMUM EXIT WEIGHT 254 LBS.

WING LOADING FOR THOSE WITH LESS THAN 500 JUMPS NOT TO EXCEED 1.3

ABSOLUTE MAXIMUM WING LOADING 1.5 "

Oh ya, Astra or Cypres mandatory and no hook turns.

And there is absolutely nothing we or USPA can do about it. This type of policy will probably become more and more prevalent as DZO's don't want to deal with the hassle of telling someone "no" or the liability. The longer it takes to fix the problem, the more DZ's that will fix it their way, with policies like the 2 DZ's mentioned.

If we don't stand up and fix the problem, more and more DZ's will take away the freedom to fly any canopy we wish.

Hook

[billvon 2,400]

>That's just out of control.

It is the future unless WE do something about it. If we don't, a DZO has a simple solution - come up with a restriction like the one above. Problem solved, from his point of view. Which would we prefer, a 'restriction' like the one at the beginning of the thread (with the option to avoid them altogether by taking a canopy control class) or a patchwork of DZ loading rules, each one different, most very restrictive with no way to opt out?

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

>That's just out of control.

It is the future unless WE do something about it. If we don't, a DZO has a simple solution - come up with a restriction like the one above. Problem solved, from his point of view. Which would we prefer, a 'restriction' like the one at the beginning of the thread (with the option to avoid them altogether by taking a canopy control class) or a patchwork of DZ loading rules, each one different, most very restrictive with no way to opt out?

A DZO always has the option of more severe restrictions than the BSRs provide. Implementing a BSR won't prevent this kind of policy.

...

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

[billvon 2,400]

>Implementing a BSR won't prevent this kind of policy.

It will not prevent it but it will surely reduce the likelihood of a DZO reinventing the wheel. No DZ that I've ever been to has a different pull altitude than USPA's for experienced jumpers. Do you know of any such DZ? If not, might it be because they find USPA pull altitude guidelines a good set of guidelines to follow?

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Education - not regulation

What do you think of my 'canopy training idea' suggestion?

Hook

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

Education - not regulation

What do you think of my 'canopy training idea' suggestion?

Hook

Can you give a link (sorry, but I've lost track of all the proposals and counter proposals, which is why I've been quiet for a week).

On the whole I have no issue with incorporating canopy training into the A B C D requirements. In fact, I suggested it myself about 3 or 4 years ago on rec dot (not unlike Skratch's recent thread here), but was shot down over there, as usual.

...

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

[Hooknswoop 19]

LOL, I kow what you mean.

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=562640;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread

It is revised at the bottom of the first page.

Hook

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

Which would we prefer, a 'restriction' like the one at the beginning of the thread (with the option to avoid them altogether by taking a canopy control class) or a patchwork of DZ loading rules, each one different, most very restrictive with no way to opt out?

Nobody makes you jump at a particular DZ...heaven forbid that jumpers might have a choice about which rules edit: rule sets are more reasonable than others. I think patchworks are the order of the day. Some people with only 1 dz nearby will get no choice b/c there's no competition, but that's no worse than under the BSR or SIM changes proposed...

nathaniel

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[Hooknswoop 19]

Proposed BSR WL limits, grand fathering current jumpers in with options to exceed limits through waivers, canopy training or testing out.

A license - 1 psf max
B license - 1.1 psf max
C license - 1.3 psf max
D license - no limit

One DZ's policy (no exceptions………..):

WING LOADING FOR THOSE WITH LESS THAN 500 JUMPS NOT TO EXCEED 1.3

ABSOLUTE MAXIMUM WING LOADING 1.5

Another DZ's policy (no exceptions………..):

Maximum Allowable Canopy Wing Loading for Skydivers

Jump Range Max. Wing Load allowed
Non-licensed 0.8
21 to 100 1.1
101 to 200 1.3
201 to 400 1.4
401 to 600 1.5
601 to 800 1.6
801 to 1,000 1.7
Over 1,000 Use Proper Judgment

Quote

but that's no worse than under the BSR or SIM changes proposed...

Is it?

Quote

...heaven forbid that jumpers might have a choice about which rules are more reasonable than others.

That is exactly what we are trying to do…………

Hook

[nathaniel 0]

I meant that the amount of choice edit choice of rule sets under the USPA-wide rule would be no more or less for people with only 1 DZ to choose from.

The arbitrariness of all of the rules in question bugs me. I'm not in danger of violating most of the proposals (except my some of my earlier crazy ones). I just applied for my C license, I'm jumping at 1.0 WL and I don't intend to change that anytime soon...

An impediment to forming an opinion on all of the proposals is the hand-waving factor. I'd rather let Smith's "invisible hand" make the choice than make everyone's choice myself.

Who knows, maybe jumpers and DZs would actually be better off with tight policies like this KS one. The possibility doesn't lead me to endorse it, tho. I think it's at least equally likely the only noticeable effects would be fewer, more pent-up jumpers.

nathaniel

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[billvon 2,400]

>I think patchworks are the order of the day.

Hmm. So no two AFF programs are the same? You can never count on the low man having right of way? Some places have waveoffs before pulling and some don't? Some places require you to pull between 1500 and 2000 feet to prevent collisions?

One of the good things USPA has done for this sport is standardized on some very basic safety rules. Low man _always_ has right of way. You _always_ wave off if you can. It's a good thing that patchworks are not the order of the day when it comes to basic safety rules - a lot more people would be getting injured or killed if that were the case.