Canopy loading restrictions take 3

[nathaniel 0]

You are very good at getting under my skin... I appreciate the opportunity to practice keeping calm.

You have very much distorted my words by taking them out of context.

Patchworks are in order for new, arbitrary rule classes, such as the various WL numerology schemes--the more so when there is disagreement on the scope and nature of the means and ends. What ground do you stake to assert your particular numbers are more appropriate for the USPA than the ones from KS or the crazy ones I suggested above?

Patchworks are obviously not appropriate between groups that have established agreement, such as consensus on right of way, or on minimum pull altitudes. To the extent that there is not consensus, then yes, heterogeneity may be appropriate.

nathaniel

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

[Ron 7]

Quote

Patchworks are obviously not appropriate between groups that have established agreement, such as
consensus on right of way, or on minimum pull altitudes. To the extent that there is not consensus, then
yes, heterogeneity may be appropriate.

Do you think everyone agreed with the pull altitudes when they came out? That students should not jump squares? Then that students should jump squares? Or how about BOC vs ROL for students?

Nope. The fact is that the individual DZ's came up with programs, so more restrictive, some less, others none. And then it became a BSR....Hide and watch, USPA eventually WILL enact a WL restriction...It just apears that this is not that time.

Ron

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

[JDBoston 0]

I doubt any of those established rules were established on the basis of precise, long-term statistical studies - rather, they were probably simple judgment calls made by very experienced skydivers as a best-guess starting point. Like some of the WL proposals here. I'm not sure where you get the idea that the WL proposals are "arbitrary." If that were the case, there might be a wider range of proposed wingloadings, no?

I would imagine that there was disagreement about those other rules when they first came out too. I would be surprised to hear that all USPA members stood up simultaneously way back when and said, "ya know, we NEED minimum pull altitudes." Don't know though.

IMHO, in most things in life, consensus is the quick road to mediocrity. Some people actually do know better than others.

Joe

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

I doubt any of those established rules were established on the basis of precise, long-term statistical studies - rather, they were probably simple judgment calls made by very experienced skydivers as a best-guess starting point.

Sure, like the BSR that forbade students from jumping ram-air canopies, and the one that forbade BOC deployment for students... Took years to get those thrown out.

Quote

IMHO, in most things in life, consensus is the quick road to mediocrity. Some people actually do know better than others.

Joe

Problem is in identifying those individuals. Those who claim to know better are often wrong.

...

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

[Ron 7]

Quote

Sure, like the BSR that forbade students from jumping ram-air canopies, and the one that forbade BOC
deployment for students... Took years to get those thrown out.

However at the time they were written, they made sense. With the training getting better over the YEARS, there were new methods created. And the BSR's were changed when they were out dated. Seems like it all made sense, and when they didn't they were removed. Same could be done here.

Quote

Problem is in identifying those individuals. Those who claim to know better are often wrong.

Given the choice of listening to a few folks with several years and a few thousand jumps, or some guys with a couple of years and a few hundred jumps...Odds are that the few years/few thousand jump group has a better grasp than the couple of years/ few hundred jump group.

Do you know more now at 1,230 jumps than you did at 400?

Ron

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

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

Sure, like the BSR that forbade students from jumping ram-air canopies, and the one that forbade BOC
deployment for students... Took years to get those thrown out.

However at the time they were written, they made sense. With the training getting better over the YEARS, there were new methods created. And the BSR's were changed when they were out dated. Seems like it all made sense, and when they didn't they were removed. Same could be done here.

Quote

Problem is in identifying those individuals. Those who claim to know better are often wrong.

Given the choice of listening to a few folks with several years and a few thousand jumps, or some guys with a couple of years and a few hundred jumps...Odds are that the few years/few thousand jump group has a better grasp than the couple of years/ few hundred jump group.

Do you know more now at 1,230 jumps than you did at 400?

Ron

I don't claim to know what's best for someone else now, nor did I 800 jumps ago.

...

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

[Ron 7]

Quote

I don't claim to know what's best for someone else now, nor did I 800 jumps ago.

Don't you think think that it IS the responsibility of the Instructors and others to look after the group? Or should everyone do as they please?

Does the USPA have no reason to exist?

Ron

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

[billvon 2,400]

>What ground do you stake to assert your particular numbers are
> more appropriate for the USPA than the ones from KS or the crazy
> ones I suggested above?

Since you recognize that some numbers are crazy, surely you can recognize that some are appropriate. No recommendation will ever be perfect - not pull altitudes or pattern standards or even who has right of way. They only have to be good enough to do much more good than harm.

>Patchworks are obviously not appropriate between groups that have
>established agreement . . .

I agree with that. In your terms, as soon as we have established agreement on loading recommendations (via USPA, our vehicle for establishing safety and training standards within the US) they would be appropriate. And while I agree, that doesn't sound like what you were saying earlier.

[boinky 0]

Published in the April 2003 issue of "Parachutist," was a fatality report for 2002. It listed the percentages by category and by experience levels, 39% of them being in landings. A whopping 54% of the overall fatalities were "D" license holders. While some of the reasons were wing loading issues, many of them were not.

Perhaps instead of holding newer jumpers back, we should hold back careless, long-time jumpers instead? Some of them seem to get a "skygod" complex and think they are invincible. If they weren't doing some of the stupid, careless things they do at the DZ's on a regular basis, then perhaps the newer jumpers would never think to try any of them either.

They say that children learn by example, and aren't newbie skydivers just a different type of children? They watch that "experienced" D-license holder make a particularly low and/or dangerous hook turn, an intentional crosswind or downwind landing or a swoop across the pond and think "WOW, I can't wait until I can try that!" And probably much sooner than later, they will try it, with many of those attempts ending up in some sort of injury or, yes, even a fatality. A lot of them will never have thought to talk it over with another person before they try it, because they rationalize it by thinking, "If so and so can do it, so can I."

Personally, I feel that downsizing to a smaller canopy doesn't necessarily kill. It's what you choose to do or not to do under it that does.

Let's teach new skydivers the right way the first time. Most of them will jump at the opportunity to participate in "hands-on" canopy control classes to improve their budding skills.

Early education is the key. Not limitations.

Nina Tharp

Nina

Are we called "DAWGs" because we stick our noses up people's butts? (RIP Buzz)
Yep, you're a postwhore-billyvance

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

They only have to be good enough to do much more good than harm.

On this we agree... I think we disagree in that I see scant good in most of the WL proposals so far...

nathaniel

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

[nathaniel 0]

Arbitrary in that they are based on impressions instead of figures. I trust figures--especially pedigreed figures--more than I trust anyone's impressions. Even the most experienced among us is human...and humans are notorious for getting things like this wrong when they don't formalize their methods. I'd like at least to list which factors (real or perceived) are built-in to the numbers, like, popular wingloadings, fatality rate, accident rate, DZ layouts (incl hazards), canopy designs, demographics etc.

How would we know in 15 years if the same numbers we propose to use today will be appropriate? If the idea struck Ron or Billvon or the distinguished Mr. Germain 10 years ago, what numbers would they have proposed then, and what numbers in retrospect would have been most appropriate? In retrospect would any WL restrictions or advisories have been appropriate?

What would be grounds for dismissing the whole idea of WL regulations or recommendations and taking a different approach?

That the USPA has fudged it before and survived (and even come up with some good rules) is the same "I've landed this thing before" mentality that gets jumpers into trouble. We are smarter than this.

nathaniel

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

[mikkey 0]

Quote

Published in the April 2003 issue of "Parachutist," was a fatality report for 2002. It listed the percentages by category and by experience levels, 39% of them being in landings. A whopping 54% of the overall fatalities were "D" license holders. While some of the reasons were wing loading issues, many of them were not.

Perhaps instead of holding newer jumpers back, we should hold back careless, long-time jumpers instead? Some of them seem to get a "skygod" complex and think they are invincible. If they weren't doing some of the stupid, careless things they do at the DZ's on a regular basis, then perhaps the newer jumpers would never think to try any of them either.

Correct me if I am wrong: For D license you need 200 jumps+ in the US? If this is correct Nina, then I think you have not read the discussions correctly. Most of the guys who are advocating regulations are making a point of saying that it is the "medium" experienced jumpers - 200 - 600 jumps who are the biggest problem. They think they are skygods but they are not. Those are the ones the regulation supporters think need to be regulated foremost. And in regard to "holding back" newer jumpers (A.B,C license?) - I assume you are not advocating guys with 50-100 jumps flying 1.5 HP canopies?

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

[billvon 2,400]

>How would we know in 15 years if the same numbers we propose to
> use today will be appropriate?

They will not be. The sport will have changed and recommendations will have to change with it.

> If the idea struck Ron or Billvon or the distinguished Mr. Germain 10
> years ago, what numbers would they have proposed then . . .

Make it 20 years ago, and it would have been 100 jumps on a round before you could jump a square. In fact, your canopy manufacturer probably recommends doing something like that - read the warning label on the tail of your canopy. And 20 years ago that made sense. Today, with people jumping Navigators for their first jumps, it doesn't.

Nowadays mandatory student square-canopy education is the norm, so we don't abide by those recommendations any more. 20 years from now, canopy education will have changed again, and we will have changed recommendations again. Nothing stays the same in this sport. Saying that therefore no recommendations are valid is silly.

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

Nothing stays the same in this sport. Saying that therefore no recommendations are valid is silly.

Agreed.

It makes me wonder what changes are significant and which are not, which aspects are built in to the various proposals and which are not, and which aspects should be built in to the proposals and which should not.

nathaniel

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

[JDBoston 0]

I understand your affinity for figures, but the fact of the matter is that you can't always get them and, like Bill says, you can't let that stop you from acting. Skydiving is not an academic exercise or a computer simulation. It's an imprecisely understood, real-world activity, and real live people are dying in very messy ways over and over from the same shit.

With fatalities, people often don't even 100% agree on the jumper's exact position in the sky when things went bad, let alone the relative position of obstacles, or the speed of their canopy as they hit, much less other numbers like how many times someone dug themselves out of the corner and got lucky before they finally pounded in. This info's interesting when you can get it, but we need to get back to the real world here and admit that we will never have it for any but a very small (and statistically insignificant) number of incidents.

IMHO, judgment develops (albeit at different rates in different people) along with experience. Judgment is why my boss makes more money than me - it's not because he's gathered a bunch of data that he uses to exactly model successful moves in his job. People make millions of hugely important decisions every day in their personal and professional lives that are based on their judgment and experience, not tables and figures. You may not like it, or trust it, but it's how the world works.

The "facts" in skydiving incidents are basically second-hand unless the whole thing's on video. Relying exclusively on these, and convincing yourself that possession of more "facts" is the ONLY way to make a useful decision is, to me, missing the forest for the trees.

Joe

[winsor 186]

Quote

Quote

I tend to think that someones opinion on the matter isn't valid until they've seen and heard the sound of someone cratering.

What if one's opinion is that they never wish to hear such a sound?

Then earplugs or another hobby are in order. Unfortunately, if you stick around this sport long enough you are likely to be on hand when someone does something terminal.

It's nasty.

Typically there are two effects to someone impacting. One is that there is a surge in students whose awareness of the DZ came from the report on the 6 O'clock news. The other is that some people who witnessed the event never come back. Sometimes they sell their gear, and other times it just goes in a closet forever.


Blue skies,

Winsor

[mikkey 0]

Quote

Quote

Nothing stays the same in this sport. Saying that therefore no recommendations are valid is silly.

Agreed.

It makes me wonder what changes are significant and which are not, which aspects are built in to the various proposals and which are not, and which aspects should be built in to the proposals and which should not.

nathaniel

This is why people have been saying "listen to the guys with experience". The sport has gone through many major changes over the last 30 years. Many of those changes had significant safety challenges. Nothing in this sport is black and white and heck, there is not even much decent statistics available.

That is why experience is important......

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

[nathaniel 0]

I don't know where to start with this one... we can't act at all without facts. How would people even suspect WL if we didn't have incident reports?

For that matter, skydiving can be an academic exercise, and can certainly be simulated on computer...look no further than Mr. Kallend's freefall drift and exit separation simulations.

If the number of incidents is statistically insignificant, why does anyone maintain the illusion that we can do anything about them? Or that we'd know if we did anything about them?

I'm starting to think much of the "problem" in this sport is epistemological in nature.

nathaniel

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

[parachutist 1]

Quote

Most of the guys who are advocating regulations are making a point of saying that it is the "medium" experienced jumpers - 200 - 600 jumps who are the biggest problem.

That's what some are saying. Others, such as myself, are pointing out the fact that many 1,000+ experience jumpers are hooking it into the ground, trees, buildings, and other jumpers. To me, this means that it's not as simple as setting a scale for wing loading. People need to be taught how to fly a canopy and how to land it as safely as possible under any circumstances.

I've always thought it would be a good idea to add an intentional off landing to the AFF course... if a Farmer McFriendly could be located nearby. Force people to learn how to identify fences and power lines from high altitude and force them to learn how to deal with surprises at low altitudes. Seeing it on paper in a classroom is completely different from seeing it while you're descending toward it =]

I lean toward the idea of a mandatory canopy control course, with no wing loading restrictions imposed. After someone attends such a course and is made aware of the risks involved with highly loaded canopies... that person will have been provided with the pertinent information. I believe that people who choose to ignore this info at 200 jumps are the same people who will disregard it after 500. So the wing loading restriction idea appears to me to be unnecessary red tape. I think it would be better to teach people from jump #1, rather than sit on them til they got a 'D' license.

I think recommended wing loading is a good idea, but it doesn't need to be a BSR. I think a simple chart, such as the one listed below, published in the next USPA SIM would be sufficient:
http://www.funjump.com/photos/Wing_Load_Chart.jpg

Chris

[Ron 7]

The problem with your chart is it still lets 300 jump wonders have 1.5 with out any training.

It says its ok for them. But it is this number combination that is the most fatal.

300 jumps 1.5 Wingload.

Your chart would do nothing but tell people its ok.

Quote

I believe that people who choose to ignore this
info at 200 jumps are the same people who will disregard it after 500.

Except they would have 300 jumps more experience.
And might make a better judgment. I knew more at 500 jumps than I did at 200. I bet most people agree that they did as well.

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

[Ron 7]

Quote

For that matter, skydiving can be an academic exercise, and can certainly be simulated on computer

No the PHYSICS of skydiving can be shown on a computer. Skydiving can't be learned on a comupter or on this site.

There is no way to make skydiving an academic exercise.
If it was we would not need AFF, just a good class room session.

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

[Ron 7]

Quote

It makes me wonder what changes are significant and which are not,

At one time students HAD to jump rounds.
Students HAD to have a spring loaded PC.
ROL was considered safer than BOC.
You had to have 20 round jumps before you could jump a square.
AADs were very dangerous at one time, and you had a death wish if you jumped one.

Tell me, when was the last time you saw a round jumped?
B12's on a sport rig?
A ROL? A Belly band?
An FXC?
Someone threw WDI's?

The sport changes...In 10 years these wingloadings will not seem as bad as they are today, just like you don't put students out on rounds anymore, and AAD's are considered to be safe.

This is where experience comes in...The people that have been around awhile have seen the trends.

You would be amazed at the things that we do now that were "black death" 10 years ago.

Still it does not mean we should do nothing.

Ron

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

[JDBoston 0]

You need to read my post again. What I actually said was that the number of incidents where we would (even in an ideal world) be able to GET more than just a few of the relevant "facts" is statistically insignificant, NOT the total number of incidents.

You definitely don't need incident reports or stats to know that wing loading affects the difficulty of canopy flight and the margin for error, that higher wing loadings have more potential to break you than lower ones, or that wing loadings BELOW a certain level give you an inadequate amount of forward speed/penetration and flare power in average conditions. You just need experience and common sense - things, incidentally, that some people possess more of than others.

Joe

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

look no further than Mr. Kallend's freefall drift and exit separation simulations.

That's DR Kallend to you, Mister.

...

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

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

This is why people have been saying "listen to the guys with experience". The sport has gone through many major changes over the last 30 years. Many of those changes had significant safety challenges. Nothing in this sport is black and white and heck, there is not even much decent statistics available.

That is why experience is important......

Unfortunately, it seems that guys and girls with experience are also pounding in under canopy. There's not a lot to indicate that experience is a cure in this case. The cure is education.

...

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