Canopy loading restrictions take 3

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Ok thats you...But thats not everyone.

Some of us care about the sport, the future of it and the people in it.

But if you don't care, why argue the point?

That's completely unfair. If his opinion is that additional regulation is unnecessary and will lead to more of the same, it's because he cares about the sport and doesn't want that to happen. Just because some people don't agree with your opinion doesn't mean they are any less caring.

[Ron 7]

Quote

That's completely unfair. If his opinion is that additional regulation is unnecessary and will lead to more of
the same, it's because he cares about the sport and doesn't want that to happen. Just because some
people don't agree with your opinion doesn't mean they are any less caring.

Dude he just wrote:

Quote

I have raised four sons to adulthood. That's enough nannying for a lifetime. If an adult refuses to
take
good advice, it's on his or her head IMO, it's not my job to force the issue.

Now, how did you read that?

He is saying that he has done his share of holding hands...So is it an issue with him not thinking that there needs to be something inplace, or is it that he does not care....The quote makes me think its the 2nd one.

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

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Quote

i think most people do listen, and dont want regulation forced on us for the few who do not and then fuck up
spectacularly.

As you like to say: Have any hard numbers to prove that? Or is it just a guess?

wish i did, i've been pretty vocal about the lack already, but lets just ask 'experience' then,

how many people are there who are flying wings successfully in 'violation' of the proposed numbers?
how many do you know?
have you met?
have you heard about? in comparison to the ones everyone hears about when they screw up?

i'm one. I put nearly 200 jumps on canopies at 1.3 before my 'numbers' caught up with me. I guess i shouldnt have made those 200 because someone else with the same jump numbers hurt themselves doing it? really? how many people hurt them selves? out of how many jumps and number of people who did not?

until you can prove there is a clear threat to the majority I will not be in favor of any mandatory regulations.

Increased education i will always back.

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

[freakydiver 0]

I've been jumping 1.4 since less than 100 jumps and I'm doing okay... GRANTED, I did receive proficient training and education from a local safe swooper that has never hurt himself.

Education education education!

-- (N.DG) "If all else fails – at least try and look under control." --

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

Quote

I have raised four sons to adulthood. That's enough nannying for a lifetime. If an adult refuses to take
good advice, it's on his or her head IMO, it's not my job to force the issue.

Ok thats you...But thats not everyone.

Some of us care about the sport, the future of it and the people in it.

But if you don't care, why argue the point?

Ron

I believe the future of the sport is best served by improved education. As I have said before, I have no objection to overhauling the licensing requirements and adding more canopy skills.

...

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

[nathaniel 0]

Please accept my most humble apologies

nathaniel

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

[boinky 0]

Quote

If this is correct Nina, then I think you have not read the discussions correctly.

I understand the discussions well. What we are discussing is trying to make a rule that would make all jumpers follow the exact same wing loading just by license levels or jump numbers. But it would not be a fair rule. People mature at different stages. What one person might "get" in 500 jumps, another might "get" in half the time, especially if they chose to take additional lessons. Is it fair to make the more responsible person suffer because of an irresponsible daredevil?

I still believe that it is not just the people with 500 and under jumps that are causing the risks. It is said that you can't teach an old dog new tricks. There are many people with over 1000 jumps that do dangerous things under canopy. Many times these dangerous things cause others to have accidents, trying to avoid that jumper. How many times have we been standing near the landing area of a DZ and heard someone yell "Hook It" at an incoming parachutist?

Hypothetically, let's say that this new wing loading rule was created. Who's going to be able to enforce it 100% of the time? S & TA's can't be everywhere all of the time. Canopy companies can restrict the purchase of new canopies, but there is no way to stop the sale of used canopies. It would still be too easy for a person to get a canopy that would not be "acceptable" for their level of license. They could then put it into their rig and jump it, perhaps unsuccessfully, before anyone even knew what was going on. It's too late to stop someone who's already permanently stopped themselves from lack of education.

I recently began learning the discipline of Canopy Relative Work under a very responsible and thorough crewdog. I also attended a beginner's course for CRW. Some people were horrified and told me that I needed to learn my own canopy before attempting this. While I realize that I still have so much more to learn, I believe I have learned more canopy control lessons in 3 months than I probably would have learned in 3 years without education.

I support a mandatory Canopy Control Class for every jumper to complete before they can get that first license. I also believe that in that class, there should be a "Shock" video. Something that would show a realistic portrayal of the risks and consequences of doing the wrong thing. They say that "A Picture Is Worth A Thousand Words." Where a word might be forgotten, hopefully that picture in their mind will resurface from time to time, reminding them what could happen to them if they choose to be that careless daredevil.

"Only the mediocre are always at their best." If given the opportunity, I know very few people who would turn down an education that would make them better parachutists now and could someday save their lives.

Nina

Nina

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

[billvon 2,406]

>I understand the discussions well. What we are discussing is trying
>to make a rule that would make all jumpers follow the exact same
>wing loading just by license levels or jump numbers.

That's not what we're discussing. See the first post in this thread.

>Is it fair to make the more responsible person suffer because of an
>irresponsible daredevil?

Yes. I can safely pull at 800 feet with a modified skydiving rig and my BASE canopies; I "suffer" because less responsible people choose to jump more snively canopies.

I have jumped into two stadiums and done ~40 demos (10 at night) into very tight areas. I have no pro rating, yet someone who has never, ever jumped into a stadium can do it on their little ZP canopy if they have a PRO rating; I'm not allowed to do it even on my accuracy canopy. Fair? I'd say yes. If I do want to do that I can prove my abilities by getting a PRO rating.

>I support a mandatory Canopy Control Class for every jumper to
> complete before they can get that first license.

There is already one in the ISP, but it is a very basic one (since the jumpers at that point are, well, pretty basic.) The intent of all this discussion of recommendations is to guide the people who need it into advanced canopy control classes. In every proposal I've put forth, once you take that canopy control class, you can jump whatever you want. That's the objective. Restricting canopy sizes will not save someone's life after they have 500 jumps and get out from under the restrictions, but getting them into a canopy control course when they have 200 will go a long way towards saving their life.

[bigbro 0]

These recommendations are a good idea, and probably what nearly every AFF instructor out there already steers their students towards. Putting them in the SIM will unlikely change much. Making them a rule will also do little to change the current situation. Rules only apply to those who follow them.

If these people with bad attitudes don't listen to you now (giving the same advice) what makes you think they will listen to your rules or recommendations just because the are written in a book published by USPA.

The simple fact is people are going to get hurt and die flying parachutes, and no matter what we do, the faster these parachutes get, the more people get will hurt and or die. I think you intentions are good, but the approach is flawed. There is no rule or regulation that can legislate good judgment. Why do we insist on protecting people from themselves?

To prevent these accidents, the culture of skydiving needs to change not just a set of rules. Swooping small fast canopies is cool, and many people are not willing to take the time to develop the skill required, they think they are different. Peer pressure is the most effective weapon against this type of problem.

I accept that there are a certain number of "egos" out there that I will not be able to teach/help and I just move on to the ones that will listen. There is no reaching some people. (This is where a good S&TA should step in not a BSR) The best approach I know of is to offer help to those in need of it; if it is refused, ostracize those that conduct themselves in an unsafe manner. Eventually they will tire of solo jumps and either shape-up or ship out.

The skydiving community will never unanimously accept criteria for wing loading; we are all very independent people, many of which skydive as some form of rebellion. All a set of wing loading rules will do is give them new thing to rebel against.

For those who want to learn to fly parachutes safely there is a wealth of knowledge out there (internet/DZ's/canopy schools.). The same people that would follow the rules/guidelines are likely the ones who would have sought instruction anyway.

I think your heart is in the right place but your time would be better spent befriending one or two of the people you see as "at risk" and teaching them, rather than proposing legislation. This type of change cannot be imposed on a group by rules, but instead must emerge as a movement from within!

[Ron 7]

While I agree with what you say,

Quote

If these people with bad attitudes don't listen to you now (giving the same advice) what makes you think
they will listen to your rules or recommendations just because the are written in a book published by USPA

The same thing that made people start pulling higher when the Pull altitude BSR came out.

Quote

Why do we insist
on protecting people from themselves?

Because we already do....Manditory training in a FJC, age limits on alcohol,and tabacco, min age to drive, skydive ect....

Quote

To prevent these accidents, the culture of skydiving needs to change not just a set of rules. Swooping
small fast canopies is cool, and many people are not willing to take the time to develop the skill required,
they think they are different. Peer pressure is the most effective weapon against this type of problem.

And some still will not,listen.

Quote

The skydiving community will never unanimously accept criteria for wing loading; we are all very
independent people, many of which skydive as some form of rebellion. All a set of wing loading rules will do
is give them new thing to rebel against.

The same thing was said about the pull altitude BSR.

Quote

think your heart is in the right place but your time would be better spent befriending one or two of the
people you see as "at risk" and teaching them, rather than proposing legislation.

How about I teach those that will listen, and try to regulate those that don't?

Quote

This type of change
cannot be imposed on a group by rules, but instead must emerge as a movement from within!

why not both?

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

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Quote

If these people with bad attitudes don't listen to you now (giving the same advice) what makes you think they will listen to your rules or recommendations just because the are written in a book published by USPA

The same thing that made people start pulling higher when the Pull altitude BSR came out.

its unlikely many people started pulling higher simply because a rule said they should.

its more likely the majority of people decide where to pull based on canopy and dive type/size, AAD use etc as well as what they feel is safe for their own personal risks. The "rule" is probably pretty far done the list of motivating factors. Its still the same decisions they should make about canopy choice and landing styles. Good fundamentals and better recomendations for future advancement are good things. Mandatory regulations are not.

those who still wanted to pull lower likely found 'safer' ways to do it consistantly

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

[winsor 186]

You all can argue back and forth all you want regarding who is qualified to jump what canopy. You may or may not be right.

What I want to see is some way to get a handle on people impacting at high speeds under perfectly good parachutes. One way to start is to somehow link canopy size to experience. "The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong. That is, however, the way to bet."

If you have 107 jumps and want to jump a Class V canopy, fine. Jump your ass off and get some quality experience under your belt and you'll have all the qualifications anyone could ask for soon enough. If it's not that important, don't sweat it.

I have just as much fun under Class I canopies as I do under Class V. I jump both about equally.

If you want to learn how to drive like a maniac, the best thing to do is to push the envelope in a car suited to learning - something forgiving that you can beat the shit out of without concern. Something from Hertz, for example,

Then, when you get ahold of a Ferrari, powerslides, bootlegs and the like are second nature. Trust me.

It is said that the limits of the Kodak Brownie have yet to be reached (by professional photographers). I have shot a couple of rolls of Tri-X with a fixed focal length rangefinder camera and wound up with a two-page spread for my efforts, while someone using Kodachrome in an SLR with all the bells and whistles burned up a mess of film and had nothing but badly composed and framed snapshots for his effort (in all fairness, he didn't know the difference and was quite pleased) - not one photograph in the lot.

If you can fly a Triathalon loaded at 1 psf to anything like the limit of its capabilities, you are one hell of a canopy pilot and don't really need something loaded at 2:1 to have lots of fun.

If you are going to practice landing with rear risers, steering with combinations of all six major controls and exploring the world of canopy formation flight, it isn't a good idea to do it under something ground-hungry and unforgiving.

if you're going to stick around in the sport, you will have plenty of opportunity to fly radical equipment all you want by any of the policies that are under consideration. If you're tenure in the sport is likely to be brief in any event, don't sweat it.

In the meantime, please focus on developing the skillset that will keep you out of the incident roster. THAT is the real goal here.


Blue skies,

Winsor

[cloud9 0]

This seems to be very reasonable and looks on the surface like it would be very beneficial to all. However lets look a little deeper. I have asked before and am sincere when I ask again where do you draw the line? Is it ok for a jumper with 1000 jumps to frap in but not ok for a jumper with 200?

I guess what I mean by this is 72 of the first 75 wing suit jumpers burned in. With this mentality would we have wing suits today? Or would we have said the cost is to high?

I remember when squares malfunctioned less then every 100 jumps and people were killed jumping them. Would we have squares today?

What happens if you stop 200 jump folks from killing themselves under canopy and all you have left is 1000 jumps folks dying is that ok? If it is to you, look around you because someone standing nearby is saying no its not ok, we need to stop that too.

I have nothing but respect for the idea of saving our bother and sisters, but still have many questions about the methods.

[Zenister 0]

I agree 100% with what you are saying. So long as those are guidelines, good words, wisdom to follow, and not "you must do this at this point and not before" rules to be enforced on everyone without regard to any number of factors that affect the rate at which an individual learns.

no one is arguing against the pursuit and dissemination of knowledge. I am particularly against arbitrary requirements. Leave decisions about canopy progression to the people who are flying the canopies and the people they should be learning from. The only reason peer pressure wont/isnt working is if the peers and their instructors, coaches ST&As, concerned friends etc.. dont take a personal interest in any jumper they are worried about.


the definition of 'fun' is also a very personal thing, do we now need regulation defining what is "to much" or "just enough" for each skydiver?

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

[VectorBoy 0]

[reply

I have jumped into two stadiums and done ~40 demos (10 at night) into very tight areas. I have no pro rating, yet someone who has never, ever jumped into a stadium can do it on their little ZP canopy if they have a PRO rating; I'm not allowed to do it even on my accuracy canopy. Fair? I'd say yes. If I do want to do that I can prove my abilities by getting a PRO rating.

[SkymonkeyONE 3]

I have a PRO rating and have met the qualifications to jump my primary demo main (StarTrac 1), as small as my old H-mod Cobalt 75, and as big as my Sigma 370 and MC-4 (375). I have also jumped into more than a few bowl stadiums. That said, even though I have the qualifications to do so, I would never consider putting anything other than my "real" demo main into a bowl stadium. Off topic a tad maybe, but I thought that was definitely worth a comment.

Chuck

[Ron 7]

He could have done them BEFORE the PRO rating existed.

I did several Demos before the rating existed...

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

[Ron 7]

Quote

its unlikely many people started pulling higher simply because a rule said they should.

Really? If I was told that I pull at the right altitude, or never jump at that DZ again...I'd pull at the right altitude. The "high" pullers we have now are due to equipment, and lack of low altitude exits. But the BSR has made plenty of people pull higher.

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

[Ron 7]

Well I found another DZ with WL restrictions.
Our own DZ Raeford.

I will leave it to skyone to post it, but It was not all that bad.

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

[Zenister 0]

Quote

But the BSR has made plenty of people pull higher.

i doubt it. Rules dont make anyone do anything. The majority of people i've asked do things because they believe it to be best, not because the rule says they should..often the rules say they shouldnt and they still do anyway...

cultural changes & peer pressure to comply are more influential than any written law..

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

[VectorBoy 0]

Quote

Quote

But the BSR has made plenty of people pull higher.

i doubt it. Rules dont make anyone do anything. The majority of people i've asked do things because they believe it to be best, not because the rule says they should..often the rules say they shouldnt and they still do anyway...

cultural changes & peer pressure to comply are more influential than any written law..

I know many more people that fear a cypress fire & two out much much more than the wrath of the S&TA.

[billvon 2,406]

>I know many more people that fear a cypress fire & two out much
> much more than the wrath of the S&TA.

That was not true before the advent of the Cypres as the 'standard' AAD (i.e. when the rules were first put into place.) I have long believed that one of the most important thing the cypres has done for the sport was to inch up opening altitudes, and make jumpers more aware of the 800 foot hard deck.

[freakydiver 0]

"To prevent these accidents, the culture of skydiving needs to change not just a set of rules."

Its about time someone gets it. IMHO of course.

-- (N.DG) "If all else fails – at least try and look under control." --

[Ron 7]

Quote

I know many more people that fear a cypress fire & two out much much more than the wrath of the S&TA

Today, but not 15 years ago.

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

[sducoach 0]

Help me understand. Prior to the Cypres, the AAD's we had were far less accurate, would fire under most canopies flown aggressively unless shut off, and created several dual deployments that I myself witnessed. How did the Cypres increase our opening altitudes? I thought our snivelly canopies did that?

Blues,

J.E.

James 4:8