Perris landing accident (from Incidents)

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

By your proposed regulations he would be free to jump whatever canopy he wished, so how would your reg's have affected the outcome of this situation?

The proposed BSR is based on the new license requirements, ie.e 500 jumps for a "D" license.

Hook

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

Quote

By your proposed regulations he would be free to jump whatever canopy he wished, so how would your reg's have affected the outcome of this situation?

The proposed BSR is based on the new license requirements, ie.e 500 jumps for a "D" license.

Hook

Doesn't matter what it's based on, you STILL don't know that it would have saved this accident from happening.

Zenister is quite right - you perceive a problem (probably correctly) but your diagnosis of its root cause is fatally flawed for several reasons, all of which have been previously described.

...

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

[billvon 2,406]

>Doesn't matter what it's based on, you STILL don't know that it would
>have saved this accident from happening.

It would have lessened the severity of this accident, all else being equal. Simple physics. If you reduce V, then .5MV^2 is reduced, and the injury is less severe.

[nathaniel 0]

I detect a curious parallel between the "it's worked for us up until now" argument used to justify arbitrary WL BSR's and the "I've landed this thing before" argument used by mad jumpers to justify arbitrary wing loadings.

I think in both cases one should ask for more before making a committment.

nathaniel

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

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

>Doesn't matter what it's based on, you STILL don't know that it would
>have saved this accident from happening.

It would have lessened the severity of this accident, all else being equal. Simple physics. If you reduce V, then .5MV^2 is reduced, and the injury is less severe.

All things being equal, you could reduce the severity of injuries to high time jumpers by restricting their wing loadings too. Plenty of high time (>500 jumps for the purpose of this proposal) jumpers are featured in the fatality reports.

...

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

[Hooknswoop 19]

quote]All things being equal, you could reduce the severity of injuries to high time jumpers by restricting their wing loadings too. Plenty of high time (>500 jumps for the purpose of this proposal) jumpers are featured in the fatality reports.

And with the new BSR, jumpers with less than 500 and more than 500 jumps will hammer in less. Initially because they are either limited to lower wing loadings, or must demonstrate the ability to handle higher loadings, and later because they have taken the time and put in the effort and received the training so that they don't hammer in later on.

Just like good initial training helps later on, good canopy training through the new "D" license will help when they have 2,000 jumps.

Again, the BSR will eventually affect all jumpers, the same way increased canopy control training for the "A" license is affecting up and coming jumpers. The BSR targets all jumpers, eventually. It can't miss.

You say we have misdiagnosed the problem because the BSR only mentions up to 500 jumps, the new "D" license. But the training they receive up to that point applies and will lessen incidents for higher experienced jumpers.

Hook

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

So no the BSRs wouldn't have had an effect here.

So are you saying that more education and training could not have made a difference in this incident?

That is what the BSR would have done for this jumper. That is the whole point of the BSR, make canopy training and education mandatory. It would only limit jumpers that wanted to exceed the maximum for their license and could not demonstrate the ability to jump a smaller canopy and chose not to get additional canopy training. These are the people that should be limited.

Hook

[Michele 1]

This is the part I don't understand, Derek.

How is making a BSR which restricts wingloading only going to address the issue of education? Isn't it set up to say "100 jumps, 1.1; 200 jumps, 1.2", etc? If someone wants to test out of it, fine, they can option the training. But it looks like someone, if they can show 100 jumps in their log book, can automatically get to the next level in w/l, without getting any education.

Further, I do believe that saying the BSR's would've helped this jumper (or any jumper) is akin to saying "see? I was right", and the truth is you can't make assumptions like that from the past - you can only change the future. Billvon put himself in a wheelchair at a 1.1 wingloading because he hit dead air, not because he was turning low (or something like that, in any event). The only thing which would've helped Bill at that point was education, more careful flight pattern flying, and understanding the physics of rotors...it wasn't a low turn. It wasn't a HP landing, and a 1.1 at about 90 jumps seems fairly conservative.

I agree wholeheartedly about education, and most folk understand that. I am not positive on my position on BSRs.

Just some observations...

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

This is the part I don't understand, Derek.

How is making a BSR which restricts wingloading only going to address the issue of education? Isn't it set up to say "100 jumps, 1.1; 200 jumps, 1.2", etc? If someone wants to test out of it, fine, they can option the training. But it looks like someone, if they can show 100 jumps in their log book, can automatically get to the next level in w/l, without getting any education.

Part of my suggestion/proposal is to increase the amount of canopy education and training required for the "B", "C", and "D" licenses beyond the accuracy requirements that are currently the only requirements for the "B" through "D" licenses. So even if a jump stays within the proposed wing loading maximum for their jump numbers, they will still receive more canopy training and education and have to demonstrate canopy control skills as a requirement for the next license. If they cannot demonstrate the skills, they either can get a restricted license, limiting them to their current wing loading or not get the next license.

Quote

Further, I do believe that saying the BSR's would've helped this jumper (or any jumper) is akin to saying "see? I was right", and the truth is you can't make assumptions like that from the past - you can only change the future. Billvon put himself in a wheelchair at a 1.1 wingloading because he hit dead air, not because he was turning low (or something like that, in any event). The only thing which would've helped Bill at that point was education, more careful flight pattern flying, and understanding the physics of rotors...it wasn't a low turn. It wasn't a HP landing, and a 1.1 at about 90 jumps seems fairly conservative.

True, saying that is this BSR had been in place this incident wouldn't have happened isn't a fair statement (and I didn't say that). I did say that with less than 500 jumps (the poster I was responding to misunderstood the proposed BSR as applying to the current licensing structure) he would have been affected. It is possible that with more training and education or maybe not being allowed at that high of a wing loading, the incident would not have happened or been less severe. It is also possible that it wouldn't have made a difference at all. I do know that it wouldn't have made it worse and it is probably that it would have helped.

Quote

I agree wholeheartedly about education, and most folk understand that. I am not positive on my position on BSRs.

I would have never guessed that I would have been in favor of a new BSR, but without it, people will not get the training and education they need. As you well know, canopy training is available, but so many people that can really use it don't get it. How can we get these people into the classroom and working with an Instructor on their canopy skills without a BSR requiring it? Peer pressure isn't working. The current system of S & TA's isn't working.

Hook

[Michele 1]

Quote

If they cannot demonstrate the skills, they either can get a restricted license, limiting them to their current wing loading or not get the next license.

O.K., so then the next question I have is your proposal does not have a jumpnumber dependent graduated w/l restriction? (Forgive me, I've read so many versions of things that I have gotten them mixed up). Your proposal ties it in solely and specifically - only to licenses (under the new jump number licenses which will come into play in september?)

So, in other words, if I've got that correctly, an A license jumper must remain at a w/l of 1.1 until they take their B license test, at 100 jumps. And then, they can go to a 1.2 w/l (with the proven skillset)? At 200 and a "C", they can go to a 1.3 w/l? and then, there they stay until, at jump 500, they can go unlimited with their D?

(OF course, the option to test out early notwithstanding...)...

How many people, do you think, will actually go to a class and take it every license? Or will they go to Joe Jumper, who doesn't know what/how to teach, and have them "help"? And how many jumps would it take to "test out"? If you have 6 different items on the test, that would mean 6 jumps, right? (Or do I have that wrong?)

Quote

True, saying that is this BSR had been in place this incident wouldn't have happened isn't a fair statement (and I didn't say that)

Sorry, again got some posts confused...

Quote

How can we get these people into the classroom and working with an Instructor on their canopy skills without a BSR requiring it? Peer pressure isn't working. The current system of S & TA's isn't working.

How well I agree with you.

I was never spoken to by an S &TA....
I was actively discouraged from taking the class...

I did it anyway, because I am not of the mindset that "chicks dig scars" (or in my case, "Dudes dig scars ), and I understand the meaning of deep tissue bruising.

Honestly? There are some people who will never listen. For those that will, it needs to be given as a good choice, a good option, a valuable thing. Like I said in another post, people come down from a jump critiquing the freefall portion, not the canopy flying part.

We stand in awe of people who, as they fly little pocket rockets, swoosh by us, garnering ohhhhhhhhhhs and ahhhhhhhhhhhs from the crowd. That is what we wanna be when we grow up - and like all folks, we don't want to wait to grow up until we can do that, too.

There is no peer pressure to take the class. However, I have talked to several folk, and they have opted to take the class - because I did.

When you teach, how do people know about it? Do you post about a class coming up? Do you go into the FJC, and make mention of it, a 5 minute "plug" at the end? Or do you wait for people to approach you? How do people find out about it? (and this goes to all instructors).

(Again, not poking at you, trying to think of ways to get the word out there that this is available, this is good, this is vital...)

The questions I would like to see answered is
1. why the S & TA didn't talk to me (hey, if it's happening to me, it's happening to others...)
2. How is the information about classes disseminated?

If the tools are there, let's see if there isn't a way to employ them prior to creating an unweildy system which will be pooh-poohed by the DZOs and jumpers alike...and the tools are there.

Just some thoughts...

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[billvon 2,406]

> How is making a BSR which restricts wingloading only going to address the issue of education?

Because those who most need the education (i.e. lowtime jumpers who want to jump high wing loadings) must get education before being allowed to jump high wing loadings under this proposal. Requiring education is a pretty good way to make jumpers get it.

[VectorBoy 0]

and was seen doing a 90 degree turn from base to final. Unless he was planning on landing crosswind and on the runway, he seemed to intend to set up for that HP landing. Billvon.
__________________________________________________
I thought you were a pilot? Base to final is a 90 degree turn. Downwind to base is also a 90 degree turn. Downwind to final is 180 turn total unless you got your protractor from a kids cereal box. Don't we all do a form of this? Straight in approach just means you did this farther out, higher up.

Diving 270s, 360s and 580s are manuevers that Bob Hover use to do while shooting at ground based targets from diving 51s and 39s back in world war two to sight in the guns on warbirds that were being reassembled after being surface shipped in crates to england . Oh and also the current crop of pro canopy pilots do this sometimes too without the whole machine gun part. But still very much on target.
I'm not going to disagree that he made an x-degree turn.
Your point should be TOO much bank Too close to the ground.

[ManBird 0]

Personally, I'd like to see more people speak with their S&TA. Fortunately, the S&TAs at SDO are also high performance canopy pilots. Before I try a new canopy, I approach the S&TAs and say, "You've seen my landings on my Sabre 120 lately. I want to try this Crossfire 109. Should I do it?". If the response is yes, they usually go on to give me all the warnings advice they can provide, and prepare me for the jump. If they don't say enough, I proceed to bug the hell out of them, "is there anything I should look out for? Is this canopy going to do anything that I think is weird, coming from a Sabre 120"? I usually get asked a lot of questions, as well. On top of this, I've taken canopy control classes on different levels of canopy flight, and, in fact, could go for another one pretty soon.

I've also been flat out told that I'd kill myself on a particular canopy that I was curious about flying, so I didn't fly it. People who don't know their bounds need to be taught their bounds by those who are more vastly experienced. The only reason people can downsize as quickly and as much as they do nowadays is that there is so much information available to inform them how to do it safely and properly. Some people, however, want to move down as quickly without getting the information or the training. I was loaded at 1.6 with 400 jumps, but I was taught how to do it safely, and I, nor my S&TAs thought I was going outside of my training (and therefore understanding and ability).

When someone else isn't properly informed or trained, and it shows in their canopy flight, the S&TA needs to step in. Right now, I think that they do, but the jumper may still choose to continue to fly outside of his ability. I don't think we need BSRs or licenses. I think we need S&TAs to straight up prevent jumpers from flying canopies they shouldn't fly. If the jumper resists... hell, chop that canopy the second he walks into the loft and tell him/him to hook up something bigger. If that's all s/he owns, they shouldn't consulted their S&TA before buying it.

All that aside, I am 100% pro-hardcore-canopy training. I bet the same people who have crappy skills for their canopy have gone to camps or undergone training for their freefall discipline. I bet the last canopy training they received was in their AFF course. I don't recall learning anything about high performance landings in my AFF course. We all fly canopies. We should all continue to learn to fly them for our skill level the same we continue to learn our freefall disciplines.

Edited to add: I'm not saying I have ultra skills, just that I'm having fun safely.

"¯"`-._.-¯) ManBird (¯-._.-´"¯"

Click

[Ron 7]

Well put.

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

[bwilling 0]

Quote

people ARE going to die, particularly in high risk endeavors.

That is so true. But... I'll reiterate my point that in the sport of skydiving, the parachute is supposed to save you!

Look, I started jumping back in 1978-1983... took off a few years (well, 17 years) to raise a family and the like, and started jumping again in 2000. Honestly, I was shocked to find out that people forgot this basic fact (that the parachute is supposed to save you), and were in fact killing themselves in record numbers under parachutes that could have saved them.

It's not just a wingloading thing. It's an attitude thing. Twenty years ago, nobody (that I can remember) did high performance landings under canopy. Yet people still occasionally were injured or killed under good canopies (most lightly loaded), almost always the result of unintentional low turns (that still happen today!).

Jumping a higher wingloading does not cause someone to be injured or killer under canopy, although I don't think that anyone here will argue the fact the the higher the wingloading, the smaller the margin of error, and the greater the chance of injury or death when an error is made. It's what they do under that canopy that causes them to be injured or killed.

High performance landings are not going away. High wingloadings are not going away, and it's a raging debate over whether we need to impose mandatory restrictions to control them... which might help reduce the numbers of injuries and deaths, simply by giving people a greater margin of error...

Me, I think our best chance is in education, and attitude shaping. Everyone has to be involved, and if it takes making canopy flight education mandatory through BSR changes, I'm all for it. Raging debate aside, I'd also support mandatory WL restrictions...

What I don't think we can do... is nothing. There's a problem, and statistical analysis aside, too many people are being hurt and killed under parachutes that could have saved them.

"If all you ever do is all you ever did, then all you'll ever get is all you ever got."

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

too many people are being hurt and killed under parachutes that could have saved them.

What would be an acceptable number, then? Don't answer "zero"; given the nature of skydiving, zero is not achievable.

...

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

[craddock 0]

Quote

It would have lessened the severity of this accident, all else being equal. Simple physics. If you reduce V, then .5MV^2 is reduced, and the injury is less severe.

I need to go back and read your proposal again. Does yours not allow a higher wingloading if the jumper takes a canopy control class. If so, how does a canopy control class reduce V.

I am surprised that some of you really believe that these fatalities or injuries WOULD(not could) have had a different outcome with more training. It could have and in some cases it probably will. But people will still have bad judgement, panic at inopportune times, ect. Education may or may not help this part. This is not to say I am against education, but I have pointed out to you where it clearly did not work and you questioned the education even though it was coming from a very reputable instructor.

Some people will never be competent and safe under high winloadings regardless of how much training they have. It is not because they do not understand it, but because they can not physicaly apply it and for you to assume otherwise in favor of you argument is not right.

That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

[bwilling 0]

Quote

What would be an acceptable number, then? Don't answer "zero"; given the nature of skydiving, zero is not achievable.

I do agree that zero is not achievable, and wouldn't have suggested that. Skydiving was in the past, is now, and will probably always be, a dangerous sport.

Let me do some research, and I'll get back to you.

"If all you ever do is all you ever did, then all you'll ever get is all you ever got."

[billvon 2,406]

>If so, how does a canopy control class reduce V.

It does not; it allows you to increase V. A skilled canopy pilot has no problem landing higher performance canopies at higher speeds. It is the unskilled canopy pilots who have trouble.

>I am surprised that some of you really believe that these fatalities or
> injuries WOULD(not could) have had a different outcome with more
> training. It could have and in some cases it probably will.

I have never said it was guaranteed; it is, however, likely.

>Some people will never be competent and safe under high
> winloadings regardless of how much training they have.

I agree, and if they can't pass the canopy control course, they don't get the exemption.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

What would be an acceptable number, then? Don't answer "zero"; given the nature of skydiving, zero is not achievable

I agree that zero isn't realistic. That is the goal, unachievable as it may be. I would be happy with a reversal of the trend, which is what spurred these proposals in the first place.

A declining fequency of landing incidents for all experience levels is a realistic goal.

Hook

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

I agree, and if they can't pass the canopy control course, they don't get the exemption.

But part of the proposal was after X number of jumps you can fly whatever you want. They don't need an exemption.

[Ron 7]

Quote

But part of the proposal was after X number of jumps you can fly whatever you want. They don't need an
exemption.

Yep, because that after 500 jumps you have gained more experience than you could possibly have at 300. And with experience we hope you have gained some knowledge and skills.

There HAS to be a way to test out for the advanced student...but there also has to be a way for a person to follow a normal progression to the same end.

The goal of this BSR is to make people get training and PROVE that they can handle a higher wingload before being allowed to fly it. But we also have to let people progress if they can't get the instruction.

Ron

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

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

But we also have to let people progress if they can't get the instruction.

Why? It's a loophole. If there's going to be a rule governing WL in an effort to make sure people are skilled enough to fly it, why have a built in loophole? Why not have a skills test for everyone and take jump numbers out of the picture?

[Ron 7]

Quote

Why? It's a loophole. If there's going to be a rule governing WL in an effort to make sure people are skilled
enough to fly it, why have a built in loophole? Why not have a skills test for everyone and take jump
numbers out of the picture?

Well, if the rule was to make EVERYONE pass a test before they can jump a high WL..Then you could take the jump numbers out of it. I am not against this kind of rule, but to make EVERYONE test out would be very hard...There would be a lot more work into this kind of path. And to be honest this would have no chance in hell of passing.

The graduated WL to jump numbers allows someone to progress at a moderate pace without jumping through hoops..

Only the ones that want a high wingload without a certain degree of experience would have to go out of their way to jump a high WL.

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

[Scrumpot 1]

Quote

Well, if the rule was to make EVERYONE pass a test before they can jump a high WL..Then you could take the jump numbers out of it. I am not against this kind of rule, but to make EVERYONE test out would be very hard...There would be a lot more work into this kind of path. And to be honest this would have no chance in hell of passing.

Why? ...Why would that be so hard, and further have "no chance in hell" of passing? Please elaborate.

The premise itself seems at least to make some sense. I'm just not so sure about the shooting it down with blanket statements like this. Aren't you now doing what you have accused others of doing to you? Seriously. If you can elaborate a bit rationally as to why this (if it does seem to make sense as even you say yourself -you might not be against either) would this option not be worthy of being seriously considered, and then in fact maybe even proposed further?

coitus non circum - Moab Stone