Supporting data

[billvon 2,471]

First off, here's my proposal again. See below for details.

A license (25 jumps) - 1 psf max
B license (50 jumps) - 1.1 psf max
C license (200 jumps) - 1.3 psf max
D license (500 jumps) - no limit

It is waiverable by an S+TA.
It does not apply if you take a canopy control course.
It does not apply if you already had that canopy when the restrictions go into effect.

Note that the biggest thrust of this regulation is not to regulate but to get people into canopy training courses. Lack of training, not lack of regulation, is what's killing people.

-----------------

This is what I could get from USPA and my own searches. Wing loading was not tracked before 2000, so much of the data is simply not there.

2001 35 deaths
Of those, 14 deaths were due to canopy control problems. 2 collision, 2 hit something or landed in water, 5 unintentional low turn, 5 intentional low turn. The 5 intentional low turn victims all had over 500 jumps. Of them, 3 were due to getting in the corner due to plain lack of skill; the other two were equipment failure and turbulence. The 5 unintentionals were:

39 1.16 Turn low to avoid power lines
70 1.21 Turned low; landed on the side of a hill in a turn
300 1.02 Demo jump; turned too low
4000 unknown Demo; not much known
170 1.5 Turned low while trying to land in a small off-DZ area

So in 2001, the restriction part of the BSR could have saved 3 lives, and the opt-out-training part of the BSR could have saved another 4. Total of 7.

2002 33 deaths
Of those, 7 intentional low turn, 2 unintentional low turn. 4 were pond swoop fatalities. None of the pond swoopers had any canopy training at all that anyone knew about, formal or informal.

Intentional low turn:

1500 ?? Pond swoop, drugs
700 1.7 Pond swoop attempt
404 ?? Recently downsized and had been warned several times
275 1.6* Pond swoop attempt
270 1.5? Recently downsized and had been warned (spaceland?)
170 1.4* Pond swoop attempt
161 1.4 90 degree turn to final; did not recover in time


201 1.12* Low turn to avoid power lines (zara)
135 1.0* Low turn to avoid a fence (coolidge)

* - not USPA stats; from web searches

So in 2002, the restriction part of the BSR could have definitely saved 3 and likely 5. The training part could have saved another 1. (I am assuming the drug involved fatality was caused by impairment not lack of training, although he had no training.) Total of 6.

So that's 13 people over 2 years whose deaths may have been prevented. 6.5 a year average.

[freakydiver 0]

Just my thought seeing this trend in other higher risk sports...

"So that's 13 people over 2 years whose deaths may have been prevented. 6.5 a year average."

You are assuming that lower wingloadings would prevent these deaths from occuring. Maybe these people would still hook in their lower loaded canopies closer to the ground?

Just a thought.

But - I do like your ideas Bill - well thought out.

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

[tombuch 0]

Great research! Thnks for making the effort. One of the big things missing in your numbers is injuries. I'm betting the same picture would emerge if we had good numbers on wing loading and injuries. A less loaded parachute allows more recovery and a greater margin for error, and that should equal not only fewer dead people, but fewer and less serious injuries.


Tom Buchanan
Author, JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

Tom Buchanan
Instructor Emeritus
Comm Pilot MSEL,G
Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

[frig 0]

Why is there not more focus on the canopy control courses? I have seen a couple people with 200+ jumps routinely make bad decisions (and eventually get hurt) where their license# and jump# say they should be more experienced. I have also seen a few with 50-100 jumps with great canopy control and decisions. We have a written test for licensing, how about making a canopy test that requires an instructor to approve for licensing?

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Why is there not more focus on the canopy control courses? I have seen a couple people with 200+ jumps routinely make bad decisions (and eventually get hurt) where their license# and jump# say they should be more experienced. I have also seen a few with 50-100 jumps with great canopy control and decisions. We have a written test for licensing, how about making a canopy test that requires an instructor to approve for licensing?

That's what I was saying, but everyone thought that would be too hard to administer.

[billvon 2,471]

(freakydiver said)


>You are assuming that lower wingloadings would prevent these deaths from occuring.

Well, that's actually not the primary reason I see fatalities decreasing. Instead, I see the same people jumping the same loadings, just with more education. One of the assumptions that you have to make is that all these people will still want to jump these canopies; a large percentage of them will take a canopy control course since that's a way to get out from under the rules and still jump their highly loaded canopy.

So I'm making two assumptions. One is that education will reduce canopy fatalities, and I think that's a fair assumption. Two is that people are not hammering themselves on purpose; they hammer themselves because they screw up, and the same screwup will be more survivable if they are at a lower wingloading.

(tombuch said)

>One of the big things missing in your numbers is injuries.

Yep, and that's one of the things really frustrating Jim Crouch at USPA headquarters. According to comments on the renewal forms, 1275 skydivers needed medical attention in 2002 due to skydiving accidents. He only got 58 accident report forms. So they are simply not being reported.

(frig said)

>Why is there not more focus on the canopy control courses?

Uh, that's what my proposal is all about. The intent is to get people who want to jump small canopies at low experience levels into canopy control courses, not to restrict them to light loadings because light loadings are safer.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Why is there not more focus on the canopy control courses?

Becvause it isn't required and the people that really need don't believe they need it.

Hook

[PhillyKev 0]

If the primary goal is to encourage people to seek training, what about really simplifying this and just making a requirement for a class and test for anyone to jump anything with 1.3 or higher wingload?

[billvon 2,471]

>what about really simplifying this and just making a requirement for
> a class and test for anyone to jump anything with 1.3 or higher
> wingload?

Because forcing John LeBlanc to take a canopy control test would be silly. I think that people gain a better appreciation for risks as they progress through this sport, and thus greater restrictions should be placed on newer jumpers.

[PhillyKev 0]

I would still grandfather in existing jumpers above that wingloading.

Quote

I think that people gain a better appreciation for risks as they progress through this sport, and thus greater restrictions should be placed on newer jumpers

Ok, so how about 1.2?

[freakydiver 0]

Hey I'm ALL FOR edumakation! It just the last time this thread got all hounded after, people just kept saying no.

Not really my point - point is I think you are right on. Education is the only way to do it up. I flew my Sabre 135 since 90 jumps WITH proper education the entire way through...

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

[PhillyKev 0]

Actually, 1.2 isn't good because people will do that at 50 jumps and then they're free to downsize like mad. I think 1.3 is better. It should hit the targetted people. I don't think the brand new jumpers are the ones going too small, it's more along the lines of those between 100-200 jumps.

Along with any of these proposals that include education, there should be some guideliines as to what that should entail ala student training.

[craddock 0]

Quote

So in 2001, the restriction part of the BSR could have saved 3 lives, and the opt-out-training part of the BSR could have saved another 4. Total of 7.

Key word is Could. I am sure Ron and skybytch will come on here and claim I think canopy control classes are bad but I will say this anyway.

About a month ago Scott Miller held a Canopy control class at one of my local dropzones. Of the 5 jumpers in the class, two of them broke a bone the following weekend. One broke an ankle and the other broke his femur in 2 places. A third jumper is an accident waiting to happen. I just got off the phone with my buddy who told me todays downwind(highwinds) flirtation with a fence. He has been advised to use a different landing area -since the course. I hope he does not get hurt but he does not listen very well. Took a few physics classes and knows everything about canopy flight.
Canopy training is a valuable asset for some, but that does not mean everyone can apply what they have learned. There are many teachers that are not as good as the students they are training. Look at the coach/athlete.
I also believe in risk compensation. I suppose it can be defined many ways and it may not really fit here, but in my mind it does.

Also is the S&TA going to be as likely to step in and ground someone who has done the training to opt out, or has 500 jumps but is in over his/her head if he feels the USPA has taken pressure off him for this duty?

Are we going to see an increase of jumpers getting smaller canopies after they have taken a canopy control course because it is now their right to do so?

Is NOT having a manatory canopy conrol class really a step in the right direction? Jumpers hitting 500 jumps who have obtained a D licence and downsizing
beyond their abilities. There are plenty of people out there now that have a D who have not meant the requirements.

Josh

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

[billvon 2,471]

>About a month ago Scott Miller held a Canopy control class at one of
> my local dropzones. Of the 5 jumpers in the class, two of them
> broke a bone the following weekend. One broke an ankle and the
> other broke his femur in 2 places.

I've never taken Scott's class, but sounds to me like he might be emphasizing the wrong things. If I had lots of students screw up majorly after my FJC's, I'd get talked to about changing how I teach it.

>Also it the S&TA going to be as likely to step in and ground someone
> who has done the training to opt out or has 500 jumps but is in over
> his/her head if he feels the USPA has taken pressure off him for
> this duty?

In general they aren't doing this now; what would change?

>There are plenty of people out there now that have a D who have not
>meant the requirements.

Right, and there will be people who try to get around this rule as well (and many will succeed.) It will simply give most people more impetus to take canopy control courses, skew some jumpers towards larger canopies, and give DZO's / S+TA's ammunition with which to stop people who are on the road to serious injury or death. Like a pull altitude BSR, it will not _make_ people do the right thing, just provide a framework to help them do the right thing (and to help others enforce it.)

[craddock 0]

Quote

In general they aren't doing this now; what would change?

Are we really expected to hear the stories when someone is not allowed to jump? That does not make good headlines. I think it happens more than we hear about. I have seen it happen quite a bit. clearly it does not happen as much as some would like. When I started jumping other DZ's and people found out I had xxx # of jumps after seeing me throw 270's, the S&TA heard about it one way or another. More than once I was spoke to and then observed for a couple of jumps before they were comfortable letting me jump there. I am sure you never heard about those situations. I am not saying nothing is wrong, but to put a blanket statement that no one is doing it right; just to make a proposal fit is not right. It is the ones that I fear could stop once USPA takes some weight off of their shoulders.

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

[billvon 2,471]

??? You said that a canopy control plan would make it harder for S+TA's to ground people, i.e.

"Also is the S&TA going to be as likely to step in and ground someone who has done the training to opt out . . "

I said that doesn't happen very often even now. To refute it, you posted a story of how you _didn't_ get grounded? Not sure what your point is there.

S+TA's talk to people a lot. They make suggestions. They do this now. They will do it if my plan is implemented. That won't change.

>More than once I was spoke to and then observed for a couple of
> jumps before they were comfortable letting me jump there. I am
> sure you never heard about those situations.

Uh, I _was_ an S+TA and did just that. That's different than grounding people.

[nathaniel 0]

thank you for shedding some light on the potential effects of education. I am starting to think that blanket education requirements are just as bad as blanket WL recommendations.

Here's a possible sequence of events

1. more canopy classes offered / required
2. leads to more people maxing out their canopy performance envelopes / absolute risk level increases
3. leads to more accidents

Education helps stop people under-estimating their risks, but it also helps stop people over-estimating their risks. When we say that education will lead to fewer accidents, we are saying that jumpers are consistently under-estimating their risks. I have seen no data to support this--interviewing only the injured doesn't count, it's a biased sampling method.

This is not to say that education isn't a good idea for other circumstances.

I honestly believe the problem with low-time high-WL is one of risk preferences -- education doesn't necessarily solve issues of risk preferences.

Here's another idea: how about subsidizing safe jumpers? Institute a 5+% USPA jump tax and give a USPA sponsored 5% discount on jump tickets to jumpers that haven't injured themselves in the last n years or m jumps. Next time your buddy with 100 jumps and a 1.7 WL thinks about hurting himself / herself s/he'll have another reason not to.

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 1,679]

Quote

Great research! Thnks for making the effort. One of the big things missing in your numbers is injuries. I'm betting the same picture would emerge if we had good numbers on wing loading and injuries. A less loaded parachute allows more recovery and a greater margin for error, and that should equal not only fewer dead people, but fewer and less serious injuries.


Tom Buchanan
Author, JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

Another thing missing is the a comparison with the total number of skydivers in each experience category. There is no way to know if the low experience group is actually at higher risk - maybe it's the high jump number skydivers who, proportionally, are killing themselves at a higher rate.


On the whole I like making canopy training a required part of the B-C-D license criteria, then the educational effect will filter up to all experience levels. The WL restriction rule will not necessarily have this effect. We see from Bill's analysis that people with lots of experience can quite effectively kill themselves too.

...

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

[craddock 0]

Quote

??? You said that a canopy control plan would make it harder for S+TA's to ground people, i.e.

No I did not say that. Your acting like Ron and Lisa.
I asked if it would. note the ? It was something to give people to think about. The second time I did say that "I feared" it, which I regretted right after I posted it. Even if I do fear it. It is a far cry from me saying it would.

Quote

I said that doesn't happen very often even now. To refute it, you posted a story of how you _didn't_ get grounded? Not sure what your point is there.

My point is that at several DZ's they paid very close attention to make sure I could safely fly the canopy. I did not have many jumps but had been flying the 107 for a while and had no issues convincing them. I feel comfortable saying form the reaction before seeing me land it that they would have had no problem grounding me. My point is that they were doing the job you say they are not doing. They had no reason to ground me other than jump numbers and they were not even that low now that I think about it. Just an S&TA doing his job

I don't know mabey your right. They could have been all talk and no bark to ground someone. I should have used examples of others I have seen not allowed to jump.

At any rate I do believe they are doing the job more than we here. We usually only hear about it when there not.

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

[billvon 2,471]

>how about subsidizing safe jumpers? Institute a 5+% USPA jump tax
> and give a USPA sponsored 5% discount on jump tickets to jumpers
> that haven't injured themselves in the last n years or m jumps.

Nowadays, with new jumpers jumping 1.5 to 1 canopies, the very first mistake can put them in the hospital or the morgue. I think we'd feel pretty stupid giving jumpers a 5% safety discount on the jump they kill themselves on.

[billvon 2,471]

>My point is that they were doing the job you say they are not doing.

No, I was responding to your post in which you asked "is the S&TA going to be as likely to step in and ground someone who has done the training to opt out?" That's the job they are not doing now, at least to any large degree.

I did not say they are not doing any other job. If you really want to argue things I didn't say, argue about something interesting at least, like I'm against free beer and for mandatory anchovies on pizza. That'll really get people going.

>Just an S&TA doing his job.

Yep. Many S+TA's do a good job indeed giving advice.

[skybytch 259]

Quote

Your acting like Ron and Lisa.

Until I start saying "you're acting like craddock" to people who's posting style I disagree with, please refrain from doing the same about me.

A refresher of the forum rules may be enlightening.

[sducoach 0]

Advise on the DZ.C is free. There is a difference between value and worth.

Some times you just get what you pay for................

Blues,

J.E.

James 4:8

[Ron 7]

Quote

Key word is Could. I am sure Ron and skybytch will come on here and claim I think canopy control classes
are bad but I will say this anyway.

Nope...I have only pointed out your attitude...not challenged your comments.

I think that education is the key...but youre example shows that it is not the whole picture. Less experienced jumpers should not have high wingloads, unless they can PROVE they can ahdle them...

Which is why I like a test they have to pass, not just take a class.

And thats why I think they should be able to qualify for the PRO under the current canopy before they are allowed to downsize out side of the WL restrictions Germain came up with .

Ron

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

[Ron 7]

Thanks for posting this....It is better written than the one I have posted before.

I see 18%-19% possible "Save" rate....

If this were a buisness, it would of already been put in place.

Ron

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