WL recommendations

[Ron 7]

Quote

Well, duh. The question is should you need to be a pro rated canopy pilot in order to jump your canopy?
That's ridiculous. So where do you start? On a student canopy until you can get your pro rating, then you
can move down one size to what's probably a smaller student canopy and get your pro rating again?

No, you only need to be able to qualify for the PRO if you wanted to exceed the standard rate..

So if you just wanted to jump..you could you would just have to stay in the WL BSR.

If you were the type that wanted to downsize faster than the plan...You would have to prove you have the skills to do it.

So not everyone would have to do this only the eager learners.

Ron

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

[skybytch 259]

Quote

There will be fierce opposition to it, so what's the point.

Because, like the mountain, the problem is there. It's a problem many of us feel strongly about. Personally I can't not do what I am capable of doing to affect the problem in a positive way.

[billvon 2,435]

>Just because you can't land in a 5 meter diameter circle on 10
>declared jumps in a row doesn't mean you can't fly your canopy.

Someone who can land their canopy accurately is a better canopy pilot than someone who can't.

>Particularly if you are talking about an HP canopy. One of the things
> that Clint Clawson told me was not to worry so much about the spot
> where you touch down, but rather the path of your swoop.

It doesn't matter if the path of your swoop is carefully calculated if it ends in a barbed wire fence. A good canopy pilot swoops where we wants to and lands where he wants to. He is in charge of where he ends up, not the canopy or the winds. If you can't land where you want, that's something to work on.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Someone who can land their canopy accurately is a better canopy pilot than someone who can't.

Aggghhh!!! I'm not arguing that point. And I agree there should be specific, demonstrable skills that can be evaluated, hell, I proposed that earlier in the thread (or the other one). But you're talking about going from no restriction at all, to a very restrictive restriction (to be redundant redundant).

Quote

No, you only need to be able to qualify for the PRO if you wanted to exceed the standard rate..

So if you just wanted to jump..you could you would just have to stay in the WL BSR.

If you were the type that wanted to downsize faster than the plan...You would have to prove you have the skills to do it.

So not everyone would have to do this only the eager learners.

Ok, that's not so bad. But I still think getting a pro rating every time you want to downsize is a little extreme. Plus, it overlooks other things that should be judged.

Here we go:
5 jumps

Of those 5:
-At least 1 no/light wind accuracy jump
-At least 1 moderate wind accuracy jump
-On one of the above drop a mat or similar marking device at the point where they are supposed to land when on final and have them avoid it as if it's an obstacle. And don't count accuracy, just avoidance.
-At least 1 cross wind jump

[quade 3]

Quote

Why not the PRO? I can do it under my 107 and 96?

Requiring PRO type accuracy from a person with 50 jumps so that he can go from a 1:1 loaded canopy to a 1.1:1 canopy is -way- over the top.

Ron -- sure you can do it, but that's not the point. You shouldn't be using yourself as a standard for other people with less experience.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Ron 7]

Quade...read the other thing I wrote....

It would be used only if you wanted to exceed the WL BSR....
If you didnt care, you could stay in this one:
100 1.1
200 1.2
300 1.3

If you wanted to downsize where it would take you out of this..Then you have to qualify on your current canopy. This would show that you have enough skill under that wing and are ready for another.

Quote

Requiring PRO type accuracy from a person with 50 jumps so that he can go from a 1:1 loaded canopy to a
1.1:1 canopy is -way- over the top.

He would only need it if he wanted to go 1.2 to one.

Ron

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

[geronimo 1]

Forgot One

5. If a WL Limit BSR was announced to go into effect x many months from now, there could possibly be a rush to downsize. That would be interesting to watch.

Other points:

Your USPA PD/PL insurance is valid IF AND ONLY IF you follow the BSRs. This is explicitly stated in the insurance policy.

Ramp gear checks do take place. DOB gave me one once at Skydance because I didn't have that extra tag they put on the reserve handle.

USPA is a non-regulatory organization. The BSRs are stated as REQURIEMENTS. The rest of the SIM are RECOMMENDATIONS. A BSR violation at most means your membership status is not in 'good-standing'.

BSRs that are waiverable at the S&TA level are generally not good in practice. There are about 10% of S&TAs that will not waive a BSR no matter what it is because it potentially could bring additional liability upon them if a jumper is hurt or killed because of the waived rule.

Waivers for a WL Limit BSR would more than likely be granted on a drop zone basis as opposed to an individual basis.

BSRs that are waiverable at any level indicate that the rule is beyond minimal safety standards. The easier it is to waive indicates how much above minimal safety standards it is.

Most jumpers do not care if a know-it-all jumper disregards advice from others & then does something stupid. Most jumpers do not loose sleep over this. At most, they'll say 'I told you so.' It is the bad PR that goes along with these accidents that concern most jumpers. That can be 'fixed' by telling the press that this jumper was warned and told numerous times about his impeding doom.

Jumpers reaching the A-license level have an understanding of the learning curve for RW (RW, CRW, vRW), but usually do not have an appreciation of canopy progression. RW has organizers to meter how quickly people get in over their heads. Canopy progression does not. The closest equivalency is gear dealers and instructors. That can be circumvented because of jumper-to-jumper gear sales.

A SIM section on Canopy Progression would work the same way the sections on Advanced Progression. Most student jumpers do read the SIM. Jumpers studying for a license or rating also read the SIM. If you build in a healthy appreciation for canopy progression early on, you have a much better chance of getting people to listen to your sage advice.

Kallend - I asked HQ about that fatality file that you gave me a year or so ago. They said they did not have it. I think you somehow lucked out on getting that file.

Ron - Your "Do I need a min pull altitude for every make of canopy at each license level?" is an argument for NOT having a WL Limit BSR.

Billvon - Your argument (in another post that I cannot find) that jumpers watch the fatality rate of such-n-such and then adjust their behavior based on the number of fatalities or injuries does not scale to a generalized concept. Your logic would indicate that jumpers would say 'Well, there haven't been any landing in powerlines fatalities, so it must be safe. I think I'll give it a go.'
And I'll repeat " Lots of text is not in there because either it is 'standard stuff' or I did not type it in."

---
I have a dream that my posts will one day will not be judged by the color of the fonts or settings in a Profile but by the content.
Geronimo_AT_http://ParachuteHistory.com

[billvon 2,435]

> Your argument (in another post that I cannot find) that jumpers
> watch the fatality rate of such-n-such and then adjust their behavior
> based on the number of fatalities or injuries does not scale to a
> generalized concept. Your logic would indicate that jumpers would
> say 'Well, there haven't been any landing in powerlines fatalities, so
> it must be safe. I think I'll give it a go.'

No, my argument was that, in the absence of rules, people do not train themselves to prevent such accidents. If water landing fatalities go down, people do not land in water just because they figure they will give it a go. However, if there are almost no water landing fatalities, no one will go out of their way to get water training. Why would they?

[FliegendeWolf 0]

Quote

Most jumpers do not care if a know-it-all jumper disregards advice from others & then does something stupid. Most jumpers do not loose sleep over this. At most, they'll say 'I told you so.' It is the bad PR that goes along with these accidents that concern most jumpers. That can be 'fixed' by telling the press that this jumper was warned and told numerous times about his impeding doom.

Hi Jan,

I liked your "talking-to" so much, and one point that that really drove home was that stupid skydivers hooking themselves in is not the whole problem - it is stupid skydivers killing other skydivers who are trying to be safe. I won't be downsizing fast. I'll be happy with my .9 wingloading for a while. I'll be sure that my airspace is clear when I turn and get into a landing pattern. But I sure as hell do not want to be taken out by someone who doesn't give a shit.

A One that Isn't Cold is Scarcely a One at All

[Vallerina 2]

Quote

5. If a WL Limit BSR was announced to go into effect x many months from now, there could possibly be a rush to downsize. That would be interesting to watch.

Hmm...With the economy expected to take a huge hit and plummet shortly, I doubt many will have the cash to rush to downsize, unless they are going to purchase a canopy worth less than their current one (not likely, but that did happen to me.) Most people won't be able to afford new, shiny stuff, and I'm not sure if the motivation that they won't be able to a few months down the road is enough of an incentive. If they want to downsize, they'll probably do it now, anyways.

Quote

Most jumpers do not care if a know-it-all jumper disregards advice from others & then does something stupid. Most jumpers do not loose sleep over this.

Agreed. However, do jumpers lose sleep over a new timer buying gear based on ignorance? Yes, that is his/her own fault that they did not research enough, however, there are many dzs out there that will not warn a person that they may be in over their head by downsizing too quickly.

Quote

Your logic would indicate that jumpers would say 'Well, there haven't been any landing in powerlines fatalities, so it must be safe. I think I'll give it a go.'

But there have been fatalities of others involving powerlines. We've all known since we were little children that powerlines can hurt you. No one believes that having a parachute over your head will make powerlines safe to play with. Also, there have been incidents involving obstacles.

I do like Billvon's WL recommendation based on license. That makes sense to me, since certain skills need to be shown before getting a license.

Kallend's right in saying that no one has shown the data to support this. Nobody goes to a company suggesting major changes based on, "Well, Bob's seen a lot of problems going on with it...." So, we don't have the data needed to show that this will really have an impact. However, I don't see how a BSR could hurt anything, either (and I know, just because it doesn't hurt doesn't mean it's going to help.) But, I'm pretty sure that most of us have at least one good friend in the sport who wouldn't have been bed-ridden, disabled, on crutches, etc if this BSR would've existed.

There's a thin line between Saturday night and Sunday morning

[kallend 1,649]

Quote

just look at the last two years John

Well, Bytch says it's ten years and you say it's two years and apparently none of you have bothered to get USPA's accident statistics (like I did over a year ago) and analyze them.

Is there something wrong with this picture?

...

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

[kallend 1,649]

Quote

Quote

So you have studied 10 years worth of landing accident data? You bothered to obtain the actual USPA database and analyse it?

Please give us a synopsis, the more detail the better.

Did I say I had one? No.

What I have is a historical perspective. Unlike many debating this issue, I was a skydiver ten years ago. It's fairly obvious to me that, in my experience, more jumpers are getting hurt or dying under perfectly good canopies today than were getting hurt under perfectly good canopies in 1993.

I started selling new and used gear in 1996 - which was also before many of those debating this issue had even thought of making a jump. I sold far fewer used rigs for former jumpers who got hurt back in 1996 than I did in 2002.

I can't make data that doesn't exist magically appear. You know as well as I do that the information needed to make a decision based on statistics isn't available.

Oh, and I am glad that the Prof and others are picking holes in these proposals. Hashing it out here will make responding to the same nitpicking at the board level much easier.

Well, you say ten years and Ron says two years and apparently neither of you have bothered to get USPA's accident statistics (like I did over a year ago) and analyze them, so neither of you really knows what's actually happened over this timeframe.

If you take this proposal to the USPA with such little analysis behind it, you'll get absolutely nowhere.

...

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

[quade 3]

Quote

USPA is a non-regulatory organization. The BSRs are stated as REQURIEMENTS. The rest of the SIM are RECOMMENDATIONS. A BSR violation at most means your membership status is not in 'good-standing'.

However, with regards to the FAA, the SIM is considered to be a standard practice. See AC 105-2c and 8700 Volume 2 Chapter 49 just as examples.

Although it is not government regulation, it does carry quite a bit of weight with the FAA in the same way that the Aeronautical Information Manual is not technically regulatory, but is considered to be standard practice.

Deviations from any written standard practice will get you into trouble with the FAA if there is an incident or accident.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kallend 1,649]

Quote

Kallend - I asked HQ about that fatality file that you gave me a year or so ago. They said they did not have it. I think you somehow lucked out on getting that file.

I must say "pretty please" nicer than you. Very careless of them to lose it!

...

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

[Ron 7]

Ok look at 10 yeras it is the same thing...Hell look at 20 years..

As the canopies become alvailable people with out the experience will get them....And with out training a large number will get hurt.

It has been this way for years. Round vs square.
Square vs Eliptical...

It goes on..

But only last year did the avg number of dead folks drop FAST AS HELL... And the reason is because people with 300 jumps now CAN get them so they will. This trend will continue until guys are wanting a Stiletto 97 with less than 100 jumps...OH wait that is already happening!

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

[Ron 7]

Quote

Ron - Your "Do I need a min pull altitude for every make of canopy at each license level?" is an argument for
NOT having a WL Limit BSR.

No it is a reason why the WL number do not have to be taken down to the nth degree.

It is showing that a 2000 foot rule is good...you are responsable to know that your canopy snivels, mal ant a greater rate ect....But don't bust the deck.

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

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

5. If a WL Limit BSR was announced to go into effect x many months from now, there could possibly be a rush to downsize. That would be interesting to watch.

Then only give 30 days notice. The only people that will be able to rush to downsize, will be people with cash on hand, wanting a canopy that is on the shelf. Also, if they want and are able to downsize before they are ready, then it only proves that the current system is broken.

Hook

[TIJ 0]

------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from skybytch (to Craddock):

What I have is a historical perspective. Unlike many debating this issue, I was a skydiver ten years ago. It's fairly obvious to me that, in my experience, more jumpers are getting hurt or dying under perfectly good canopies today than were getting hurt under perfectly good canopies in 1993.
-----------------------------------------------------------



What are we arguing about here? No one (Skybytch or Craddock) has said they are against changing things in order to make a safer skydiving environment. Just different approaches to the same problem. Some people like Craddock who make a minumum of 300 jumps a year and who perhaps has more ability than others to land a canopy, are naturally going to be opposed to strict restictions that limit the progression of people that have the passion, time, and dedication to learn. This is not a spectator sport and time in sport, if you're sitting on the ground, doesn't carry a whole lot of weight in my book. Less than a hundred jumps a year is not something I would be proud of, maybe your time would be better spent making jumps at the dz and trying to help people make these desicions. I came a cross a student the other day that had 20 jumps over three years, and I offered to take him up and waive all instructor fees for the year if he promised he'd make 50 jumps this year. Needless to say he didn't jump and I haven't seen him since, and unless his motivation to jump changes I don't really care to see him again.


------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from jceman (to Craddock):

I only have one question for you, sir:

would you please make me your beneficiary?

Oh and a request, too:

as a sponsor of the PST, please do not try to enter competitions with your know it all attitude. I hate cleaning up messes.

You have people with a whole lot more knowledge and experience saying one thing and you saying things to the contrary -- who is most likely right?
------------------------------------------------------------

jceman, there's a difference between knowledge (time in sport) and experience. Some of my fellow jumpers kids have many years of time in the sport sitting around on the ground, but have never made a jump. These kids are pretty knowledgeable and could probably teach a FJC. Point is you're trying to put down someone that doesn't come to the dz to sit on the ground and give others advice, but jumps with students and coaches them with a hands-on approach. (You don't learn to fly your body or land a canopy by reading a book or sitting on the ground and talking about it.) Nor do you change policies by making posts here, you get out there and jump while helping young jumpers make the right desicions. Anyway, let's talk about attitude. How many years do you have in the sport? With 600 jumps I hope you say 2, if it's anything more than 4, I would bet you're one of those that go to the dz, to sit on the ground and talk about skydiving, meanwhile you're throwing some money at the PST for your sponser so you can look important. If I'm wrong and your time in the sport is less than 4 years, I'll recant the last sentence.

-TIJ
Remember this next time you're at the dz:
"Eat when it's dark, sleep when you're dead."

[VectorBoy 0]

However, Brett (a different one) would have been. He won the slalom at the last Perris swoop meet. At that meet he said something very interesting to me:

"Bill, I remember you were always giving me shit because I was jumping canopies that were too small, and you were always telling me to get coaching. I ignored you, and I really fucked up my leg. When I got back, I got coaching from some people, and even upsized. And that made a huge difference. I should have listened to you."

[billvon 2,435]

>I hope you are not refering to the swooper that had a rear riser block
>come off during a carve on the swoop course?

No; his original accident happened a long time ago, long before he won that meet.

[VectorBoy 0]

Yes, back in 2001 I believe, august or september. Riser block not properly stiched correct? Equiptment issue or skill related?

[billvon 2,435]

>Yes, back in 2001 I believe, august or september.

The original incident happened in 1998-1999.

[VectorBoy 0]

I didn't know he was in the sport that long. I was led to believe he was averaging 1000 jumps a year.
Was the first incedent a swoop gone bad or just an accident at too high a wing loading?