colbrodie 0 #26 June 11, 2003 I'm all for it too, Ron. Jumps: 400+ Wingload: 1.2 and I LOVE my canopy! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rhino 0 #27 June 11, 2003 I'm against BSR. 390 jumps so far. 1.95 150+ on current canopy. 50+ on a Diablo110 at 1.7 before that. I LOVE my canopy. But some call me NUTS!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nathaniel 0 #28 June 11, 2003 education w/o hard regulation. a pinch over 1.0, 88 jumps, over 1.1 when I put all my weights on. Would this proposed regulation mean I need special training to belly-fly with weights? But I don't need special training to do head-down without? I understand and share the desire to increase safety, but I'm not buying into the argument that decreased WL directly translates to fewer or less severe accidents. Less severe accidents of a particular type OK, but it doesn't matter to me whether a jumper hurts him/herself one way vs another--I don't think that hook-turn injuries are less desirable than other types of injuries I think they all suck equally. Has it occurred to any of the proponents that people jumping at higher WL might tend to do more crazy sh!t in general? That forcing WL decisions on people maybe isn't taking into account all factors that determine injury / fatality rate? What-if scenario to get a feel for your stance on regulation: What if we instituted hard WL regulation and as a result no-one with less than 500 jumps hurt his/herself doing a hook turn, but one year later the total injury and fatality rates for persons < 500 jumps was the same as before the WL rule -- other types of accidents became more prevalent among low-timers. Would you conclude that WL regulation is inappropriate? What if in our fantasy world WL regulation was then repealed, and the injury/fatality rates for low-timers still stayed the same. Would this be proof that the temporary WL regulation was hogwash? I think that reflex regulations and wing loading are both symptoms of greater problems. I could be persuaded that WL regulation is worthwhile, but it will take more than blanket "it'll reduce the injury rate" statements. WL regulation has cost, and to make me think it's worthwhile I need explanations not promises. I concede that many (most!) of the people here have far more skydiving experience than me, but that only reinforces my belief that we can do better than "we have a hunch it will do good". Road to hell and all. nathanielMy advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites geronimo 1 #29 June 11, 2003 QuoteWhats yours? Please include Wingload and # of jumps. Ron et al......... This is an FYI type post. Keep in mind that only about 1/3 of the USPA BOD actually reads this forum. If you want to make sure they hear your voice you have to either email them directly or use fullboardATuspa.org The process of a new BSR: A proposed BSR goes through the Safety and Training Committee, then the full BOD. If a proposed BSR is fully endorsed by the S&T Comm. then usually the motion will pass. When there is a split in the S&T Comm. there's no telling if the motion would pass. I would like to point out that there are two of the 6 S&T Comm. members that have already stated on this forum that they would be opposed to WL limitation BSRs. I do not know what the rest of the committee thinks. I do know that John Leblanc of Performance Designs is also opposed to WL regulation. It just does not work right- even in the countries that have such restrictions. There are many reasons for this. The BOD pays attention to people in the field that are considered experts in a certain area. John Leblanc is such an expert. We all want to see these low turn or off site injuries or fatalities eliminated. We realize that a WL restriction might mitigate the injuries. Such a rule would be unwieldly to implement. You gave several reasons for that, so I do not have to convince you of that. We also realize that skydivers are an independent lot and should not be restricted unnecessarily. I encourage anyone that has an idea to write the BOD directly. I also encourage you to be flexible in that idea. Many times a second, third or ump-teenth iteration of an idea works - not the first cut. You might think it is kind of stoopid of me to help you get your proposal through the USPA political process. I do not want to see your BSR WL limitation in place. I think that there is some middle ground - something yet to be defined - that will help eliminate these injuries and fatalities and still give other jumpers freedoms. Iterate. WL on my PD 170 0.85-1 WL on my Safire 149 0.97-1.14 somewhere around 5000 jumps. I have absolutely no desire to land at 20 mph or more.--- 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lauras 0 #30 June 11, 2003 Quotemore focus should be put on canopy flight instead of back flips and front flips and barrell rolls all of which I haven't had to do since AFF Do you understand why you had to do the flips & barrell rolls during AFF? Have you ever had an unstable exit? What did you do - a front flip or a back flip? I think most of us can agree that learning to get stable is a fairly important part of AFF . Yes, more focus and time could/should be placed on canopy flight, but that should be in addition to the education students currently receive - not instead of. As for me, 625 jumps, 1.25 wingload depending on whether or not I've been to the gym and BSRs are fine by me, but I highly doubt that will ever happen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites okalb 79 #31 June 11, 2003 Has anyone noticed that the majority of the people opposed to the proposed BSR are the people with lower jump numbers. I am not saying that there aren't any higher experienced people that are opposed, but it just seems odd that the "older" jumpers that have seen it all happen over and over again are for regulation while the newbies all fight against it. Interesting.... 1400 jumps 2.0 (100% for regulation)Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nathaniel 0 #32 June 11, 2003 have you noticed the proposed bsr would not affect people with high jump numbers a ha nathanielMy advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ladyskydiver 0 #33 June 11, 2003 Hey, Oren! I'm opposed to the BSR. I have 114 jumps and my current wingloading is 0.91 to 1. I'm in absolutely no hurry to downsize. I still have a ton to learn with my canopy. I've taken a canopy class with Scott Miller and am seriously considering taking it again when he's at our DZ in the fall. Just for a refresher. I'm trying to learn as much as I can about my canopy and landings. I think we've got a good system in place. Yes, people are getting hurt or killed which totally sucks!!! But, the reality is that skydiving is a dangerous sport. Everyone going into it knows that you can die from this sport - be in your screw up or someone else's that happens to be in the air with you. Would I like to see zero injuries and zero deaths? Hell yes!! Reality is that it will never happen. I'm very lucky with the DZ that I belong to and the DZ's I've visited in that I can ask questions and get answers. And a lot of the "old timers" in the sport are more than willing to give me advice when they feel I need it. Or to yell at me if they feel I need it. I respect that. Adding another BSR is not going to change what is happening right now. What will help change things is people being willing to take newbies under their wings. If some new face shows up at the DZ, someone (S&TA or whomever) goes up and introduces themselves to the newbie and gives them a tour of the DZ which has questions asked - what are you flying? What's your wing loading? etc. Rules and regs - a way will be found to get around them. It's just like speed limit laws. They are there. Theoretically, everyone follows them, but in reality, there is always someone that will push the limits. Will push what their capabilities are. We can not regulate safety 100%. To do so would be to stay on the ground and not fly. Because you do not need to land....if you never jump out of a plane.Life is short! Break the rules! Forgive quickly! Kiss slowly! Love truly, Laugh uncontrollably. And never regret anything that made you smile. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,478 #34 June 11, 2003 > but I'm not buying into the argument that decreased WL directly >translates to fewer or less severe accidents. It does. I have a very good friend who is still with us because she was jumping a loading of about 1.1 to 1 when she screwed up bigtime. She came very close to dying; another few MPH, a few less square feet and I would have spent a day at a funeral home instead of 3 months sitting with her in rehab. >I don't think that hook-turn injuries are less desirable than other types >of injuries I think they all suck equally. I agree; but hook turn DEATHS suck a lot more than hook turn injuries. A lighter loading will turn many potential fatalities into serious injuries. We can learn from a serious injury; we can't learn once we're dead. >Has it occurred to any of the proponents that people jumping at higher > WL might tend to do more crazy sh!t in general? Not sure what the point is here. If they kill themselves driving drunk it's really not an issue for this thread. >but one year later the total injury and fatality rates for persons < 500 > jumps was the same as before the WL rule -- other types of accidents >became more prevalent among low-timers. Hmm. If a completely new kind of fatality started (i.e. people started trying to land wingsuits) then I would consider it simple evolution of the sport - we are once again pushing the limits and paying the price. If overall fatalities from all causes went up then you might have a good argument. >I could be persuaded that WL regulation is worthwhile, but it will take > more than blanket "it'll reduce the injury rate" statements. I don't really make any claims about injuries, just fatalities. If you restrict loadings to those greater than X, and require canopy training to exceed that number, you will cut down on fatalities. From the beginning of 2002 to now, 3 people died because they didn't know how to turn low to avoid something. 7 simply turned too low to survive under their wing loadings for whatever reason - attempted hook turn etc. We can't ask them why they did it. Of those 7, 6 had under 500 jumps, and 5-6 had loadings of over 1.3 to 1. Look at Ron's original post for the details. So we have ten jumpers who would almost certainly be alive today if they had gotten canopy training, and most likely to be alive if they had been restricted to a lighter loading. Can anyone guarantee that they would survive? No. We have to use our best judgement there; there are no certainties with this stuff, >WL >regulation has cost, and to make me think it's worthwhile I need >explanations not promises. Ignoring the problem also has a very real cost. It's hard to put a price on human lives, but whatever that price is, we've paid ten times that price over the past year or so. The question is - what's the best way to go? The best way, hands down, is simple education. Get people into canopy control classes. Unfortunately, the people who really need to be there are not the jumpers who are conservative on their canopy selection and want to learn more - Michele is a good example of this. The jumpers who really need the education are the jumpers who are sure they don't need any education. They are good enough, careful enough, skilled enough etc to not need it, at least until they get injured/killed. So any optional canopy control thing is, to me, similar to doing nothing. We have canopy training now. It's not getting to the people who need it. How do we do it? Putting a restriction on what they can jump until they _do_ get the training is one way to do it. I'd be open to others, but I haven't heard a good one yet. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nacmacfeegle 0 #35 June 11, 2003 I've been watching this firestorm from across the pond with interest. I'm voting for education without regulation. This doesn't mean that I don't recognise an issue here, but I do believe the 'regulation' should be at a local level. So much of assessing a jumper's ability rests in actually knowing the jumper concerned, their attitude towards learning, and progresion, character, general awareness, availability of peer advice, physical condition, currency, etc. I reckon the answer lies in local policing rather than a blanket control. Although some reconised guidance would certainly help the situation, eg the adoption of the Dutch system, Brian Germain's guidance or similar, which also recognises canopy type. In the UK our CCIs (equiv of US S&TA) will ground you (after several words in your small and shell like) if they think you are pushing the limit, which makes them kinda nazi-like, but it does seem to have an affect, if you have issues with the local 'police' go somewhere else. The other problem I see is the availability of canopy coaches at smaller or more remote DZs, and the issue of visiting foreign jumpers. I do agree that 'something has to be done'. I'm just not sure that enforced education will make a huge reduction on the incident rates. I don't indulge in HP landings, I've learned the hard way and am lucky to be able to talk about it. 1200+ current wl app 1.6, I've lost too many valuable friends to badly judged HP landings.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites samp76 0 #36 June 11, 2003 0.9:1 to 1:1 depending on how big of a lunch I ate. I have just under 50 jumps. -Sam-Let go of the NUT!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Tonto 1 #37 June 11, 2003 Limit wingload to jump numbers and a training program. When we were killing people in freefall we figured out a way to keep them alive. Now that we're killing them under canopy we should figure out a way to keep them alive. My wing loading is 1.7 I have 3900 skydives tIt's the year of the Pig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites psw097 0 #38 June 11, 2003 I'm for natural selection. The gene pool is already getting thin with AFF programs graduating students that cannot spot, cannot pack and are scared to get out below 6K. I'll guess that liability would become an issue if a BSR was implemented. Do you want to be the canopy coach that graduates little johney to an "open" canopy a week before he pounds in? Or, the DZO where someone above the stated WL eats dirt. With WL it is an easy connection between the accident and the "rules" - Good chance the lawyers will jump all over it. 1200 jumps. Current wingloading - 1.9 to 2.5 on my mains, 1.7 and 1.5 on reserves. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites okalb 79 #39 June 11, 2003 Hiya Cora, QuoteI have 114 jumps and my current wingloading is 0.91 to 1. I'm in absolutely no hurry to downsize. If everyone thought like you, we wouldn't have a problem, but they don't and we do. QuoteI've taken a canopy class with Scott Miller and am seriously considering taking it again when he's at our DZ in the fall. Just for a refresher. I'm trying to learn as much as I can about my canopy and landings. Once again the exception not the rule. We have to create regulations for the lowest common denominator not the exceptions. That is why I do believe in a "test out" process where you could get that rocket that you want if you prove that you can handle it. QuoteI think we've got a good system in place. Yes, people are getting hurt or killed which totally sucks!!! But, the reality is that skydiving is a dangerous sport. Here is where I strongly disagree. The system that we have in place clearly doesn't work. I have only been skydiving for 5 years and the number of people that I have seen hurt or killed under canopies that they were not ready for is absurd. Most of those people had been spoken to by the "old timers", but every one of them thought that they were the exception not the rule. They were all wrong. Sydiving is a dangerous sport, but if there is a simple way to make it substantially safer, why would anyone be opposed to it? QuoteEveryone going into it knows that you can die from this sport - be in your screw up or someone else's that happens to be in the air with you. And everytime someone dies doing something stupid and unnecessary, it hurts all of us. QuoteI'm very lucky with the DZ that I belong to and the DZ's I've visited in that I can ask questions and get answers. And a lot of the "old timers" in the sport are more than willing to give me advice when they feel I need it. Or to yell at me if they feel I need it. I respect that. Not that I consider myself an "old timer" by any means, but I spend a lot of time working with lower experienced jumpers and the majority that I see don't want to hear it. They know better. The problem is most of the people who hurt themselves under higher wingloads have not been around long enough to understand why they are being stupid. Forcing them to either wait or prove their skills will only make them safer one way or the other. What is the harm in that. QuoteWhat will help change things is people being willing to take newbies under their wings. I can say first hand that this DOES NOT WORK. I take newbies under my wing all the time and they all want to know about freefall skills, but few want to hear about canopy skills. They all have this "I can land it fine" or "I stand up all my landings" attitude. They don't understand that being able to land it and being safe under it are not the same thing. QuoteRules and regs - a way will be found to get around them. If there is a regulation in place it makes it easier for the rest of us to stop you from doing it. Telling people "You know it is a really bad idea and here is why" hasn't worked so far. QuoteWe can not regulate safety 100%. I don't want to, but this is a simple thing and there is no denying it will at least help the situation I am not trying to take away your right to jump or even your right to jump something stupid. All I am saying is that we can postpone your jumping something that you are not ready for at least until hopefully you understand why you are being stupid. Those that think they are the exception should have no problem proving their skills. If they are as good as they think they are, they can prove it and buy what they want. I bet you will find that most are NOT as good as they think they are. Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #27 June 11, 2003 I'm against BSR. 390 jumps so far. 1.95 150+ on current canopy. 50+ on a Diablo110 at 1.7 before that. I LOVE my canopy. But some call me NUTS!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nathaniel 0 #28 June 11, 2003 education w/o hard regulation. a pinch over 1.0, 88 jumps, over 1.1 when I put all my weights on. Would this proposed regulation mean I need special training to belly-fly with weights? But I don't need special training to do head-down without? I understand and share the desire to increase safety, but I'm not buying into the argument that decreased WL directly translates to fewer or less severe accidents. Less severe accidents of a particular type OK, but it doesn't matter to me whether a jumper hurts him/herself one way vs another--I don't think that hook-turn injuries are less desirable than other types of injuries I think they all suck equally. Has it occurred to any of the proponents that people jumping at higher WL might tend to do more crazy sh!t in general? That forcing WL decisions on people maybe isn't taking into account all factors that determine injury / fatality rate? What-if scenario to get a feel for your stance on regulation: What if we instituted hard WL regulation and as a result no-one with less than 500 jumps hurt his/herself doing a hook turn, but one year later the total injury and fatality rates for persons < 500 jumps was the same as before the WL rule -- other types of accidents became more prevalent among low-timers. Would you conclude that WL regulation is inappropriate? What if in our fantasy world WL regulation was then repealed, and the injury/fatality rates for low-timers still stayed the same. Would this be proof that the temporary WL regulation was hogwash? I think that reflex regulations and wing loading are both symptoms of greater problems. I could be persuaded that WL regulation is worthwhile, but it will take more than blanket "it'll reduce the injury rate" statements. WL regulation has cost, and to make me think it's worthwhile I need explanations not promises. I concede that many (most!) of the people here have far more skydiving experience than me, but that only reinforces my belief that we can do better than "we have a hunch it will do good". Road to hell and all. nathanielMy advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
geronimo 1 #29 June 11, 2003 QuoteWhats yours? Please include Wingload and # of jumps. Ron et al......... This is an FYI type post. Keep in mind that only about 1/3 of the USPA BOD actually reads this forum. If you want to make sure they hear your voice you have to either email them directly or use fullboardATuspa.org The process of a new BSR: A proposed BSR goes through the Safety and Training Committee, then the full BOD. If a proposed BSR is fully endorsed by the S&T Comm. then usually the motion will pass. When there is a split in the S&T Comm. there's no telling if the motion would pass. I would like to point out that there are two of the 6 S&T Comm. members that have already stated on this forum that they would be opposed to WL limitation BSRs. I do not know what the rest of the committee thinks. I do know that John Leblanc of Performance Designs is also opposed to WL regulation. It just does not work right- even in the countries that have such restrictions. There are many reasons for this. The BOD pays attention to people in the field that are considered experts in a certain area. John Leblanc is such an expert. We all want to see these low turn or off site injuries or fatalities eliminated. We realize that a WL restriction might mitigate the injuries. Such a rule would be unwieldly to implement. You gave several reasons for that, so I do not have to convince you of that. We also realize that skydivers are an independent lot and should not be restricted unnecessarily. I encourage anyone that has an idea to write the BOD directly. I also encourage you to be flexible in that idea. Many times a second, third or ump-teenth iteration of an idea works - not the first cut. You might think it is kind of stoopid of me to help you get your proposal through the USPA political process. I do not want to see your BSR WL limitation in place. I think that there is some middle ground - something yet to be defined - that will help eliminate these injuries and fatalities and still give other jumpers freedoms. Iterate. WL on my PD 170 0.85-1 WL on my Safire 149 0.97-1.14 somewhere around 5000 jumps. I have absolutely no desire to land at 20 mph or more.--- 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lauras 0 #30 June 11, 2003 Quotemore focus should be put on canopy flight instead of back flips and front flips and barrell rolls all of which I haven't had to do since AFF Do you understand why you had to do the flips & barrell rolls during AFF? Have you ever had an unstable exit? What did you do - a front flip or a back flip? I think most of us can agree that learning to get stable is a fairly important part of AFF . Yes, more focus and time could/should be placed on canopy flight, but that should be in addition to the education students currently receive - not instead of. As for me, 625 jumps, 1.25 wingload depending on whether or not I've been to the gym and BSRs are fine by me, but I highly doubt that will ever happen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
okalb 79 #31 June 11, 2003 Has anyone noticed that the majority of the people opposed to the proposed BSR are the people with lower jump numbers. I am not saying that there aren't any higher experienced people that are opposed, but it just seems odd that the "older" jumpers that have seen it all happen over and over again are for regulation while the newbies all fight against it. Interesting.... 1400 jumps 2.0 (100% for regulation)Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nathaniel 0 #32 June 11, 2003 have you noticed the proposed bsr would not affect people with high jump numbers a ha nathanielMy advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ladyskydiver 0 #33 June 11, 2003 Hey, Oren! I'm opposed to the BSR. I have 114 jumps and my current wingloading is 0.91 to 1. I'm in absolutely no hurry to downsize. I still have a ton to learn with my canopy. I've taken a canopy class with Scott Miller and am seriously considering taking it again when he's at our DZ in the fall. Just for a refresher. I'm trying to learn as much as I can about my canopy and landings. I think we've got a good system in place. Yes, people are getting hurt or killed which totally sucks!!! But, the reality is that skydiving is a dangerous sport. Everyone going into it knows that you can die from this sport - be in your screw up or someone else's that happens to be in the air with you. Would I like to see zero injuries and zero deaths? Hell yes!! Reality is that it will never happen. I'm very lucky with the DZ that I belong to and the DZ's I've visited in that I can ask questions and get answers. And a lot of the "old timers" in the sport are more than willing to give me advice when they feel I need it. Or to yell at me if they feel I need it. I respect that. Adding another BSR is not going to change what is happening right now. What will help change things is people being willing to take newbies under their wings. If some new face shows up at the DZ, someone (S&TA or whomever) goes up and introduces themselves to the newbie and gives them a tour of the DZ which has questions asked - what are you flying? What's your wing loading? etc. Rules and regs - a way will be found to get around them. It's just like speed limit laws. They are there. Theoretically, everyone follows them, but in reality, there is always someone that will push the limits. Will push what their capabilities are. We can not regulate safety 100%. To do so would be to stay on the ground and not fly. Because you do not need to land....if you never jump out of a plane.Life is short! Break the rules! Forgive quickly! Kiss slowly! Love truly, Laugh uncontrollably. And never regret anything that made you smile. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,478 #34 June 11, 2003 > but I'm not buying into the argument that decreased WL directly >translates to fewer or less severe accidents. It does. I have a very good friend who is still with us because she was jumping a loading of about 1.1 to 1 when she screwed up bigtime. She came very close to dying; another few MPH, a few less square feet and I would have spent a day at a funeral home instead of 3 months sitting with her in rehab. >I don't think that hook-turn injuries are less desirable than other types >of injuries I think they all suck equally. I agree; but hook turn DEATHS suck a lot more than hook turn injuries. A lighter loading will turn many potential fatalities into serious injuries. We can learn from a serious injury; we can't learn once we're dead. >Has it occurred to any of the proponents that people jumping at higher > WL might tend to do more crazy sh!t in general? Not sure what the point is here. If they kill themselves driving drunk it's really not an issue for this thread. >but one year later the total injury and fatality rates for persons < 500 > jumps was the same as before the WL rule -- other types of accidents >became more prevalent among low-timers. Hmm. If a completely new kind of fatality started (i.e. people started trying to land wingsuits) then I would consider it simple evolution of the sport - we are once again pushing the limits and paying the price. If overall fatalities from all causes went up then you might have a good argument. >I could be persuaded that WL regulation is worthwhile, but it will take > more than blanket "it'll reduce the injury rate" statements. I don't really make any claims about injuries, just fatalities. If you restrict loadings to those greater than X, and require canopy training to exceed that number, you will cut down on fatalities. From the beginning of 2002 to now, 3 people died because they didn't know how to turn low to avoid something. 7 simply turned too low to survive under their wing loadings for whatever reason - attempted hook turn etc. We can't ask them why they did it. Of those 7, 6 had under 500 jumps, and 5-6 had loadings of over 1.3 to 1. Look at Ron's original post for the details. So we have ten jumpers who would almost certainly be alive today if they had gotten canopy training, and most likely to be alive if they had been restricted to a lighter loading. Can anyone guarantee that they would survive? No. We have to use our best judgement there; there are no certainties with this stuff, >WL >regulation has cost, and to make me think it's worthwhile I need >explanations not promises. Ignoring the problem also has a very real cost. It's hard to put a price on human lives, but whatever that price is, we've paid ten times that price over the past year or so. The question is - what's the best way to go? The best way, hands down, is simple education. Get people into canopy control classes. Unfortunately, the people who really need to be there are not the jumpers who are conservative on their canopy selection and want to learn more - Michele is a good example of this. The jumpers who really need the education are the jumpers who are sure they don't need any education. They are good enough, careful enough, skilled enough etc to not need it, at least until they get injured/killed. So any optional canopy control thing is, to me, similar to doing nothing. We have canopy training now. It's not getting to the people who need it. How do we do it? Putting a restriction on what they can jump until they _do_ get the training is one way to do it. I'd be open to others, but I haven't heard a good one yet. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #35 June 11, 2003 I've been watching this firestorm from across the pond with interest. I'm voting for education without regulation. This doesn't mean that I don't recognise an issue here, but I do believe the 'regulation' should be at a local level. So much of assessing a jumper's ability rests in actually knowing the jumper concerned, their attitude towards learning, and progresion, character, general awareness, availability of peer advice, physical condition, currency, etc. I reckon the answer lies in local policing rather than a blanket control. Although some reconised guidance would certainly help the situation, eg the adoption of the Dutch system, Brian Germain's guidance or similar, which also recognises canopy type. In the UK our CCIs (equiv of US S&TA) will ground you (after several words in your small and shell like) if they think you are pushing the limit, which makes them kinda nazi-like, but it does seem to have an affect, if you have issues with the local 'police' go somewhere else. The other problem I see is the availability of canopy coaches at smaller or more remote DZs, and the issue of visiting foreign jumpers. I do agree that 'something has to be done'. I'm just not sure that enforced education will make a huge reduction on the incident rates. I don't indulge in HP landings, I've learned the hard way and am lucky to be able to talk about it. 1200+ current wl app 1.6, I've lost too many valuable friends to badly judged HP landings.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
samp76 0 #36 June 11, 2003 0.9:1 to 1:1 depending on how big of a lunch I ate. I have just under 50 jumps. -Sam-Let go of the NUT!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tonto 1 #37 June 11, 2003 Limit wingload to jump numbers and a training program. When we were killing people in freefall we figured out a way to keep them alive. Now that we're killing them under canopy we should figure out a way to keep them alive. My wing loading is 1.7 I have 3900 skydives tIt's the year of the Pig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
psw097 0 #38 June 11, 2003 I'm for natural selection. The gene pool is already getting thin with AFF programs graduating students that cannot spot, cannot pack and are scared to get out below 6K. I'll guess that liability would become an issue if a BSR was implemented. Do you want to be the canopy coach that graduates little johney to an "open" canopy a week before he pounds in? Or, the DZO where someone above the stated WL eats dirt. With WL it is an easy connection between the accident and the "rules" - Good chance the lawyers will jump all over it. 1200 jumps. Current wingloading - 1.9 to 2.5 on my mains, 1.7 and 1.5 on reserves. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
okalb 79 #39 June 11, 2003 Hiya Cora, QuoteI have 114 jumps and my current wingloading is 0.91 to 1. I'm in absolutely no hurry to downsize. If everyone thought like you, we wouldn't have a problem, but they don't and we do. QuoteI've taken a canopy class with Scott Miller and am seriously considering taking it again when he's at our DZ in the fall. Just for a refresher. I'm trying to learn as much as I can about my canopy and landings. Once again the exception not the rule. We have to create regulations for the lowest common denominator not the exceptions. That is why I do believe in a "test out" process where you could get that rocket that you want if you prove that you can handle it. QuoteI think we've got a good system in place. Yes, people are getting hurt or killed which totally sucks!!! But, the reality is that skydiving is a dangerous sport. Here is where I strongly disagree. The system that we have in place clearly doesn't work. I have only been skydiving for 5 years and the number of people that I have seen hurt or killed under canopies that they were not ready for is absurd. Most of those people had been spoken to by the "old timers", but every one of them thought that they were the exception not the rule. They were all wrong. Sydiving is a dangerous sport, but if there is a simple way to make it substantially safer, why would anyone be opposed to it? QuoteEveryone going into it knows that you can die from this sport - be in your screw up or someone else's that happens to be in the air with you. And everytime someone dies doing something stupid and unnecessary, it hurts all of us. QuoteI'm very lucky with the DZ that I belong to and the DZ's I've visited in that I can ask questions and get answers. And a lot of the "old timers" in the sport are more than willing to give me advice when they feel I need it. Or to yell at me if they feel I need it. I respect that. Not that I consider myself an "old timer" by any means, but I spend a lot of time working with lower experienced jumpers and the majority that I see don't want to hear it. They know better. The problem is most of the people who hurt themselves under higher wingloads have not been around long enough to understand why they are being stupid. Forcing them to either wait or prove their skills will only make them safer one way or the other. What is the harm in that. QuoteWhat will help change things is people being willing to take newbies under their wings. I can say first hand that this DOES NOT WORK. I take newbies under my wing all the time and they all want to know about freefall skills, but few want to hear about canopy skills. They all have this "I can land it fine" or "I stand up all my landings" attitude. They don't understand that being able to land it and being safe under it are not the same thing. QuoteRules and regs - a way will be found to get around them. If there is a regulation in place it makes it easier for the rest of us to stop you from doing it. Telling people "You know it is a really bad idea and here is why" hasn't worked so far. QuoteWe can not regulate safety 100%. I don't want to, but this is a simple thing and there is no denying it will at least help the situation I am not trying to take away your right to jump or even your right to jump something stupid. All I am saying is that we can postpone your jumping something that you are not ready for at least until hopefully you understand why you are being stupid. Those that think they are the exception should have no problem proving their skills. If they are as good as they think they are, they can prove it and buy what they want. I bet you will find that most are NOT as good as they think they are. Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
btucker 0 #40 June 11, 2003 1.3 & 1.25WL Both ZP squares 580jumps Blues edit: Get's more interesting further down this thread! In Australia we had a system where; If you had a WL over [i can't remember exactly but it was low] 1.1 you needed to get a card signed by the CI. It was discontinued for a number of reasons, I don't think many people/DZ's bothered. I think the Dutch have just introduced a system of regulation in the last quarter on WL, although it only applies if you change canopy – I assume it applies to the reserve canopy as well. To get my B license I had to do some canopy exercises with a tutor, which I did at a “school” which was sponsored by the APF State Council. This education approach has worked best with me; I've been very lucky in that there are a few excellent canopy tutors in my neck of the woods that care enough about other jumper's safety to give up their time and run school. It's quite regular to see a canopy tutor on my DZ help out by watching us land and offering advice. Formally; The DZSO and CI's should and do this as well. But on a busy DZ they will probably only be able to pull people up about silly and/or dangerous behavior rather than assisting with technique. There have been a few incidents reported of late where DZOs have “declined” a jumpers business due to the ratio of canopy size vs experience. What about other factors a canopy besides WL? Elipital, Forgiveness? Flare? Material? These can be your few more ph. i.e.For this pilot a clapped out F111 canopy the same size as my Sabre: It would probably be dangerous to me as it wouldn't land as “nice”. I would suggest regulation to make you attend a canopy school and pass practical exercieses, say as a pre-req for each license level. {Like some display ratings?} The governing body would need to do a heck of a lot more than wave a pen, funds for support of schools, regs and ratings for “canopy tutor” “canopy tutor examiner” etc... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pd190 0 #41 June 11, 2003 I know that a few dropzones have or are starting a wingloading restriction according to experience level. I think that it's a good plan. But, education is the key. Good mentoring, good coaching, and the more experienced people helping out the newer crowd will build solid foundations for friendship and skill building. 1.2 with just over 500 jumps. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vt1977 0 #42 June 11, 2003 I agree with you Ron - something has to be done about this problem and it seems that regulation is the only thing that will get through to some people. No of jumps: 836 Wing loading: 1.2 Vicki Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Liemberg 0 #43 June 11, 2003 Wading through all the post in the heated debate about wingloadregulations vs. -education I noticed that one thing is missing in the discussion: the difference between larger 'turbine type' DZ's and smaller 'Cessna type' operations. It seems to me that on the larger DZ's 'people in charge' want to regulate where on the smaller places they want to educate. (for 'regulate' you can fill in: formal training in canopy handling, signing of proficiency cards, minimum jump numbers for certain wingloadings etc.; for 'educate' you can fill in none of the above but instead a one-on-one approach on a day-to-day basis with a solid knowledge of all the jumpers -and their abillities- at your place...) Also, some of the 'regulators' point to several countries where regulation is in place already. I'm from the Netherlands where we have this type of regulation and frankly, not everyone is happy with it. It is of course a problem of oversight and that is a lot easier with 20 people downsizing during a season than with 20 people downsizing every weekend - let alone people borrowing gear which they might buy etc. Where does that leave a national organisation like USPA? I would urge them not to fall into the same pit as their dutch counterparts, who wrote elaborate regulations that take into consideration things like jump-numbers, wingloading, jumps-in-the-last-year, mandatory canopy-training jumps and type of canopy with a list of types - which of course is incomplete. They put this whole thing in the BSR's so it is mandatory on all affiliated clubs and centres - yet almost nobody understands it completely... If you were to regulate, you should regulate the minimum i.e. things everyone can agree upon. (Come to think of it: Flipping through a Para-Gear catalogue I find lots of wingload recommendations - seems like every manufacturer has them - enforcing those shouldn't be to much of a problem since you only have to define 'novice' 'intermediate' and 'expert'...) Would that work as a solution fitting all? Probably not - lots of things that are not very smart when skydiving would remain 'allowed' in the BSR's. And it would not solve the big DZ's 'oversight' problem - but what is to stop the individual DZO to write his own set of rules and enforce them? If your multi-turbine-indoor-packing-world-class-coaches-team-rates-jacuzzi-DZ is attractive enough your clientele will cope with those rules. And there is nothing stopping you to debate / adjust /fine-tune anything "written down" in Perris with what is "written down" in Deland. Again, this would lead to something above a set of USPA rules, applicable to large DZ's with lots of traffic and not much oversight where it comes to the individual jumper. Of course the 'personal freedom' argument - though appealing - holds no ground here; it didn't in the AAD debates so it doesn't in this debate; when 'personal freedom' results in death and mutilation through lack of knowledge or 'too much testosteron' it looses all appeal rapidly. 2600+ jumps 1,6 semi elliptical - voted education, but now you now why... "Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci A thousand words... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,683 #44 June 11, 2003 <100 jumps 1.0 wing loading <200 jumps 1.1 wing loading <300 jumps 1.2 wing loading <400 jumps 1.3 wing loading <500 jumps 1.4 wing loading Whenever I see numbers like this I am uneasy. 100, 200 - etc are only "important" numbers because we have 10 fingers and hence adopted a decimal system. Similarly, 1.2, 1.3, etc are clearly tied to our decimal system. The square foot is only important because of the size of the foot of some medieval king. I've no idea of the origin of the pound, but I'm sure it has nothing to do with aerodynamics. The suggestion to tie wing load to "easy" numbers defined on an arbitrary system of units and an arbitrarily chosen number base and then expect it to solve a problem is plain unscientific.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,478 #45 June 11, 2003 >The suggestion to tie wing load to "easy" numbers defined on an > arbitrary system of units and an arbitrarily chosen number base and > then expect it to solve a problem is plain unscientific. The idea that skydivers will enforce a system that requires them to remember the numbers 67, 117, 362, 597, 684 and 739 (or have to carry a cheat sheet) is unrealistic. We base a great many other experience levels in skydiving on round numbers; seems to work OK. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Watcher 0 #46 June 11, 2003 Well, I am not a fan of regulation, I don't like ratings on movies or video games, but I do believe in education. Extensive education, taught initially in a near college classroom enviroment, starting with Theory and physics, then going into theoritical technique and explanation on planform considerations, trim, effect of wingloading on given canopies, what problems a person is expected to encounter, what to look for and how to identify the start of a bad situation. 730 jumps 1.8:1 on a Velocity 103, 2.0:1 on a prototype Rage. --Jonathan Bartlett D-24876 AFF-I Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,683 #47 June 11, 2003 Quote>The suggestion to tie wing load to "easy" numbers defined on an > arbitrary system of units and an arbitrarily chosen number base and > then expect it to solve a problem is plain unscientific. The idea that skydivers will enforce a system that requires them to remember the numbers 67, 117, 362, 597, 684 and 739 (or have to carry a cheat sheet) is unrealistic. We base a great many other experience levels in skydiving on round numbers; seems to work OK. Can you quote a single study or one iota of research that suggests these are appropriate numbers? Based on the discussion in these threads it's not clear to me that the problem has been properly defined yet, and here we are suggesting arbitrary solutions. Not unlike Congress and the HSA.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,478 #48 June 11, 2003 >Can you quote a single study or one iota of research that suggests > these are appropriate numbers? Nope, nor can I quote any numbers that say that 2000 feet is a safe minimum altitude (why not 1973 feet?) or that 20/25/50/100/200/500 jumps are good numbers to use for licensing. Would it therefore be your position that such numbers are inappropriate? >Based on the discussion in these threads it's not clear to me that the >problem has been properly defined yet . . . Then I will define it. People are loading canopies too heavily for their experience/skill level, and dying quite often doing it. Education is available, and will help reduce fatalities. It is not being utilized. That's the problem. >and here we are suggesting arbitrary solutions. Yep. Like the arbitrary pull-by-2000 foot rule, or the arbitrary 8 hours bottle-to-throttle rule. Rules that may not have any doctoral studies on the statistical difference in expected fatalities between a pull altitude of 1850 and 2150 feet, but rules that have nonetheless saved lives. No regulation (or even solution) is perfect. We are looking for one that is good enough - even if it's off from perfection by 3.324%. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
serls 0 #49 June 11, 2003 I would like to see more extensive canopy control education as well as a WL regulation as long as that regulation includes an option for competent canopy pilots to test out and move to another canopy. I could be selfish, but if it prevents someone with a tiny canopy and no idea how to fly it from taking me out then I'm happy. WL 1.3, 235 Jumps Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,683 #50 June 11, 2003 Quote>Can you quote a single study or one iota of research that suggests > these are appropriate numbers? Nope, nor can I quote any numbers that say that 2000 feet is a safe minimum altitude (why not 1973 feet?) or that 20/25/50/100/200/500 jumps are good numbers to use for licensing. Would it therefore be your position that such numbers are inappropriate? >Based on the discussion in these threads it's not clear to me that the >problem has been properly defined yet . . . Then I will define it. People are loading canopies too heavily for their experience/skill level, and dying quite often doing it. Education is available, and will help reduce fatalities. It is not being utilized. That's the problem. >and here we are suggesting arbitrary solutions. Yep. Like the arbitrary pull-by-2000 foot rule, or the arbitrary 8 hours bottle-to-throttle rule. Rules that may not have any doctoral studies on the statistical difference in expected fatalities between a pull altitude of 1850 and 2150 feet, but rules that have nonetheless saved lives. No regulation (or even solution) is perfect. We are looking for one that is good enough - even if it's off from perfection by 3.324%. There have been extensive studies on the effects of alcohol on pilots- the 8 hour rule has basis in research even if the time is rounded to a conveniently rememberable number of hours. You have no idea if this table is off by 3.324% or 32.4% or even 324% and that IS a deficiency in this proposal. The numbers aren't just rounded for easy memorization, they are totally arbitrary.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
