Wingload BSR

[Trent 0]

I'm pretty not-so-surprised when I read this thread. A lot of the people who don't want regulation seem to have, what I would think, are pretty high wingloadings for their jump numbers. Interesting, I wonder why that is?

I'll agree that HAVING to regulate something isn't always the best answer, but you have to look at the reason regulation is being discussed. It's because way too many people are getting overly-aggressive with their downsizing. Maybe they hook in trying to use their risers at 150 jumps, or maybe they femur on a low turn they initiate to avoid someone else. Either way, I don't see why people are opposed to spending more time on larger canopies. If everyone was intelligent enough to know that they could learn a ton from their larger canopy before downsizing... we wouldn't be having this conversation. Unfortunately, we have plenty of "experts" who are only after the smallest canopy or rig on the DZ so they look like a badass. These are also the people that you cannot give advice or instruction to after they have a hundred jumps or so. So for people like this, having a regulation would end any argument about the whole situation. For people who are smart enough to know that they don't know it all... this may be a little bit of a hoop to jump through, but they might actually see point in the whole thing.

To people downsizing quickly: Why? Are you just a canopy prodigy that knows better? Do you think that reading about canopy flight and talking about it is a equal substitute for experience? Be careful and be smart. Please.

Oh, hello again!

[billvon 2,384]

>the 8 hour rule has basis in research even if the time is rounded to a
>conveniently rememberable number of hours.

Can you cite that study, a study that shows that a pilot has above an X chance of being intoxicated 7 hours after having one beer?

> The numbers aren't just rounded for easy memorization, they are totally arbitrary.

You didn't answer my question. Since there are a great many other fairly arbitrary (and round) numbers in skydiving (like the # of jumps required for each license, the # of jumps required to get an I rating, the altitude at which you must open) do you consider all those values invalid?

[kallend 1,621]

Quote

>the 8 hour rule has basis in research even if the time is rounded to a
>conveniently rememberable number of hours.

Can you cite that study, a study that shows that a pilot has above an X chance of being intoxicated 7 hours after having one beer?


It was done by the US Navy on Naval Aviators about 10 - 12 years ago. Don't have a reference handy. In addition, the rate at which the body metabolizes ethanol is very well known, and the amount needed to cause impairment is very well known.
> The numbers aren't just rounded for easy memorization, they are totally arbitrary.

You didn't answer my question. Since there are a great many other fairly arbitrary (and round) numbers in skydiving (like the # of jumps required for each license, the # of jumps required to get an I rating, the altitude at which you must open) do you consider all those values invalid?

I don't know what level of study was done to determine those numbers. I DO know that no serious study has been done concerning the numbers in this proposal.

...

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

[billvon 2,384]

>I don't know what level of study was done to determine those numbers.

Given that you know of no serious study to validate those numbers, do you consider them invalid? Yes or no.

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

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 think the point got lost...

If they don't hurt themselves with a small canopy they are still at higher risk of hurting themselves otherwise....so the net effect of canopy regulation may well be nil in terms of fatality rate...just trading one type of incident for another.

I think it's not a wholistic solution to just fiddle with the WL numbers and hope it turns out OK. Like whack-a-mole, you regulate one set of behaviors and the risk-loving jumper inside finds a new way to express itself.

You're allergic to hay. You're standing in a hay field and you have watery eyes. You start sneezing. Do you conclude that you would not be sneezing if you had only a handkerchief to dry your eyes?

He likes to push the edge. He's a low timer and he's jumping a small canopy. He dies in a skydiving accident. Why do you conclude that he would not have died if he wasn't jumping a small canopy?

Once they see the WL BSR in action people will just wise up about unnecessary risks? Of course not.

Quote

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.

We should eliminate from consideration anything that does not help, and we should consider only those things that we can show will help. I'd rather do nothing than make mistakes. I think this BSR has lost sight of the forest for the trees.

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 1,621]

Quote

>I don't know what level of study was done to determine those numbers.

Given that you know of no serious study to validate those numbers, do you consider them invalid? Yes or no.

Either they are valid or they are not, and my opinion doesn't change anything. I don't know how they were arrived at. I don't believe in the type of polls that ask people if Earth has been visited by extraterrestrials. If 99% say yes, does that mean there are extraterrestrials among us or does it mean the respondents are clueless?

...

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

[nathaniel 0]

One difference between those numbers and these numbers is that we already have those numbers but these numbers are new. As long as we are making up numbers, I propose

1.0 < 10000 jumps
1.1 < 20000 jumps
1.2 < 30000 jumps
1.3 < 40000 jumps
1.4 < 50000 jumps

I guarantee to you these numbers are better than Ron's in that they will result in fewer skydiving accidents, if only b/c people give up skydiving for badminton* or something.

nathaniel

* http://www.sportsinjurybulletin.com/archive/0123-common-sports-injuries.htm

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

[Unstable 8]

All in all it comes down to DZ regulations, and what exactly a DZO feels is an acceptable risk.
Where I come from, Skydive Kansas Has enacted a system resembling this. They are a very safety-oriented DZ and i respect them for that. However, other DZ's in the area have no such regulations, and i don't believe there is a significant difference in injury rate.
My home DZ is very laid back, and in a club-like atmosphere, everybody knows everybody's strengths & weaknesses & relative skill. If somebody is jumping something to hott for their abilities, be assured that they will be spoken to.
Personally, i prefer our system. For starters, in small cessna DZ's, we have the benifit of knowing what everybody is jumping. Problems are usually resolved before a person is airborne. As with skydive KS, i don't know if their restrictions are really necessary. However, somewhere less personal (I.G. Eloy, SDC, Sebastian) may benifit from broad guidelines.

thoughts?

sds

=========Shaun ==========

[mikkey 0]

There are good points being made in this thread and then there is BS.

"I'm for natural selection. "

So you like to see more people killed under canopy as a way to improve the average canopy skill level??

"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. "

So you want different / stricter education? So more regulation for beginners? But no WL regulation?

Or in other words: What are you on about??

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[mikkey 0]

Quote

One difference between those numbers and these numbers is that we already have those numbers but these numbers are new. As long as we are making up numbers, I propose

1.0 < 10000 jumps
1.1 < 20000 jumps
1.2 < 30000 jumps
1.3 < 40000 jumps
1.4 < 50000 jumps

I guarantee to you these numbers are better than Ron's in that they will result in fewer skydiving accidents, if only b/c people give up skydiving for badminton* or something.

nathaniel
[/url]

I get annoyed when people do not treat this issue seriously. Above is a "nonsense" argument and you know it. Very close to saying: "you might as well ban skydiving" - (guess what, if people die like flies they probably will in some countries....) This is a serious issue for serious people. Respect each others opinion and do not get into the BS "throwing". Won't help anybody....

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[billvon 2,384]

>If they don't hurt themselves with a small canopy they are still at
> higher risk of hurting themselves otherwise....so the net effect of
>canopy regulation may well be nil in terms of fatality rate...just
>trading one type of incident for another.

I do not believe that people who jump small canopies do so because they wish to risk death to a certain degree, and will consequently decrease their risk-taking activities in other areas. I think the suggestion is pretty absurd; by the same token, you could argue that any regulation at all will do nothing, since people forced to pull at 2000 feet will intentionally exit closer to other groups in hopes of increasing their risk sufficiently.

>You're allergic to hay. You're standing in a hay field and you have
>watery eyes. You start sneezing. Do you conclude that you would
> not be sneezing if you had only a handkerchief to dry your eyes?

Uh, no. You avoid areas with hay. If you can't safely land a small HP canopy you avoid putting yourself in situations where you have to do that to survive.

>He likes to push the edge. He's a low timer and he's jumping a small
> canopy. He dies in a skydiving accident. Why do you conclude that he
>would not have died if he wasn't jumping a small canopy?

Because some of us have seen people die under small canopies, and have seen people make the EXACT SAME MISTAKE on larger canopies and survive. And afterwards not one person, ever, has said "yeah, I knew it would get me eventually." They all say "I thought I could handle it."

I've got nothing against people making mistakes. I am in favor of them surviving them, through education - or, if they refuse that, regulation.

>Once they see the WL BSR in action people will just wise up about
>unnecessary risks? Of course not.

The ones who 'opt out' through education definitely will. The ones who don't want that will not wise up. They will make the same mistakes. They will just survive them more often.

>We should eliminate from consideration anything that does not help,
> and we should consider only those things that we can show will help.

We cannot show _anything_ will help without doing it. I cannot prove to you that driving sober is a good way to survive the trip unless you get drunk, try to drive, and do not survive the experience. That's a poor way to determine the effectiveness of driving sober.

> I'd rather do nothing than make mistakes.

And there's the rub. I've seen us do nothing for five years now. It's a mistake.

[billvon 2,384]

>Either they are valid or they are not, and my opinion doesn't change anything.

I am asking your opinion, as that is what we are all expressing. I suspect you steadfastly refuse to answer because you see some value in setting a minimum pull altitude, even if there have been no peer-reviewed studies proving that 2000 feet is the ideal number - and you fear than such an answer will cause you to admit that you accept an arbitrary number for other regulation.

If this is not the case, then give me an answer. Given that you know of no serious study to validate the 2000 foot minimum opening altitude, do you consider it invalid in your opinion? Yes or no.

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

you could argue that any regulation at all will do nothing, since

Yes. I have argued this point separately. The USPA has very limited regulatory authority to begin with, people's risk preferences notwithstanding. Regulations that are not affirmed by the consent of the membership will be flouted. I don't pull before 3000 b/c it's in the SIM that I have to, I do b/c I think it's a good idea. I usually pull at 4000...

Quote

...since people forced to pull at 2000 feet will intentionally exit closer to other groups in hopes of increasing their risk sufficiently.

Or by doing hook turns, BASE jumps, by not tracking away from the end of an n-way, or by jumping a small canopy, or by doing CRW without instruction. I have seen this among the same people I see at 1.3 HP and 200 jumps, and I see it as part of human nature outside of skydiving as well. This is not to say that all potential expressions of a certain level of risk would be equivalent to individual jumpers. It's more of a statement about averages. I think people willing to take up to a certain amount of risk will take up to that amount of risk as they see fit. Diminishing a person's ability to take particular risks may therefore have unpredictable results.

Quote

I cannot prove to you that driving sober is a good way to survive the trip unless you get drunk, try to drive, and do not survive the experience. That's a poor way to determine the effectiveness of driving sober.

I disagree on that one. There's several ways to build arguments: logical deduction, empirical study, etc. I'm trying to present a logical counter-argument to this proposed BSR. I don't have enough numbers for a compelling statistical analysis...

that two events are correlated does not necessarily imply they are causally related, or that they are causally related in the way that we expect.

Quote

And there's the rub. I've seen us do nothing for five years now. It's a mistake.

How do you know?

nathaniel

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

[downwardspiral 0]

I jump a Saber 190 loaded at 1.2 (was 1.1, I'm working on that). I have 270 jumps. 240 freefly jumps.


I bounced this one back and forth in my head for a while. Decided on education without regulation. Reason is... I just recently learned about the British Parachute Association requiring freefly coaching before you can freefly with anybody else. I don't personally like that idea however I do realize the BPA is just trying to make the sport safer. When do we cross the line from regulation to over-regulation?


Lets take a different point of view. Imagine checking in at a hypothetical DZ for the first time for that ever popular boogie. Manifest says,"Can I please see your license, membership, logbook, reserve repack card, reserve pin seal, AAD(cause AADs are required at this DZ), blood type, and I'm going to need you to blow in to this breathalizer. Oh and lets not forget I'm going to need to see what kind of main you jump and since we can not trust you we are going to need you to pull it out of the container so we can see the tag. Thank you for your patience Mr. Skydiver. I understand that this is quite a nuisance but it is for your own good and safety. Oh btw here is your rig ID stickers. Please stick one on your container and the other to your forehead. Paul the pilot will need to see these before he allows you to board to make sure you didn't borrow somebody elses rig. Also if you are caught jumping the wrong size canopy without authorization from S&TA Sally you will be forced to buy a case of expensive, imported, bottled beer.

I apologize for the sarcasm but I don't see regulation as a realistic solution. Especially for large DZs where they can not hold everybody's hand during a skydive.



Next thing you know we will have to get permission from our local S&TA before Performance Design will sell us a canopy.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[livenletfly 0]

gosh thats a tough call. i hate rules and regulation evrywhere you turn especialy in skydiving but im not to fond of going to funerals either.
375 jumps
1.4 wl

>

[kallend 1,621]

Quote

>Either they are valid or they are not, and my opinion doesn't change anything.

I am asking your opinion, as that is what we are all expressing. I suspect you steadfastly refuse to answer because you see some value in setting a minimum pull altitude, even if there have been no peer-reviewed studies proving that 2000 feet is the ideal number - and you fear than such an answer will cause you to admit that you accept an arbitrary number for other regulation.

If this is not the case, then give me an answer. Given that you know of no serious study to validate the 2000 foot minimum opening altitude, do you consider it invalid in your opinion? Yes or no.

I don't know how USPA arrived at 2000ft, but it seems as if some serious thought was given to it based on KNOWN information such as human reaction times, measurables such as time to cut away and deploy a reserve, fall rates etc. In this sense, 2000ft is certainly more reasonable than 500ft or 10,000ft. You can't say the same about the jump numbers in the BSR proposal discussed here, where the numbers ARE TOTALLY ARBITRARY and based on no measurements of average learning rates and no account is taken of differences between individuals' capacity to learn or canopy parameters other than area.

IMO the proposal is well intentioned but ill conceived and needs more work before it is acceptable.

...

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

[kallend 1,621]

Quote

Quote

One difference between those numbers and these numbers is that we already have those numbers but these numbers are new. As long as we are making up numbers, I propose

1.0 < 10000 jumps
1.1 < 20000 jumps
1.2 < 30000 jumps
1.3 < 40000 jumps
1.4 < 50000 jumps

I guarantee to you these numbers are better than Ron's in that they will result in fewer skydiving accidents, if only b/c people give up skydiving for badminton* or something.

nathaniel
[/url]

I get annoyed when people do not treat this issue seriously. Above is a "nonsense" argument and you know it. Very close to saying: "you might as well ban skydiving" - (guess what, if people die like flies they probably will in some countries....) This is a serious issue for serious people. Respect each others opinion and do not get into the BS "throwing". Won't help anybody....

You are wrong. He is using an extreme example to illustrate the arbitrariness of the original proposal. How do you know Ron's numbers make sense? WHat data were used? What level of risk is acceptable? All his numbers do is put the risk at a lower level than Ron's. Until those things are defined, any numbers pulled out of a hat are as good as any other numbers.

...

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

[Watcher 0]

I have been thinking about this for awhile. I believe in education over regulation, but think for the most part the numbers are what I disagree with because they are very restrictive.

Something like:

<300 jumps <=1.3
<600 jumps <=1.5

At 600 jumps hopefully you have learned quite a bit, and can make responsible descisions on what to buy, hopefuly putting jumps in increments getting you down to whatever you wanted (ie dont go from a 1.5 wingloading on jump 599 and then on jump 600 jump a 2.4 loaded canopy.

Also notice that I raised the final jump count by 100 before you could go to the super performance. But with this you have 250-300 jumps to play around with a slightly higher wingloading .1-.2 that allows you to work with a canopy for a significantly longer period of time. And buying a canopy for the next 300 jumps is quite plausible, and common place. While 100 is not.

my $.02

--

Jonathan Bartlett
D-24876
AFF-I

[kallend 1,621]

Quote

>

I've got nothing against people making mistakes. I am in favor of them surviving them, through education - or, if they refuse that, regulation.

In a typical year 1 skydiver out of 1000 will die. We can only reduce that to zero by regulating skydiving out of existence. If that is not acceptable, then you have to define what level of risk is acceptable to you. And if someone else has a higher risk tolerance than you, why should your opinion prevail over theirs through regulation?

I think BASE is too risky and I won't do it. Does that mean you shouldn't be allowed to BASE jump?

...

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

[billvon 2,384]

>Or by doing hook turns, BASE jumps . . .

BASE jumps don't concern me, nor does driving drunk, or flying their airplanes through clouds, or doing coke. We're talking about skydiving at USPA sites here, nothing more.

>It's more of a statement about averages.

As I've mentioned, I don't believe people will intentionally (for example) decrease their exit separation if they are forced to pull at 2000 feet. You are making an assumption that simply has no basis in what we've seen in this sport. People who are educated survive longer in this sport; if your theory held, they would not, since they would simply increase their risk in other areas.

>>And there's the rub. I've seen us do nothing for five years now.
>>It's a mistake.

>How do you know?

All the dead people.

[billvon 2,384]

>I don't know how USPA arrived at 2000ft, but it seems as if
>some serious thought was given to it . . .

Which is a guess on your part.

>You can't say the same about the jump numbers in the BSR proposal
> discussed here, where the numbers ARE TOTALLY ARBITRARY . . .

Uh. no. They are based on the experiences of Brian Germain, a canopy designer and canopy flight coach. You may consider his judgement totally arbitrary, but I don't.

>and based on no measurements of average learning rates and no
> account is taken of differences between individuals' capacity to learn
> or canopy parameters other than area.

Just as the pull altitude does not take into account learning rates, opening speed of given equipment, training of the individual skydiver, his experience, the freefall speed (i.e. subterminal vs terminal) or any terrain issues. In other words, it's completely arbitrary. Yet it saves lives and I support it, and I suspect you do too - although you refuse to answer that question.

>IMO the proposal is well intentioned but ill conceived and needs
>more work before it is acceptable.

If the price of delay were not another dozen skydiver's lives I would agree; we could spend the time to make it perfect instead of reasonable.

[Ron 7]

I came up with my numbers by:

A. Looking at the fatalities...It seems to me that most of the dead had under 500 jumps. Only one had 1500, and he was stoned. So it seems to me that 500 jumps is the largest group. And this seems only to be an issue with low time jumpers.

B. Brian Germain...He knows his stuff, and I respect him.

These numbers were not just pulled out of thin air. They are pulled from the accidents that I have seen over the last 10 years, and looking at the current trend in fatalities...I guess since I don't have a PHD they don't mean anything?

Ron

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

[kallend 1,621]

Quote

I came up with my numbers by:

A. Looking at the fatalities...It seems to me that most of the dead had under 500 jumps. Only one had 1500, and he was stoned. So it seems to me that 500 jumps is the largest group. And this seems only to be an issue with low time jumpers.

B. Brian Germain...He knows his stuff, and I respect him.

These numbers were not just pulled out of thin air. They are pulled from the accidents that I have seen over the last 10 years, and looking at the current trend in fatalities...I guess since I don't have a PHD they don't mean anything?

Ron

Let's try again:

In a typical year 1 skydiver out of 1000 will die. We can only reduce that to zero by regulating skydiving out of existence. If that is not acceptable, then you have to define what level of risk is acceptable to you. And if someone else has a higher risk tolerance than you, why should your opinion prevail over theirs through regulation based on your or Brian's or Bill's risk tolerance?

I was undecided at first, but the more I think about it the more firmly I come down in the "education" rather than "regulation" camp, mostly because you folks haven't made a convincing case for why your numbers are the right numbers except to say that Brian knows his stuff, nor have you come up with any kind of implementation or enforcement plan.

PS 1212 jumps, Stiletto 150 @1.4

...

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

[fundgh 0]

I am a little torn, however, education and some regulation don't seem to be a bad call. Education alone doesn't cut it. Is there a standard that the educators are supposed to adhere to? I fly the canopy that was recommended by my instructor and DZO...

1.2 with 65 jumps

...FUN FOR ALL!

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

People who are educated survive longer in this sport; if your theory held, they would not, since they would simply increase their risk in other areas.

People who are educated may be more risk averse. or they may make better assessments about risk and underestimate their actual risks less often. That's not an argument for regulation anyway, it's an argument for education, and I am calling for education too.

Quote

As I've mentioned, I don't believe people will intentionally (for example) decrease their exit separation if they are forced to pull at 2000 feet.

I agree that insufficient exit separation is not a popular risk among skydivers, and it's irrelevant to this discussion... straw-man alert.

The point is not that risk-deprived skydivers will do everything in their power at every opportunity to find a new way to die--although it may seem that way when people do stupid things. The point is that people have a risk budget and that by taking certain goods off the market you aren't changing the budget.

It's a simple ecnonomy. People undertake risk for pleasure. But risk isnt free...at some point the probabilities kick in and the pleasure goes away. I contend that we will never corner the market on risk. You can change the manifestation of risk-taking but you can't prevent it, and changing the manifestation incurs penalties.

Quote

You are making an assumption that simply has no basis in what we've seen in this sport.

I agree that the basis of my claim isn't in skydiving, but that doesn't make it any less relevant. The basis is a descriptive approach to understanding human nature ie economics. Not Keynes or Greenspan, just basic risk + probability analysis.

That gives me an idea, tho...has already been proposed by others but not to the degree I have in mind--or maybe I just wasn't paying attention. Instead of relying on some obscure numerology to decide what is safe, how about strengthening the coaching system into a buddy system? Pair good jumpers with new ones, and emphasize long-term skydiving relationships. I know people do this on their own already to some extent already, esp in context of swooping... this approach is just screaming for USPA sponsorship.

Quote

>How do you know?

All the dead people.

They told you? They didn't tell me. Sarcastic on the surface, but seriously I think this is core to our disagreement. How do you get from dead people to new BSRs?

I reiterate that the burden of proof is on the proposal, not on the status quo.

nathaniel

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