Wingload BSR

[fundgh 0]

My question for education is...On what level does it need to occur? Do instructors need education? How do you know that what they are teaching is appropriate? Not all instructors have the same philosophy on WL. Can we regulate the educators so that they promote greater safety?

...FUN FOR ALL!

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

Not all instructors have the same philosophy on WL.

imo diversity is good when people can respect their differences.

Quote

Can we regulate the educators so that they promote greater safety?

The USPA already does this with coaches and instructors. I don't think we should roll this back...I think there are good ways it could be expanded without new BSRs.

We have the best higher education systems in the world in the US and I think it might be a consequence of the fact that we have relatively little legislative interference with the subjects taught. But I'm not really sure about this whole tangent and I'm not sure I'm that much interested in the study of education....

nathaniel

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

[wmw999 2,121]

Not a response to nathaniel in particular, but one thing to consider in the education alone vs. education + regulation is that relying on education alone requires a higher level of either judgement or performance from everyone, without any need to prove it.

Education + regulation allows for less perfect behavior on the part of the participants. Some may say this is an awesome reason for sticking with education alone, but for the sake of the sport, as well as for friends, I'd rather not eliminate the lesser-judgemented and lesser-skilled quite as brutally all the time.

It can limit the very strongest canopy pilots. No doubt. But in the long run, there are a lot more mediocre canopy pilots that it will help, than superb canopy pilots who will now HAVE to take a class.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[diverdriver 5]

800 jumps. 1.56:1 wingload Stilleto 107.

[billvon 2,397]

>That's not an argument for regulation anyway, it's an argument for
>education, and I am calling for education too.

As am I. Regulation is simply a tool to get people into education. Without it they will not go.

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

As you were the one who suggested skydivers will increase their risks in other ways if you decrease their risk in canopy flight . . . it's odd that you'd make an argument then call it a straw man. Which is it? Will skydivers increase their risk through other means (like group separation) if you decrease the risk of canopy flight through regulation, or is that completely irrelevant? If you claim it is irrelevant I will be happy to drop it.

>The point is that people have a risk budget and that by taking certain
>goods off the market you aren't changing the budget.

Again, I think that's nonsense. People who don't drink and drive don't drive less safe cars, or drive faster, to compensate. No skydiver I've ever met has started jumping a larger canopy then suddenly decided he should start doing big-ways he wasn't ready for. There is no "risk thermostat." There are levels of risk that each person is willing to take, but there is no mechanism whereby one category gets filled with risk when you deplete it from another category.

Economics textbooks are great for understanding economics. They're not so great for understanding skydiving.

>I agree that the basis of my claim isn't in skydiving, but that doesn't
>make it any less relevant.

As we are talking about skydiving, I'm afraid it does. National politics, economics, antibiotic resistance in bacteria etc are all interesting topics but do not neccessarily relate to skydiving.

>They told you? They didn't tell me.

Not worth a reply.

[Ron 7]

Quote

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.

Well, a large number of people do this, but there are not enough of us "old" guys to buddy up with every student.

How whould this get funded? Charge the student more? Expect guys like me to not do Tandems or coach so we can be your buddy?

I am one of the people that do spend time with new guys, but I am not a millionaire...so I can't jump with them all.

Quote

How do you get from dead people to new BSRs?

If you can't see this, you really need to sit down and think some. BSR's were written in blood. They were put into place to prevent more people doing the same stupid things that the guy who's crater you are standing in did.

Ron

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

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

>

>The point is that people have a risk budget and that by taking certain
>goods off the market you aren't changing the budget.

Again, I think that's nonsense. People who don't drink and drive don't drive less safe cars, or drive faster, to compensate. No skydiver I've ever met has started jumping a larger canopy then suddenly decided he should start doing big-ways he wasn't ready for. There is no "risk thermostat." There are levels of risk that each person is willing to take, but there is no mechanism whereby one category gets filled with risk when you deplete it from another category.
.

You may think it's nonsense, but there is a considerable body of psychology research on risk homeostasis that indicates that there IS a risk budget. See, for example, THIS.

and
THIS

...

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

[rhino 0]

Quote

requires a higher level of either judgement or performance from everyone

That speaks for ANYONE that survives in this sport.

Rhino

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

You may think it's nonsense, but there is a considerable body of psychology research on risk homeostasis that indicates that there IS a risk budget.

Just some observations:

I ride my crotch rocket to and from work for a total of 20-25 minutes each way. Since I started riding(last November) I have noticed that the folks driving SUVs and large lifted 4x4 trucks tend to drive faster then folks in compact cars. Quite often I see a SUV mom with all her kids in her car passing me when I'm doing 80 mph. Is this not ridiculous?

Also they tend not to look over their shoulder when changing lanes...making them more likely to hit me if I'm not paying attention.

On the other hand... when I get in front of an SUV or large truck they will give me a wider birth by backing off then most compact cars. Perhaps this has to do with the size proportions of our vehicles and perception of the amount of risk involved.

As a new rider I realize how vulnerable I am. This makes me a better "driver" cause I'm much more focused and unwilling to get in an accident.

Many of my friends have been bugging me to get leathers. IF the theory of risk homeostasis is true then that means I will be less safe and more likely to get in an accident if I buy leathers(if I understand the theory correctly). BTW leathers are to protect you from the road not other drivers. Should I buy leathers?

Jason

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[evilivan 0]

This may put me in the path of the flamethrower, but...

860ish jumps, 2.0 WL

I voted for education.

"If you can keep your head when all around you have lost theirs, then you probably haven't understood the seriousness of the situation."
David Brent

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

Regulation is simply a tool to get people into education. Without it they will not go.

They might not go at all if we regulate them poorly -- they might quit the USPA, or the sport altogether if we screw up too much / too often. Would this proposed BSR make people leave the USPA in droves? Probably not. Would the wing of your favorite Otter fail if we took out just one rivet?

Quote

As you were the one who suggested skydivers will increase their risks in other ways if you decrease their risk in canopy flight . . . it's odd that you'd make an argument then call it a straw man. Which is it?

You missed the point again...the straw man is exit separation, not propensity to assume risks in general. Casting doubt on whether people would give up on exit separation in response to the proposed BSR does not cast doubt on my point--unless of course if you can cast doubt on all the other forms of risk taking that skydivers might take in response to the proposed BSR as well.

I'm not predicting which risks they will take, I am predicting that they will take additional risks. Neither am I predicting they will jump with helium balloons tied to their knees and elbows with vectran strings, or with fishtanks, or try land their wingsuits, etc. Just that they will have more room in their risk budget that they may choose to allocate, or not, at their discretion--not yours or mine.

Let's try again with the dead people. How do you get from dead people to CanuckInUSA's / DJan's proposed numbers instead of from dead people to my *nonsense* proposed numbers? aside: I screwed up and attributed them to Ron in a previous post...

How about my second set of "nonsense" proposed numbers
1.0 if < 1000 jumps
1.1 if < 1100 jumps
1.2 if < 1200 jumps
1.3 if < 1300 jumps
1.4 if < 1400 jumps
They're more subtle than my first set, don't you think?

Why don't we ban hook turns among low timers instead? How about requiring radios + landing coaching for all jumpers with < n * 100 jumps? Why doesn't the proposed BSR talk elliptical vs square vs round? Why don't we look for something other than jump #'s as a byword for canopy skill? Tying the proposal to USPA licenses seems slightly more rational to me than inventing another metric for experience.

By enumerating these proposals I'm not saying I would or would not support them; I'm just wondering what makes one idea better or worse to you than another.

If /this proposed wingload BSR means fewer deaths/ is an axiom to you, say so and let us move on instead of butting heads. To me that statement is a hypothesis. Since I can think of arguments both for and against it, I'm not convinced it's true.

nathaniel

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

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

Well, a large number of people do this, but there are not enough of us "old" guys to buddy up with every student.

If possible maybe the guys with more experience could buddy up with more than one student. Or maybe give it a little bit of hierarchy and let the older guys mentor the middle-aged guys, and have the middle-aged guys mentor the young guys, and have the young guys mentor the new guys...and when they ask a question you don't know the answer to or if they don't listen, ask your way up the tree. This is starting to sound awfully m/paternalistic, but I think it wouldn't have to be unbearable.

Quote

How whould this get funded? Charge the student more? Expect guys like me to not do Tandems or coach so we can be your buddy?

Who says economics doesn't have anything to do with skydiving! Supply and demand, how do we reconcile them?

I dont think we should force anyone to be a mentor or a mentee...and those that choose to participate could set the terms of their relationship on their own. A meat market wasn't originally part of the idea.. but hey, sometimes things end up in ways you don't expect. I suppose we'd have to try to find out for sure, eh? I think we could discourage the Avon^Wevil capitalistic parts of it by encouraging the dispensation of gifts such as beer and pack jobs from mentees to mentors, or otherwise playing up the social aspects of the relationship.

Maybe the USPA could offer incentives to professional and non-professional experienced skydivers to mentor the new guys... maybe special awards like we see in the back of Parachutist when some number your mentees have all made a certain accomplishment. I think the number of people that consider Roger Nelson a mentor is testament to scale of his greatness (edit: present tense).

Maybe a new stratum of instructor licensing that confers something instructors want...or enables them to ask for top dollar from DZ's and gives DZ's something to advertise... Or the USPA could give incentives to participating DZs and let the DZOs figure out the details.

I don't know what you would want, you do! Tell me, then tell the USPA =)

nathaniel

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

[rhino 0]

Quote

How about my second set of "nonsense" proposed numbers
1.0 if < 1000 jumps
1.1 if < 1100 jumps
1.2 if < 1200 jumps
1.3 if < 1300 jumps
1.4 if < 1400 jumps
They're more subtle than my first set, don't you think?

Limits like these will never work...

Rhino

[okalb 78]

Quote

If possible maybe the guys with more experience could buddy up with more than one student. Or maybe give it a little bit of hierarchy and let the older guys mentor the middle-aged guys, and have the middle-aged guys mentor the young guys, and have the young guys mentor the new guys...and when they ask a question you don't know the answer to or if they don't listen, ask your way up the tree.

This would be great and goes along with the education part of things but once again it DOESN'T WORK. People have been mentoring other jumpers for years. The problem as I stated before is that most of the people who kill themselves under highly loaded canopies have already been spoken to on numerous occasions by more experienced jumpers.

There is no way to make someone listen when they think that they can handle it and the old timers are just too conservative or trying to keep them down. We have seen this attitude time and time again and right now all we can do is TRY to talk to them. If there was a regulation in place we could force them to listen at least until they have enough experience that they HOPEFULLY realize that they don't know everything and the people that are trying to talk to them might have been around a bit longer and seen what happens.

Some people have the attitude that we should just talk to them and if they don't listen than screw them and let them kill themselves, but I am more selfish than that. If I were only worried about them killing themselves, that would be fine. The problem is that I am worried about them killing ME!

Not to mention every death hurts us all no matter why they were killed. Once again, there is lots of potential good that can come from regulating this and NOBODY as of yet has been able to show any potential negatives. I'm sorry, but the argument about regulation opening a can of worms is bullshit. We have lots of regulations that we have accepted for years. Most of them we accept because they have been around since before a lot of us were jumping. This is no different other than the fact that we are around for it. I would rather see us regulate it ourselves with the help of the USPA than have the FAA get involved and tell us what to do.

Your other argument about people quitting the sport if we tell them what canopy they can jump also holds no water. If they think so little of the sport that they would quit over that, then we don't need them in our sport. Besides, that new jumpers coming into the sport would not have a problem with it since the reg would be in place before they got here. It would be just like the pull altitude BSR. Do you complain about pulling at whatever altitude you are supposed to pull at? No, because it has always been that way for you. I am sure that when they were deciding on those BSRs, there were plenty of people complaining about it just like people are now about this.

The people that seem to be making the most noise against a WL BSR are the ones with the lowest jump numbers. No offense to you Nathaniel, but with 88 jumps, I very highly doubt that you have been around long enough to see what some of us have seen. I am not saying that I have been around forever or seen it all. I only have 1400 jumps which is nothing, but I have seen a lot of people hurt or killed under wingloadings that they should not have been under.

Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana

[nathaniel 0]

Oh I agree that people dying in skydiving accidents is bad. I'm questioning whether this new-BSR approach will do anything about it. What I've gotten so far is

* it will work but I can't explain how, trust me I know better than you
* regulation works because it educates people and education hasn't worked alone
* nothing else has worked so this will if anything will
* we have loads of other regs so what the heck

Well, I trust people better when they share with me. When they share their knowledge with me. And -- please do not construe this as a broad insult -- I wonder whether knowledge that can't be shared is knowledge at all. I don't consider broad assumptions as knowledge until I can appreciate what supports them. If this means I won't understand till I have more jumps, then don't bother responding for I won't understand.

I think #2 is the best of the lot, tho I'm even starting to wonder about it after I read through kallend's links. The links provide alternative solutions too, like providing incentives to not screwup, instead of disincentives to screwups. Sounds goody-goody at first, but who cares what it sounds like, I care whether it works.

Is it ethical to enact new regs when we don't know how we came up with them or what they'll do? Does the seriousness of the problem make it more or less ethical? Is there a real problem, or is the problem strictly in our perceptions? Is there a real problem we should expect to solve, or is the problem we are "solving" not the real one?

As you were wondering, I have seen with my own eyes people seriously injured in skydiving accidents, and skydiving friends of mine have perished. Under small canopies. I could not stop them, though I wish I could have.

Our hope should not displace our reason.

nathaniel

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

[wmw999 2,121]

People think they write one thing, and people read somethnig else.

What will a BSR do?

It will force jumpers with fewer jumps to either get more experience, or more education, before jumping a high-performance canopy at a high wingloading.

Experience is an excellent teacher; and a kinder one under a lighter wingloading. "force" might be a bad word, but it's exactly what the BSR will do. The reason education hasn't worked alone is because not everyone partakes.

A wingload BSR will not solve all problems. Nothing will. I've seen people hurt themselves landing rounds by turning too close to the grouns, too. But a wingload BSR will make every canopy pilot choose whether to get experience, education, or (preferably) both.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[cloud9 0]

Well I must confess I didn't think you all could change my mind on regulation but you have.
Now lets not stop with wing loading there is still work to do.
I think the BSR should also decree that anyone with less then 500 jumps should not be able to go head down. We have had several fatalities do to FF collisions that could be avoided. Maybe 200 belly jumps before any FF jumps.
Also how about 250 jumps before anything bigger then an 8 way RW and 500 before anything bigger then a 20 way. At least 100 jumps before any hoop dives or raft dives.
500 jumps before any boogies, them landing area's get crowded.
500 jumps on a square, then another 200 on a semi elliptical before going to a high performance main.
Mandatory AAD no doubt would save lives. RSL same same. No more mini risers to dangerous. Mandatory full face helmets couldn't hurt. Mandatory audible.
No jumping below 32 degree's hands just get to cold them big gloves are to bulky. Bright canopies only to avoid canopy collisions. Boots would save some of the foot injuries.

So where do you draw the line? Where does it end? More importantly who decides?

[wmw999 2,121]

Quote

So where do you draw the line? Where does it end? More importantly who decides?

Well, actually, why do we even need a line? The FAA doesn't decree a minimum opening altitude, or instruction. We should just let folks find someone more experienced who's willing to take them up. The vast majority of people will do just fine that way.

If they need it, they'll seek out the instruction. We can encourage it, and hopefully most people will take the more expensive route of formal instruction, rather than the more fun one of just jumping to get experience.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Fireflyer 0]

I'm just a baby:

6 jumps
0.90 WL!!!

[downwardspiral 0]

While reading in the April'03 issue of the Parachutist the article titled Heads Up! a 2002 fatality summary by Paul Sitter I found something curios... There was no mention of the experience level or jump numbers of the 13 who died during landing. Why is that? Is that not important? Maybe Paul Sitter can enlighten us.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[okalb 78]

Quote

Quote

People think they write one thing, and people read somethnig else.

What will a BSR do?

It will force jumpers with fewer jumps to either get more experience, or more education, before jumping a high-performance canopy at a high wingloading.

Experience is an excellent teacher; and a kinder one under a lighter wingloading. "force" might be a bad word, but it's exactly what the BSR will do. The reason education hasn't worked alone is because not everyone partakes.

A wingload BSR will not solve all problems. Nothing will. I've seen people hurt themselves landing rounds by turning too close to the grouns, too. But a wingload BSR will make every canopy pilot choose whether to get experience, education, or (preferably) both.

Wendy W.

Thank you.....someone finally gets it!

-OK

Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana

[billvon 2,397]

I'm sorry you take this as a joke. As people are dying under good canopies, some of us take it rather seriously.

>So where do you draw the line?

If an activity does not cause dozens of fatalities a year, then people are dealing with that activity in a way that does not require we do anything new about it.

>Where does it end?

When we reduce the number of fatalities a year for the reason being "legislated" against.

>More importantly who decides?

We do.l

[crazy 0]

Quote

You may think it's nonsense, but there is a considerable body of psychology research on risk homeostasis that indicates that there IS a risk budget.

Is it a pure coincidence that "Open Canopy Fatalities and Cypres saves are almost mirror images of each other from 1994 to 1998, but offset by a year" [Vic Napier, Open Canopies Fatalities][Dave Holmes, The Science of Risk Taking]?
If the theory of risk compensation is nonsense, what are the plausible explanations? If there is no known plausible explanation, then the possibility of contra-intuitive and adverse effects of a wingload BSR should not be overlooked.

--
Come
Skydive Asia

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

I'm sorry you take this as a joke. As people are dying under good canopies, some of us take it rather seriously.

>So where do you draw the line?

If an activity does not cause dozens of fatalities a year, then people are dealing with that activity in a way that does not require we do anything new about it.

>Where does it end?

When we reduce the number of fatalities a year for the reason being "legislated" against.

>

Reduce it to what? At what level do they become acceptable? What is your objective? Less than a dozen - is that OK? Zero? If it's zero, then his proposal is not a joke and your's (Ron's, Brians) won't succeed because it's too generous. If it's more than zero, then your proposal is arbitrary because your numbers can't be correlated with the objective (which you haven't actually stated explicitly).

Why should you impose your risk tolerance on others in a sport like skydiving, where personal responsibility is the rule (or used to be)?

...

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

[billvon 2,397]

>Reduce it to what? At what level do they become acceptable? What is your objective?

To reverse the trend. We are unlikely to get fatalities to zero; letting them continue climbing also seems like a poor option. To turn the question around - at what point would _you_ agree to regulation? When one person a week dies under a good canopy? 2? 10? Or is any regulation at all unacceptable. no matter what effect it has on fatalities?

>Why should you impose your risk tolerance on others in a sport like
> skydiving, where personal responsibility is the rule (or used to be)?

It was my job for two years to do just that. The BSR's are an attempt to restrict the most dangerous of skydiving activities in an attempt to keep jumpers alive until they have the skills to do them safely. Night jumps, demos and being an AFF-JM are some examples of things you're not allowed to do until you have a certain number of jumps. Even though jump numbers do not always have a perfect correspondence to skill level, there is some relationship, which is why jump numbers are used for licenses and instructor ratings.

Yes, this is the evil USPA imposing their personal risk tolerance on everyone, thus making this an overregulated sport where personal responsibility is not tolerated blah blah. But I think history has shown that, for the most part, the BSR's have helped the sport more than hurt it.