nathaniel 0 #126 June 18, 2003 Quote Since many have spoiled it for the rest and many of us are tired of seeing broken bodies on the ground and going to funerals and memorials I say we do need a graduated program for wingloading. Do we repeal the rule when the name numbers (roughly proportional to the number of active jumpers) wind up dead due to other kinds of skydiving accidents? If no, why not? I'm genuinely curious for opinions--I think it's a question of assumptions we make. 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
diverdriver 5 #127 June 18, 2003 QuoteDo we repeal the rule when the name numbers (roughly proportional to the number of active jumpers) wind up dead due to other kinds of skydiving accidents? If no, why not? I'm genuinely curious for opinions--I think it's a question of assumptions we make. nathaniel We won't because why would we? Does the issue go away? Just because the numbers go down doesn't mean we have learned really. Just means the rule had an effect. We haven't repealed pull altitude but the number of fatalities per number of jumps made has gone down. Why not repeal that rule since it isn't as high a percentage of fatalities anymore? Because we see the rule as necessary as a good guideline. Why are we going to 500 jumps for a "D" license? Because we seem to recognize that things have changed and that the maturing process that once came with 200 jumps is just not the same anymore. There is more to learn and you can make 200 jumps in the first year of your skydiving career like it's nothing (money permitting). Many on here have said that time in sport is just as important as jump numbers. So, by increasing the amount of jumps necessary to qualify for certain privileges makes you spend more time in the sport. This, as I see it, is a good thing.Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #128 June 18, 2003 Wingload Main 1.2 Reserve 1.08 Just a few over 500 jumps and just back into the sport after a 22 year layoff. 60+ jumps since mid March I see NO good reason whatsoever to tempt fate with a VERY small cool looking rig that contains a hankie for a reserve. My brand new Infinity looks just great with my big ole reserve sittin there waiting.... should I need it Its not about canopy skills as far as I am concerned. its about not being able to fly it for some reason. If I am unconscious or injured I like knowing I have something that will save my life with a minimum of effort on my part. Amazon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tlshealy 0 #129 June 18, 2003 When I first started Jumping, ram air canopies were just becoming popular and we had to have a 100 jumps before we jumped one, no one told the DZO that he had to make that rule, these new canopies were more dangerous than rounds and we just accepted that it took some time and training to learn to fly one. Today the equipment and training is so far advanced from those days and the students learn so quickly, we just assume they'll be ok when they move up to HP canopies. I,m afraid that if we don't regulate ourselves, someone else will do it for us. Landing accidents and canopy collisions on highly loaded canopies are becoming our dirty little secret in skydiving and i'm afraid someday a lawyer is going to figure that out and convince a jury that a DZO or instructor or canopy manufacturer is negligent in court. Then it may be too late for self regulation. 1385 jumps 1.3 wingload, Regulation and education. Tad Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #130 June 18, 2003 Quotef dropzones start making double the number of jumps i would expect (all other things staying the same, as if they ever do) that the number of fatalities would MORE than double..if we are going to assign numbers like this you really HAVE to look at total numbers, and compare the number of incidents/injuries to other activities as well, to determine what a particular 'sport culture' will bear.. Well how about this..... Would you say that more jumps are made every year than the last? The raw fatalities stay about the same. But there is one CLASS of fatalities that grows, and takes a larger and larger share of the whole. That class is people flying HP canopies into the ground. The reason is lack of knowledge, and skills. Knowledge can be taught, but without experience will not give you skill. The problem is people without the skills don't have experience to know they don't. They all think they are the "one" the person that is "gifted"... They are also the group that is being broken the most. Education would be great, but it is not/has not/will not work unless it is made manditory, and is a program that is the same quality at EVERY DZ. Now the USPA can't even get the ISP done at all the DZ's....See the problem with just education? Just doing nothing is not an option. Liability in the US is to great...I know of one guy that stiffed the hospital for 107,000.00 Who pays that? We do. Regulation will work...It will prevent the yahoo with 200 jumps from getting something that he does not know enough about. If he wants to go past this wingload, he can...He just has to take some time to do it, and PROVE he can handle it...Whats the problem with that? Ron"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
phoenixlpr 0 #131 June 18, 2003 Do you think that the number of jumps is a good regulation??? I hade 108 jumps in 3 years. Do you think it will qualify me to jump with HP canopies if I would have 400 jumps in 12 years? I dont think so. You should know your capabilites and handicaps and respect other opinion too. Check the manufacturers recommendation for those HP canopies. They have better "rules". Dont you feel quilty if some crash but he was allowed to use his gear by the rule approved by you? Education without regulation. Safe landings Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
okalb 78 #132 June 18, 2003 QuoteQuoteDo you think that the number of jumps is a good regulation??? I hade 108 jumps in 3 years. Do you think it will qualify me to jump with HP canopies if I would have 400 jumps in 12 years? A very good point except for one thing. If you had 400 jumps over 12 years, at least you would have been in the sport for 12 years. Time in the sport is experience in itself. Hopefully someone who has been in the sport for 12 years would have seen enough to know that they shouldn't jump that HP canopy. Jump numbers are not the perfect solution, but neither is anything else and they are the best we have. We use jump numbers as a qualification for lots of things in the sport. None of them are perfect, but we have accepted them as the best we can do. -OK Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
phoenixlpr 0 #133 June 18, 2003 If you noticed number of jumps is nothing. You can mesaure of your current competence by total number of jump, jump in last 6 and 12 month and the gear you used with design & WL. Im sure that someone would be capable to fly with a HP over 1.4 WL in 6 month with 400 jumps. IMHO it shouldnt be any general rule. Listen to your mentor, know your limits. Safe landings. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #134 June 18, 2003 > hade 108 jumps in 3 years. Do you think it will qualify me to jump >with HP canopies if I would have 400 jumps in 12 years? You will be more qualified than if you had made 90 jumps in 12 years. >Check the manufacturers recommendation for those HP canopies. >They have better "rules". Dont you feel quilty if some crash but he >was allowed to use his gear by the rule approved by you? No. We're not talking about a rule that says "once you have 400 jumps you are qualified to jump a 1.4 to 1 canopy." We're talking about a rule that says "unless you get education, you have to wait until you have at LEAST 400 jumps." It's like the pull altitude. 2000 feet is the minimum. If a tandem pulls at 2000 feet, has a problem and goes in, I don't feel any guilt. The 2000 foot rule does not say "it's always safe to pull at 2000 feet" - it says "2000 feet is the _lowest_ you can pull; pull at or above this altitude." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #135 June 18, 2003 QuoteDo you think that the number of jumps is a good regulation??? Do you have a better plan? We already use raw jump #'s for several other permissions (CRW, Pull altitudes, Night jumps...ect) Its simple, and works... QuoteI hade 108 jumps in 3 years. Do you think it will qualify me to jump with HP canopies if I would have 400 jumps in 12 years? Nope, but HE would be safer if he had 400 jumps than if he had 200. Quote You should know your capabilites and handicaps and respect other opinion too. The problem is not ME knowing my capabilities....It is with THEM NOT knowing theirs. And how are the going to know? They don't have the experience to know. QuoteDont you feel quilty if some crash but he was allowed to use his gear by the rule approved by you? Better to ask do I feel guilty if I don't do anything to reverse the trend that I see? If they smack in under a lower wingload..chances are they would have smacked in at a higher wingload as well. QuoteSafe landings I am trying to make them safe for everyone. Even the ones that don't know they are in danger. Ron"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
phoenixlpr 0 #136 June 18, 2003 Quote Do you have a better plan? We already use raw jump #'s for several other permissions (CRW, Pull altitudes, Night jumps...ect) Its simple, and works... How can you say that? You dont know what would be without that. Quote The problem is not ME knowing my capabilities....It is with THEM NOT knowing theirs. And how are the going to know? They don't have the experience to know. And why do you think that you do have? Quote Better to ask do I feel guilty if I don't do anything to reverse the trend that I see? If they smack in under a lower wingload..chances are they would have smacked in at a higher wingload as well. I don`t think so. On some level it safer if you dont feel yourself safe. If you feel more danger than usual, you will follow the rules e.g. you wont make "demo" landing with canopy you dont realy know. Most of the time thats not a WL problem, just a general pilot problem. On the other hand theres the responsibility of that person who is selling or renting those equipments. I know a case that someone could bought a small, higy WL, highly eliptical canopy with # of jumps under 200. He told the dealer if he is not willing to sell that gear some other willl. He ate the dirt in some other country in front of his fiends making a breaked hook turn landing. QuoteQuoteSafe landings I am trying to make them safe for everyone. Even the ones that don't know they are in danger. Ron :) It was just some kindda signiture :). Safe landings Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
markbaur 0 #137 June 18, 2003 QuoteWe already use raw jump #'s for several other permissions (CRW, Pull altitudes, Night jumps...etc) Not quite. We have recommended numbers for CRW, water, night, and high altitude jumps. We do have required minimum pull altitudes, but a calculated case can be made for these, based on opening time and reaction time. If you would like the USPA to make "official" WL and other canopy recommendations (in SIM Section 6), I'd be all for that. But you still need to reveal the calculations (in terms of speed and reaction times) you use to arrive at your proposed regulation. Mark Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #138 June 18, 2003 QuoteQuoteDo you think that the number of jumps is a good regulation??? Do you have a better plan? We already use raw jump #'s for several other permissions (CRW, Pull altitudes, Night jumps...ect) negative. Jump numbers are just part of the permission - demonstration of skill and passing the written test are also required. It's unclear to me what role jump numbers play in the acquisition of skills. I mean, if that's all there was, you'd give gold medals in 4-way to the team with the most total jumps and you wouldn't have to go to the bother of getting judges and jump planes.... 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
Ron 7 #139 June 18, 2003 QuoteJump numbers are just part of the permission - demonstration of skill and passing the written test are also required. Ok so make it jump #'s PLUS a test and a skill set (Which we are all saying we should have.) So it fits quite nicley in with the norm huh? Ron"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
phoenixlpr 0 #140 June 18, 2003 Quote Jump numbers are just part of the permission - demonstration of skill and passing the written test are also required. Wow! Getting better! And what would you put in the written test? Safe landings Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
phoenixlpr 0 #141 June 18, 2003 What is a kill set? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #142 June 18, 2003 QuoteWhat is a kill set? LOL ... I can't believe I'm about to defend Ron. He meant skill set. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #143 June 18, 2003 QuoteIf you would like the USPA to make "official" WL and other canopy recommendations (in SIM Section 6), I'd be all for that. But you still need to reveal the calculations (in terms of speed and reaction times) you use to arrive at your proposed regulation. Speed...Too many low timers are hooking it in. Reaction times...They are not hooking it in. If you have better ideas..By all means tell me. But don't just sit and pigeon hole my idea...Help make things better, don't just sit and bitch. Can you not see a problem with low timers getting canopies and killing themselves? How would you fix it? Ron"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #144 June 18, 2003 QuoteWhat is a kill set? Its what low timers are using now... You see they think they have the SKILL set...But they die. Its called a typo. Ron"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
phoenixlpr 0 #145 June 18, 2003 Is it better to save and let them die in traffic accident or cancer? Let them die young! Let the natural selection rule the world! Safe landings Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #146 June 18, 2003 QuoteHow can you say that? Simple it has worked this far. QuoteAnd why do you think that you do have? Its called EXPERIENCE..I have almost 10 years and 3,000 jumps on wingloads from student to 2.8 to 1. And I have seen several 300 jump wonders die from letting their egos pick canopies. QuoteI don`t think so. On some level it safer if you dont feel yourself safe. If you feel more danger than usual, you will follow the rules e.g. you wont make "demo" landing with canopy you dont realy know. Most of the time thats not a WL problem, just a general pilot problem. Then why did the USPA create a PRO rating? Because people don't know what they can do, and often find out AFTER they screw up. QuoteI know a case that someone could bought a small, higy WL, highly eliptical canopy with # of jumps under 200. He told the dealer if he is not willing to sell that gear some other willl. He ate the dirt in some other country in front of his fiends making a breaked hook turn landing. And with this regulation...he would not have been able to jump it even if he could buy it. Ron"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #147 June 18, 2003 QuoteIs it better to save and let them die in traffic accident or cancer? Let them die young! Let the natural selection rule the world! I can't believe you said that... How obtuse to think that them getting hurt/killed just effects them. Im done with you Ron"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #148 June 18, 2003 QuoteIs it better to save and let them die in traffic accident or cancer? Let them die young! Let the natural selection rule the world! Safe landings I am by no means a canopy nazi. But the problem with this sort of thinking is that by letting people die (natural selection as you say) we are giving a bad name to our sport. Everytime the whuffo news reports to the whuffo public that a skydiver has died, then the whuffo public thinks more negative thoughts about us and our sport. If we can prevent a few of the lesser experienced jumpers from jumping in conditions (and this includes flying a canopy) that they are not ready for, then the less the whuffo public will hear about our sport and the more we can go on not worrying about drastic legislation. I am all for education and not all that kean on specific jump number regulation. But we do need to do something to prevent people from dying (or messing themselves up) under canopies which they are not ready for. Education and threads like this have prevented me from downsizing this summer. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Blahr 0 #149 June 18, 2003 1:1 wingload with 68 jumps I wouldnt mind regulation on this issue as long as its other skydivers doing the regulating. They have the best interest of the sport in mind. I take guidance all the time from more experienced jumpers. I was not allowed to freefall until my instructor knew that I could open my own parachute. I didnt mind this. The rules were for my own safety. They were not going to allow me to do something before I was ready for it. Why should canopy flight be any different? Its just as hazardous to your health (and the health of others) to fly a canopy thats too hot to handle. As long as you pose a possible risk to ME flying your HP canopy, I'd prefer some kind of regulation that keeps you from doing it before you are ready. I was not allowed to determine for myself when I was ready to freefall on my own. That decision was left to the more experienced jumpers. My license doesnt suddenly give me the right to do whatever I want because the bad decisions I might make can hurt other people too. Is driving under the influence a crime because you might hurt yourself? No. Its a crime because you might hurt someone else that has nothing to do with it. Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
phoenixlpr 0 #150 June 18, 2003 Quote QuoteI know a case that someone could bought a small, higy WL, highly eliptical canopy with # of jumps under 200. He told the dealer if he is not willing to sell that gear some other willl. He ate the dirt in some other country in front of his fiends making a breaked hook turn landing. And with this regulation...he would not have been able to jump it even if he could buy it. You cant stop them got killed by human stupidity. I know if you dont want USPA rules be applied on you - you can easily find other places.......... Safe landings Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
