Contacting USPA about canopy training/wingloading issues

[Jessica 0]

The Bytch tracked this down for me:

S&T committee -
Chair: Mike Perry
Members: Mike Mullines, Jessie Farrington, DJan Stewart, Sherry Butcher & Jan Meyer
Advisor: Mike Turoff

email and snail mail addresses for all are here.

Skydiving is for cool people only

[Michele 1]

Well done, Jess, and thanks to da Bytch as well....

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[CanuckInUSA 0]

I'm not so sure about the others, but DJan Stewart is actually a DZ.COM regular and goes by the screen name of "Mustard". So she's likely to see a lot of what's being talked about already.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[mustard 0]

Quote

I'm not so sure about the others, but DJan Stewart is actually a DZ.COM regular and goes by the screen name of "Mustard". So she's likely to see a lot of what's being talked about already.

What? Who? :-) Yeah, I read this forum when I'm supposed to be working, when I need a break from reading about all the environmental disasters in the world.

I am interested in knowing about this windloading issues, but so far I haven't heard anything. Can anybody bring me up to speed?

***
DJan

[jlmiracle 7]

Look at the thread in this forum under Wingload BSR.

Good Luck!

Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

[mustard 0]

OK, got it. Nothing new here, same old story of canopy size vs. skill -- I am of the opinion that more regulation is not the answer. So I know what the answer *isn't* but what we should do about this problem is not clear.

I think young hotshots will find a way around whatever laws are put in place so that they can swoop at the limit (or beyond) of their ability. This can't be legislated out of existence.

***
DJan

[Michele 1]

Quote

but what we should do about this problem is not clear.

Do you have any suggestions? Anything which has already been proposed and/or discussed? Even if not clear, it might create a starting point to generate some ideas. There are some wonderful minds out here...

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[mustard 0]

Quote

Do you have any suggestions? Anything which has already been proposed and/or discussed?

Education, education, education! It seems to me that the amount of canopy education is sorely lacking -- when I first started jumping (1991), nobody told me anything about canopy control. Today there is much much more information available, and the ISP has incorporated some canopy control into the program. There is a definite trend toward education, so I am heartened.

But to me, it's like a new generation of canopies (and canopy pilots) are pushing the envelope of actual survivability, for the same reasons that people probably started skydiving in the first place: to see if it can be done. How do you deal with that aspect of human propensity? And how can it be regulated?

There will always be risk-taking (and risk-averse) skydivers. I just hate to see more rules and regulations to deal with this.

Just my 2 cents. But I have discovered that anything I say any more carries more weight than it used to, just because I am on the USPA BOD. So I would like to add that this is just my own personal viewpoint, I have had to learn how to be a halfway-decent canopy pilot through trial and error.

***
DJan

[wmw999 2,141]

There are more survival skills needed to skydive now, particularly if you get a high-performance main. That naturally translates to longer training, but folks don't like to pay for that or take the time for it (and I can understand).

FJC training used to be about the gotta-have-them-first survival skills; most of the rest you could learn as you went. With high-performance canopies, the body of knowledge to be minimally competent has changed somewhat.

Access to high-performance gear means that you have to learn more stuff beyond "pull on time, and make sure and PLF."

I'm thinking that the A license should include more awareness of canopy stuff. We have a formal FJC with specific content; we might ought to have a formal CCC which is required for the A or B license (B makes more sense). Yes, it's more expense. Maybe there's a separate "canopy pilot" rating.

Right now we see folks learning it OJT, so we figure it can't be that hard. And it's not; it's just that the ground is, so mistakes aren't easily forgiven.

Maybe the deal is you have to have, not the jumps, but the canopy control part, of the license requirements to buy certain canopies. Can't prevent folks from buying them from their buddies, but if the fatalities and serious injuries are cut down by 80% I think that's still an improvement.

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)

[Michele 1]

Thanks for that, Mustard. And I understand your codicil about the BOD pov and making sure we know the views above are yours alone (not that they are not shared, but you stated your position).

Quote

Education, education, education! It seems to me that the amount of canopy education is sorely lacking

So then the question comes in to play about the situation I encountered, and also about the number of folks who avail themselves of canopy instruction. I put up a recent poll in the Canopy forum which indicates that 27% (+/-) of people have, at some point, received training in how to fly the canopy; that leaves 73% (+/-) who have not yet received it. Do 73% of the people go out of the plane without freefall instruction? No...

Some of the complaints seem to be:
1. Availability
2. Cost

Back when I was a prelicensee (two whole years ago!prior to awarding of the license?

I guess what I am saying is something on the order of a 2-hour basic canopy flight school, and then do a 5,000 HnP, bring someone with you, and demonstrate certain basic things, as a license requirement (maybe with a certified coach?). And then the same for the B, C, and D licenses?

I dunno. I'm not one of those wonderful minds I referred to . I do know I was given grief for taking the canopy class at 40 jumps but not given grief about taking the license required coach jumps...it was understood that it was needed to get the license, and so not an issue...

Just a thought...but I agree that education is key...and there will always be hotshots who have to push the limits...

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[billvon 2,421]

>Education, education, education!

I agree. Unfortunately, even where such education is available, people do not avail themselves of it. People go to big way courses because you can't do big-ways without enough skill. The result of being on a big-way and not knowing what you're doing, though, is usually just going low or causing some trouble.

Canopy flight is a bit different. Take someone at 200 jumps flying a 1.3 to 1 Sabre 2 and put them under a 2.2 to 1 Velocity, and they will probably be able to survive the landing 9 times out of 10. Many people take that as success - "Of course I can safely jump this! I can land it." In that way it's quite different than the above example (training for big-ways.) The lack of skill is not as clear and the risks of making a mistake are much, much higher.

So we are now at a point where the education is available. People going through the ISP even get some of it (not much, but some.) It's not sufficient to stop the rise in good-canopy fatalities. So what's the answer? Doing nothing seems like a bad answer; fatalities will continue to rise. Peer pressure usually doesn't work (as I'm sure you've noticed.) Even while I was an S+TA, and would tell people in no uncertain terms they were going to break themselves, they'd just go somewhere else where people "had a more positive attitude."

We pass rules on things like breakoff altitudes for big-ways even though that restricts what people can do, and might even cost an 8-way team a point during a practice or an informal competition. Passing a rule on canopy loadings would also cost people some fun (i.e. that 200 jump wonder who happens to be exceptional, but can't be bothered with canopy training, won't get to jump that VX79) but would do a lot more than a breakoff-altitude rule to keep people alive in this sport.

[mustard 0]

Quote

I'm thinking that the A license should include more awareness of canopy stuff. We have a formal FJC with specific content; we might ought to have a formal CCC which is required for the A or B license (B makes more sense).

Until I got on the BOD, I had no idea how hard it actually is to get anything changed. First you need to be a believer in the necessity of the change, then you have to convince others on the BOD of this fact. (This is where contacting your Regional Director as well as a couple NDs makes a whole lot of sense about issues of importance to you.)

Then it comes to a vote in the Committee, and then goes to the Full Board for passage. Lots of things get hashed out and changed in the process from the original because these things are usually controversial. Even very small changes cause big waves. Some people think if it worked in the past it should work now.

Anyhow, referring to the above quote, I don't think it's the people getting their B license who are the problem. More and more jumpers are availing themselves of canopy instruction before downsizing. Maybe the whole problem will fix itself as more people on each DZ know more and more about canopy flight.

I cannot believe how many more people are aware of canopy flight characteristics in the last two to three years. These people are now sharing their knowledge on the Internet, in these forums, and on the DZs.

Rather than regulation, shouldn't we start learning how cool it is to know these things and sharing them with each other as this information is needed??

***
DJan

[livendive 8]

DJan wrote:

Quote

OK, got it. Nothing new here, same old story of canopy size vs. skill -- I am of the opinion that more regulation is not the answer. So I know what the answer *isn't* but what we should do about this problem is not clear.

I think young hotshots will find a way around whatever laws are put in place so that they can swoop at the limit (or beyond) of their ability. This can't be legislated out of existence.

I can't tell you how good it is to hear something like this from a sitting BOD member.
Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[livendive 8]

Quote

Rather than regulation, shouldn't we start learning how cool it is to know these things and sharing them with each other as this information is needed??

Bingo - we have a winner. It's not about regulation, it's about nurturing an environment that is pro-knowledge and safety conscious. When 3 forty jump wonders come up to you laughing about the zoo freefly they made together and the 2 near collisions it entailed, tell them how stupid that was instead of laughing about it. When someone docks on your formation at mach 3, don't razz them about it at the debrief, just refuse to jump with them for the rest of the day. When that 100-jump wonder does the forehead-butt-heel triple layout across the landing area, don't crowd around to laugh at the video replays. Instead, show it to the novices and explain in no uncertain terms how stupid landing procedure "x" is going to hurt/kill them...preferably with the guilty party watching. If everyone took it upon themself to respect/desire education and spurn stupidity, more regulation would become a moot topic.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[billvon 2,421]

You said:

>it's about nurturing an environment that is pro-knowledge and safety conscious.

which is a good idea. Then you said:

>When someone docks on your formation at mach 3, don't razz them
> about it at the debrief, just refuse to jump with them for the rest of
> the day.

So if a jumper shows up with a Stiletto 97 they can't fly, you will refuse to get on loads with them? That helps them how?

>Instead, show it to the novices and explain in no uncertain terms
> how stupid landing procedure "x" is going to hurt/kill
> them...preferably with the guilty party watching.

This is the opposite of setting up a nurturing pro-knowledge environment. Calling them out in public and telling them they are idiots is, instead, more of an anti-jumper environment. Their solution? They will seek (and find) an environment where they are accepted. This is one reason some jumpers buy new canopies and seem to 'disappear' from their original DZ. You hear about their broken femurs, backs etc a few months later.

>If everyone took it upon themself to respect/desire education and
>spurn stupidity, more regulation would become a moot topic.

If everyone took it upon themselves to TEACH new jumpers how to fly the problem would go away. Hoping other people do it will give you exactly what we have now.

[livendive 8]

Quote

This is the opposite of setting up a nurturing pro-knowledge environment. Calling them out in public and telling them they are idiots is, instead, more of an anti-jumper environment. Their solution? They will seek (and find) an environment where they are accepted. This is one reason some jumpers buy new canopies and seem to 'disappear' from their original DZ. You hear about their broken femurs, backs etc a few months later.

Actually, the ones we hear about a few months later like that are the ones we told to take up golf. Still, you have a point. I failed to mention a corresponding effort to praise achievement and make a good example of things that are done correctly. Maybe a something like a reward system for catching a misrouted chest strap (e.g.) would be cool if it wouldn't be abused. I understand your point about not calling someone on the carpet in public (with rare exceptions). I asked on rec.skydiving a few years ago what ideas people have for fostering a more safety-conscious environment. I'm now an S&TA and still don't have a firm grasp on it...but I try. And along the lines of what DJan said above, I maintain that making safety "cool" will have a greater effect than trying to demand safety through regulation.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[skybytch 259]

I just sent my email to all members of the S&T committee.

[skybytch 259]

fyi, here's what I sent.
---
To the Safety and Training committee:

The incident reports tell the story. We're injuring and killing far too many sub-500 jump skydivers under perfectly good canopies. Canopy control training hasn't kept pace with canopy performance, and the injuries and fatalities are telling us that what we've been doing isn't working.

The ISP, where it is being followed anyway, does a good job of giving pre-A licensed jumpers a solid base in canopy control. What is lacking is widely available advanced - i.e. post-A license - canopy control training and coaching.

I've been selling equipment to jumpers from around the US for the past six years. During that time I talked to literally hundreds of new jumpers. Many of these new skydivers are being told by their AFF instructors, S&TA's and DZO's to purchase canopies loaded at 1.1 or higher when they can't yet predictably land a canopy loaded at 1.0 or less. I've sold far too many used rigs for jumpers who broke themselves before they even got to 200 jumps under mains loaded at 1.1 or higher.

It's time to insist that our next generation of skydivers will be better equipped to handle the even higher performance canopies that are bound to surface over the next ten years. It's time to insist that our younger jumpers demonstrate proficiency at flying a canopy before being able to jump or purchase something more aggressive. It's time to insist that newer jumpers fly light wingloadings on relatively docile mains until they've gained some experience dealing with less than perfect conditions.

Colorado jumper and I/E Derek Vanboeschoten has developed a proposed canopy skill requirement for licensing and wingloading and canopy type eestrictions that I feel is workable and fair.

"I propose USPA develop a series of canopy skills requirements for the “B”, “C”, and “D” licenses. These requirements would need to be flexible enough to allow for aggressive canopy pilots and conservative canopy pilots alike. They would include canopy class room training, practical exercises, a written and practical test. I also propose USPA implement (grand-fathering in current license holders), canopy type/wing load restrictions based on the “A” through “D” license. As each license is obtained, the skydiver may jump higher performance canopys. These restrictions would have to be well researched, taking into account canopy type, landing altitude, wing loading, etc. The canopy matrix restrictions could be waiverable to a certain, defined degree to allow a skydiver that wishes to advance more quickly, puts in the effort, and demonstrates the ability. A skydiver could also earn a ‘canopy restricted “B” through “D” license if they choose not to demonstrate the proficiency required for the next license, similar to a VFR commercial pilots license, for example.

When USPA implemented the “A” license canopy skills requirements, they correctly figured that Instructors were qualified to teach these basic canopy skills, without further training or certification of the Instructor. As a skydiver progresses through their skydiving careers, their initial Instructor that taught them their basic canopy control skills may not be qualified or have the skills to teach more advance canopy control without further training and/or certification.

Therefore, I further propose the creation of the Canopy Instructor rating. This rating would be similar to the I rating (but without reducing the standard when DZO’s need more staff). Whereas the AFFI/ SLI rating courses focus on free-fall skills and instruction, the CI rating would focus on canopy skills and Instruction. A weekend course attended after completing a pre-course card, where a Canopy Instructor Candidate learns how to teach advanced canopy control (any instruction post-AFF is advanced in my book), and must demonstrate the ability to perform and teach advanced canopy control. A CI would not be working with pre “A” license students but with licensed skydivers, so the CI rating would be similar to the Coach rating, except focusing on canopy skills, not free-fall skills, and should be as difficult to earn as the AFFI rating."

Regardless of whether any or all of the above proves practical, it is my view that to avoid seeing more of our newer jumpers leaving the sport due to injury or death action needs to be taken on this issue sooner rather than later.

Thanks for your time.

Blue skies,

Lisa Briggs
D14633
Hemet, CA
---
Who I sent it to -
mprigging at aol dot com, jan at ucar dot edu, kapowsin at eskimo dot com, mikemullins at skydivekingair dot com, aerosoftware at makeithappen dot com, sbutchermed at earthlink dot com

I've received one reply so far saying that more of these type letters will be needed to get this issue discussed in an S&T committee meeting. Use mine as a template if you want or need to, but if you agree that something needs to be done - whether through education or regulation or both - take a few minutes NOW and let the members of the S&T committee know your views.

[andy2 0]

just curious, on a related topic, whose sending letters urging USPA not to regulate wing loading?

---------------------------------------------
let my inspiration flow,
in token rhyme suggesting rhythm...

[geronimo 1]

Quote

fyi, here's what I sent.
---
snip

THanks for writing.
This issue you address is of concern to everyone on the BOD and DZOs.
Specific solutions are debatable.

My 2 cents is that this has been an issue since the first high performance parachute entered the skydiving arena.
The comments you see & read about today's 1.x+ WL were said 30 years ago when PCs were introduced.
There were letters that blamed retailers for selling gear to people not qualified to use the gear.
There were letters that blamed the mfgs for not implementing some sort of qualification program for the users.
There were letters that blamed PCA/USPA for not implementing 'rules' that would mitigate the fatalties and injuries.

Right now, I do not have a solution. More rules is not the way I'd go either. I would not mandate AADs anymore than some maximum WL - even though there is substantial evidence to say using AADs or lower WLs reduces the severity of a hazard.

The reasons for this are that safety and risk are not the same thing, but many people interpret them the same way. Whuffoes look at what we do 'jump outta a perfectly good airplane' and state it is 'unsafe'. We know that it has it's associated risks that we are willing to assume. That is, both parties see the same risk level. One party says it is acceptable. Another party says it is unacceptable. That is the difference between risk and safety.

On another level, I think that there is a totally different reason new jumpers get in over their heads on WL. They obtain their A license & realize that they have to work up a ladder for RW, vRW or CRW, but they don't see that path for WL. I wonder why that is. Perhaps it is because canopy control is so simple. 'pull right - go right; pull left - go left; pull both toggles - slow down;' The missing info about toggle sensitivity, toggle stroke length, responsivness vs planform, etc is not in the minds of new jumpers.
I wonder why that is so?

More ramblings later on r.s probably.

FMI: see
http://ParachuteHistory.com/eng/risk.html
http://MakeItHappen.com/spsj/yourcan.htm

---
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

[mikkey 0]

Hmmm, I find it difficult to comment on posts made by people who are not telling us anything about themselves in the profile.

Quote: "The comments you see & read about today's 1.x+ WL were said 30 years ago when PCs were introduced.
There were letters that blamed retailers for selling gear to people not qualified to use the gear.
There were letters that blamed the mfgs for not implementing some sort of qualification program for the users.
There were letters that blamed PCA/USPA for not implementing 'rules' that would mitigate the fatalties and injuries. "

Now, I actually did start jumping exactly 25 years ago. At that time you had to have ~ 50 jumps to jump Para Commander and 115 to jump square parachutes (this was where I jumped in Europe and the latter had just being lowered from 200) - don't know what the rules in the US were at the time.

One thing I can tell you is, that it is totally BS to compare issues around the introduction of the Para or even the square's to the current situation! Yes, people would probably brake a leg or so learning to fly these, but nothing like today. And actually the risk of minor injuries were higher on a beginner T-10 or C9 - 7 TU type due to harder landing and less steering capability (hitting objects, power lines, water etc.).

Unfortunately your profile does not tell us if you are talking about first, second or third hand information. But I was actually around when PC's were still used and squares became the "norm" in the late 70's. No way did we have anything like we experience now, yes some injuries when people learned to fly squares, but nothing compared to this and not any fatalities I can remember to have been told about or read about.
So please don't muddy the water with this type of stuff. The issue is to important.

PS: "Lisa for President" (of the USPA)

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

[skybytch 259]

Quote

Hmmm, I find it difficult to comment on posts made by people who are not telling us anything about themselves in the profile.

geronimo is Jan Meyer, a national director and a member of the safety and training committee.

btw, my thanks to both Jan and DJan for reading and contributing to the discussions here. It's a good thing to have board members making themselves available to us like this.

[Michele 1]

Quote

It's a good thing to have board members making themselves available to us like this.

I agree.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[mikkey 0]

Thanks for that. Just surprised that Jan keeps this information out of the profile. It would be nice to know this when reading the comments.

I agree that it is good that Jan reads these threads and cares to comment, but if I was a USPA member - which I am not - I would be concerned about that a director and a member of the safety and training committee is using issues regarding the introduction of the Para Commander more then 30 years ago as an argument (and I mean no dis-respect to Jan as a person). You can NOT compare the situation then - with what is happening now. A PC (or even early squares like strato cloud etc.) would very rarely kill you on landing.
The sport as such has changed dramatically in the last 30 years. The equipment has become so much safer in general terms and the training ahs improved a lot - except for the main HP canopy issue. Look at the USPA stats for fatalities and see how all the other fatality reasons have declined over the last 10 years and what has happened to landing accidents.
If Jan's attitude is typical for the USPA - you guys (Lisa, billvon, Ron etc.) who are pushing here on dz.com for the USPA to take action have no chance what so ever.

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

[Ron 7]

Quote

Right now, I do not have a solution. More rules is not the way I'd go either. I would not mandate AADs
anymore than some maximum WL - even though there is substantial evidence to say using AADs or lower
WLs reduces the severity of a hazard.

USPA makes students wear AAD's. USPA makes people pull at certain altitudes. USPA puts out wind limits.

Why would WL be any different?

Ron

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