Dealing with the "Crossbrace at 300 jumps" crowd.

[DocPop 1]

Having been berated on here for my canopy choices and desire to learn HP canopy flight very early on, I know how ineffective it is to tell someone (well, someone like me anyway) that they are going too fast.

Let's use this thread to collect CONSTRUCTIVE ideas to address this problem.

So the question for the poll is:

"What would you do if you were a S&TA/DZO/DZSO/CCI and you saw someone clearly moving too fast in either what they were flying or how they are flying it?"

Restrictions speak for themselves, but suggestions to exactly HOW you would educate someone would be very interesting to read.

Additionally, having restricted someone, when do you tell them the restriction will be lifted?


ETA: the prompt for this thread was an excellent post by Fast in Incidents.

"The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls."

~ CanuckInUSA

[billvon 2,400]

>What would you do if you were a S&TA/DZO/DZSO/CCI and you saw someone
>clearly moving to fast in either what they were flying or how they are flying it?

Tell them they couldn't jump that canopy at my DZ. I've done that a few times. It worked somewhat; their inevitable crippling injury occurred at a different DZ.

[Fast 0]

Thanks for your opinion of my post in incidents.

I have done all of these options in some manner or another. With varying success. A big part of this is the fact that there are big egos all around. I mean - very experienced jumpers deserve in some regard to be respected and have their opinion listened to. In reality that doesn't always happen and the vast number of reasons that people cite for why "X is just being a douche bag skygod he thinks im gonna out swoop him" or whatever it is that causes a newer jumper to disregard the experience are too long to name.

Or are they?

I don't have access to studies, but I am sure that there have been some done that are relevant to the type of behavior that we are talking about. Something out of psychology or some other behavioral science. I think it would be a worthwhile undertaking for someone to put together some kind of feature length video that actually goes into this topic.

It would need to be genuinely unbiased, represent those who "got away with it", those who didn't, people who took their time and those who learned before they got too badly hurt. Show people really fucked up, in the hospital, the whole thing, pre/post, long term outcomes, etc.

Dig into the research behind why people have a hard time judging their own skill.

Cover basic dangers of swooping, basic learning progression, how to get help, how to know when you're fucking up.

Maybe that's an unattainable goal and the idea in my mind is in super infancy so I am sure I have missed a lot of it. But a true hard look at the successes and failures of people, something that experienced jumpers could put in front of someone who wants to learn how to swoop and make sure they are aware of what the risks really are.

An academic approach to the whole thing. Something that goes beyond - "Derrick just thinks I'll be better than him and wants to keep me from being awesome so fuck that guy"

Dunno - that's my quick thoughts on the matter.

~D
Where troubles melt like lemon drops Away above the chimney tops That's where you'll find me.
Swooping is taking one last poke at the bear before escaping it's cave - davelepka

[Fast 0]

billvon

>What would you do if you were a S&TA/DZO/DZSO/CCI and you saw someone
>clearly moving to fast in either what they were flying or how they are flying it?

Tell them they couldn't jump that canopy at my DZ. I've done that a few times. It worked somewhat; their inevitable crippling injury occurred at a different DZ.

While this is effective for any one given dropzone - and sometimes it's all we have left - it's my opinion that there could be a more systemic approach to dealing with this across the sport.

~D
Where troubles melt like lemon drops Away above the chimney tops That's where you'll find me.
Swooping is taking one last poke at the bear before escaping it's cave - davelepka

[DocPop 1]

My own opinion to this is that, similar to BillVon's downsizing checklist, there should be restrictions on what canopy can be flown and what type of HP landing can be undertaken until proficiency has been reached on a certain goal.

For example,

1. Fly a consistent landing pattern and achieve consistently accurate landings. Demonstrate flat turns and flare turns.
2. Land downwind and crosswind safely and practice HP turns and low-turn abortion >2,000' on at least 50 jumps (HnP's recommended).
3. Use double fronts (straight) for landings and consistently plane out at a safe (not too low or crazy high) altitude.
4. Perform HP landings with a turn of up to 90 degrees and consistently plane out at a safe (not too low or crazy high) altitude.
5.....
6.....

etc,etc....

This is not an exhaustive list, obviously.

It could then be used in the following way to deal with hotshot canopy dude:

"You're staying with straight in landings on your 190 until you can do 1 & 2 with it. You can then downsize a maximum of one size to a 170. You stay on that canopy until you can demonstrate 1,2,& 3. ....."

Every downsize starts the jumper back at #1 so it forces someone to go back and learn the canopy from double fronts. The highly skilled guys can move through this progress much faster than the slower learners. Obviously there will be some who try to beat the system but at least there IS a system and I believe that having a structured progression with specific performance goals gives guys like me, Sangi etc something to aim for. This is sadly lacking currently and people start to make up their own goals such as "I want to be doing 270s on a cross-braced wing by the end of the season".

The other point is that someone needs to be in the landing area consistently to assess/enforce this system, but frankly that should be happening anyway.

"The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls."

~ CanuckInUSA

[wmw999 2,121]

To go along with the ability to demonstrate that should be the persistence to find someone willing to sign off on it. No one wants to have to beg someone to witness to anything, particularly if it's not going to be perfect, but that might ought to be part of the process if you want to go on the early side of limits.

That means that the DZ would need to identify a couple of people who can do this, and not just the DZO unless they're available a lot, or someone who thinks swooping is stupid and dangerous.

Wendy P.

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)

[DocPop 1]

wmw999

To go along with the ability to demonstrate that should be the persistence to find someone willing to sign off on it. No one wants to have to beg someone to witness to anything, particularly if it's not going to be perfect, but that might ought to be part of the process if you want to go on the early side of limits.

That means that the DZ would need to identify a couple of people who can do this, and not just the DZO unless they're available a lot, or someone who thinks swooping is stupid and dangerous.

Wendy P.

I agree. It seems to me that it is the remit of an S&TA to either be that person or to delegate that responsibility to a suitably qualified person such as an AFFI for that day.

I understand that this will take effort, presumably that's why it's not happening now, but that doesn't mean it's not worth doing.

I believe SDAZ has someone watching landings (often Mr Burke) every day.

Where there's a will there's a way. And if there isn't a will then people should stop pissing and moaning when people "spoil their sport" by hooking in.

"The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls."

~ CanuckInUSA

[NWFlyer 2]

Quote

The highly skilled guys can move through this progress much faster than the slower learners.

This is sort of a bigger philosophical point, and I suspect that people who've been around a lot longer than my 9 years will say "hah, you don't even know, tourist!," but there's something to be said for TIME.

Time in sport. Time under a wing. Time to get to the point where you react instinctively when the shit hits the fan, and your instinct is right 99.9% the time. Time to get to the point where you don't let the shit hit the fan because you can see the big picture so well that you stay out of the corner in the first place (proverbial or otherwise).

Time to deal with a whole bunch of different days and situations and weather. Time to travel to a bunch of different dropzones with nasty tight landing areas or crazy wind or altitudes or low levels of canopy/pattern discipline that you've got to navigate. Time to see how you deal with a whole shit ton of different variables that you can't even begin to imagine till you've spent some time in this sport.

Time to go to a funeral or ten. Time to watch your buddy get airlifted out, broken in pieces. Time to watch him deal with the healing from that (or deal with NOT healing from that but instead being permanently broken).

Unfortunately, telling the hot shot "natural" he (and it's usually he, so I'm totally comfortable with using a gendered pronoun) that he can speed through the checklist doesn't address the time issue.

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

[DocPop 1]

Again, a very valid point, but I don't think it's practical with the people this thread is aimed at helping.

"You can't do that" and "You can't do that for five years" would have sounded very similar to me when I started dancing with the reaper!

"The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls."

~ CanuckInUSA

[NWFlyer 2]

DocPop

Again, a very valid point, but I don't think it's practical with the people this thread is aimed at helping.

"You can't do that" and "You can't do that for five years" would have sounded very similar to me when I started dancing with the reaper!

Yep, this is true. Of the options you gave, I'm a fan of "you can't do that here." It may just move the problem down the road, but I'd sure as hell rather jump at a dropzone where I know the management deals swiftly with people who have no business being under the wing they're under. And that is a 100% selfish attitude - I don't want 'em in the pattern with me.

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

[nad 0]

How about creating a sticky on the Swooping forum that has videos all the mistakes people have made in the past regarding their canopy choices/maneuvers? If they progress to fast or don't show competency, show them what can happen when mistakes and poor choices are made. Who is to say they are progressing to fast or don't show competency? I think it should be someone authoritative on the DZ like the DZO or S&TA..

I've seen and read enough on the swooping forums that if you downsize to fast, progress well beyond your capabilities, or plain don't listen, that you can seriously get hurt or die. Seeing that, I've reached out local instruction and education from the Flight-1 courses prior to trying anything new. Then take what you learn in the sky until it becomes second nature and progress. This has worked for me (someone who is just starting to learn), I don't know about anyone else who has already been in the sport without proper education.

[3mpire 0]

I think using BillVon's checklist and engaging with the person is best.

Instead of just talking AT someone, say "so you're think you're pretty good, prove it" and challenge them to put up or shut up doing the checklist. Jump with them and do the checklist items yourself too or have some video saved up so you can compare their performance to yours.

If someone really is progressing faster, then they should have no problem doing a bunch of maneuvers on a bigger wing. If they struggle, then you don't have to say a single word to them. The video will speak for itself. It will be obvious to everyone and the jumper that they have more work to do if they fall short.

I think the trick isn't telling people what to do, it's helping them learn for themselves what they can or can't do. You do that by engaging with them in a constructive way and give them a path towards their goal.

It has the added benefit that it's done in a way that allows them to ask for help when they can't complete the checklist that is easy on the ego.

Say they got 80% of the items on the checklist, the experienced swooper could say "not bad for all of this stuff on the list but that last bit isn't so great, here is how you fix that. You get that last bit down and you're going to outswoop me in no time" or whatever bullshit you would say.

Trick is, it takes two people. A swooper who is willing to do more than berate someone (which doesn't take much work) and a jumper who is willing to put up or shut up on the checklist challenge. But it seems like a good place to start.

[Sky_doggy 0]

DocPop

Having been berated on here for my canopy choices and desire to learn HP canopy flight very early on, I know how ineffective it is to tell someone (well, someone like me anyway) that they are going too fast.

Doc,

I looked at the video clips on the thread "Injury - Low Turn Incident - May 7th 2013" and I literally felt sick. I doubt if I could watch it again. Perhaps a mandatory viewing this clip needs to go along with Billvon's excellent downsizing check list.

I have been contemplating a recent accident of a jumper who started with me 3 seasons ago.

In his mid 30's, fit, bright with an inquiring mind and an engaging personality and has accumulated about 650 jumps. He is smart, not arrogant, he looks, he listens, and critically evaluates information.

Over time I saw his canopy go from 190, 170, 135 and most recently to a Velocity. He was cautioned by people who he respected but still arrived at the wrong decision.

A couple of weeks ago he hooked in a 270 and smashed his femur, fractured his hip, L2, L3 and skull. Amazingly he is going to be okay.

Quite frankly I don't see an easy answer. Either we head down the highly restrictive route or we just look the other way.

[pchapman 261]

DocPop

My own opinion to this is that, similar to BillVon's downsizing checklist, there should be restrictions on what canopy can be flown and what type of HP landing can be undertaken until proficiency has been reached on a certain goal.

I don't know the British system in detail but they have things like the below. This is part of the BPA's Canopy Piloting 1 signoff (after Canopy Handlign 1 & 2):

Quote

Proficient at conducting canopy drills (360°, 180°, 90° turns, and straight on approaches) at altitudes above 3,000 feet

Safe, high performance landings, using front risers during a straight on approach, on at least 5 consecutive descents

Safe, high performance landings, using a front riser to create a final approach turn of between 45° and 90°, on at least 5 consecutive descents

Safe, high performance landings, using a front riser to create a final approach FAI Certificate turn of between 90° and 180°, on at least 5 consecutive descents

Like other signoffs for licenses etc in other countries, it does take time for the jumper to get someone to watch (rather a lot unfortunately). Also, a jumper may do things they aren't supposed to, and signoffs can be done without the skills being properly demonstrated. But at least the concept is similar to more traditional things, like getting signed off for a certain number of landings within X distance of a target.

I like it that such a system doesn't stop people from trying out a range of different canopies based on arbitrary jump numbers, but it can help channel the type of thing people do with their canopy. It won't stop all accidents, but at least gets people into thinking about the concept of a progression program.

I'm not advocating any particular system though.

[jumpinjackflsh 0]

From a conservative, noob, old guy point of view I think this stuff is what's required...

Aka, "A License Card" style. Simply put, you don't swoop if you aren't certified to swoop. Downsizing through the range, requiring those signoffs. If you aren't certified, you don't have the credentials, you don't do it. Wave bye to the dz, maybe someone else will let you slide, not me.

However, and one of the interesting arguments I found about the wing suit drama. Many in our sport are against advanced level certification (implemented by the USPA) due to setting precedent across the sport, increasing the costs and many other reasons.

I can see the pro's and the cons. However, I'll say, as our sport grows, the new generations coming in, safety should be paramount and ensuring skills fit ability should also be a priority.

I'm cheap, I'll be the first to admit it it. The thought of making this sport more expensive, regulated and mandated is a tough one. But honestly, how the hell did we get to the wingsuit issue when swooping's been killing more of us for far longer.

From time to time, to this day, we even see the biggest most skilled in our sport fail and the result is often death.

Given the required skill it takes to be good at it. How did we make it this far without a formal progression?

What happens if we do it? Then you'll have to get certified to freefly, to wingsuit, rw, etc.... Yup, probably, but frankly, we've seen people broken from taking on more than they can handle in this area as well.

The current SIM and ISP that we have in place today is the result of years of development in our sport. It's the result of countless hours of input from some of the biggest in the game to the people in the trenches at dz's nation wide.

I honestly don't see why we don't take the same approach to specialized areas such as swooping as well. Tons of cons and more expensive but seriously, if you've managed to downsize five times and pick up a velo, you've proven you have the bucks to spend a little more on programs like these.

I hate regulation. I'm a creative guy. I tend to be a bit dangerous. Jeez, hell, anyone that jumps out of a plane repeatedly for FUN, well we are all cut from the same cloth.

But, when the writing is on the wall, and the story is clear? Why continue down the same path. Someone just saying "Hey, you should probably think about what you are doing" just doesn't make a bit of goddamn difference to those that are out on the edge already.

Hell, the stories been told here too many times to count. You even said yourself DocPop, you ignored it, went too fast yourself.

DZO's, S&TA's, Jumpmasters, Coachces, everyone should be on board however, a simple designation to your license such as "Ds24594" or "Dswp25694" would tell the whole story.

Then at the least, at a glance anyone could see, you have swoop, wing suit, photography, training and certification.

Doesn't mean you won't pound in, shit happens, even the best do, but it will sure as hell reduce the numbers and force people to put their money and their time, where there mouth is, and take proper steps to learn what they need to learn on the road to their goals.

Lastly, sorry for being long winded but seriously. We come from a big background. From military, to teachers, to hippies and freaks, to pilots and janitors. It's a pretty big mix of people, all with the desire to be free in the sky. Well, ask anyone that's paid for our freedom, and they'll tell you, it doesn't come free.

If we don't, move forward and grow in this fashion together, we'll keep doing the same thing, and get the same results.

I'd love to swoop some day. Not sure it'll ever happen. But I will have my ass in a wingsuit just as soon as I'm ready (per BSR's).

You won't see me sneaking around the rules before then because I'm old, cautious and not in a hurry to break myself. However, I ask myself if I was in this back in the day would I have?

Yep, I was bullet proof, unstoppable, I probably would have.

As long as we refuse to formalize, beyond bsr's and set some next level certs, we'll have this issue. Even after people will attempt to circumvent. However, it'll be much clearer than it is now.

Jack

P.S. As we get older our attitudes change to these things as well. The idea of taking an FJC from the likes of DSE and other top Wingsuiters in the country, hell I get a kick out of it. I look forward to it and lastly, I can't imagine putting one of those things on without doing it. Mandated or not. When we are younger, well, we are just dumber, period. We need the wisdom of the ones that have been around to lead us and arrive safely.

[chuckakers 370]

When I ran a DZ I had only 2 rules for every jumper, swoopers or otherwise.

1. No stupid shit.

2. No hook turns (my definition of a hook turn was any low altitude canopy maneuver that resulted in an injury)

The problem with folks who want to downsize at a dangerous pace is that typically the same motivation that feeds their desire to downsize is the same one that feeds their ego. Advice seldom slows those people down.

In my experience these folks won't listen to logic and seldom care to get educated. They want to go fast right now. For those folks, only strictly-enforced limits will work.

I'm a swooper and my kid is a comp swooper. This shit is dangerous. We don't need to coax anyone into safe behavior. Put limits on them - period.

If they don't like it they can crater somewhere else - as many have.

We will not beat this problem until DZO's and DZ management REFUSE to take money from morons.

It's not that hard, folks. Rule number 1. Get it.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[JeffCa 0]

As a newer jumper who is just getting the hang of even basic landings at WL < 1.0, I can say that I think setting some hard rules down is the way to go. I understand the concept of basic requirements for entry, such as 200 jumps for the wingsuit or camera. It gives me a goal to shoot for and an idea of how and when I can progress. Some do not understand this, particularly those who think cameras with low jump numbers are OK, but opening above 6,000' is not. However, I suspect most do get it. Swooping right now seems to be a cowboy thing, with no set path to follow for those who wish to enter, resulting in confusion and probably a lot of injury.

I'm reminded of the "if you can't beat 'em" attitude taken by authorities in other areas of life, such as the cops who provide car racing coaching to street racers on real race tracks, or the safe-injection clinics being set up in some cities for heroin addicts. Budding swoopers need a safe place to train and high-quality coaching. There should be (if there aren't already) widely-accessible swooping training camps, held in various locations on a regular basis, hosted by top canopy pilots. The locations chosen should have distinct areas available for HP landings. Participants would be divided into groups based on skill level and experience, and given coaching suitable for their stage of progress. Completing these courses satisfactorily could be required for swooping at a DZ without getting kicked off.

I'd suggest that laying down some basic requirements for entry, combined with a checklist of the style that Doc has proposed, combined with frequent swooping training camps hosted by top canopy pilots, would provide an excellent way for somebody at my stage of the game to determine how to (relatively) safely move forward in the game.

"So many fatalities and injuries are caused by decisions jumpers make before even getting into the aircraft. Skydiving can be safe AND fun at the same time...Honest." - Bill Booth

[yoink 321]

Swooping is is perceived as cool. Make no mistake about it, the drive to show your skills in front of groups of people is a very common trait.

We need to make swooping UNCOOL. Or at least make everything else as cool as it... that guy who bailed on a turn because he thought he was low? HE should be getting the hi f. ives in the landing area while the guys who are just getting away with the swoops should be chastised by everyone. Not just their dzo. Not just their coach. Their peers and friends...

Make swooping only acceptable in an lz a distance away from the crowd - not so far that it becomes its own cool little subgroup, but far enough so it's not a spectator sport - you want people to watch you swoop? Become good enough to compete...

[-Joey- 0]

yoink

We need to make swooping UNCOOL.

Doesn't work. In fact, that would have the opposite effect. There are many things that the prohibition of constitutes the only temptation.

Quote

Or at least make everything else as cool as it...

Much better idea. I suspect newbies who want to get into swooping are just bored of doing regular vanilla skydives; the thrill of simply skydiving is over and they need some new gimmick to add to bring that spark back. We can fulfill that need with helicopter jumps, ballons, and wingsuits instead.

That would cut the size of would-be new swoopers down to only those who really want to learn swooping over other disciplines, and they are more likely to want to learn the right way instead of just fudging their way into it.

Plain restricting someone is the worst idea ever - they are just going to go to another DZ and pound in there and so nothing has been accomplished (I'm assuming nobody here is enough of a douchebag to say "I don't care if they die, I just don't want it to be at my DZ.") They are going to do it anyway, so it's better they learn how to do it correctly and responsibly than to be shunned and end up pounding in.

Take a lesson from the idiots who preach abstinence-only sex-ed. The states that do that have the highest teen pregnancy rates for a reason - the kids who are going to do it anyway end up doing it irresponsibly instead of responsibly.

Skydiving is serious business

[rwieder 0]

These low jump number "High Performance" canopy pilots come in waves. I'd educate them, and ground them. We used to tell em' "you learn all about it (swooping) and explain it to me and we'll talk about it" and see what they'd come up with. I've lost too many good friends, and almost a couple more that died are were seriously injured under perfectly good canopies. I'm glad I was 39 when I started sky diving. If I were to have been 17 or 18 when I started I can tell you I wouldn't be here now. Generally, if your canopy hits the ground before you do, it's going to be a really bad day.

-Richard-
"You're Holding The Rope And I'm Taking The Fall"

[jono 0]

nad

How about creating a sticky on the Swooping forum that has videos all the mistakes people have made in the past regarding their canopy choices/maneuvers?

https://www.facebook.com/groups/sofpidarf/

Remember you don't stop laughing because you grow old, you grow old because you stop laughing.

[potatoman 0]

What the BASE community does, read the fatality list, and the reasons behind it, and then reconsider, in fact, draw up a will.

Seen too many of this, and that with super experienced people, never mind 300 jumps.

You have the right to your opinion, and I have the right to tell you how Fu***** stupid it is.
Davelepka - "This isn't an x-box, or a Chevy truck forum"
Whatever you do, don't listen to ChrisD.

[degeneration 5]

What about doing things like they do in some Scandanavian countries - no one with less then x jumps can jump a canopy smaller than y. Or something like that.

Sky Switches - Affordable stills camera tongue switches and conversion adaptors, supporting various brands of camera (Canon, Sony, Nikon, Panasonic).

[Joellercoaster 6]

DocPop

My own opinion to this is that, similar to BillVon's downsizing checklist, there should be restrictions on what canopy can be flown and what type of HP landing can be undertaken until proficiency has been reached on a certain goal.

This sounds like a combination of the Dutch canopy-vs-size-and-jumps chart, and the British CP1/CP2 progression system.

People very similar to you (maybe even you yourself) have derided both of those in the past as not catering for the advanced, talented student (though they do), but they have the advantage of answering the "but when?" question very precisely and providing a program of study and progress.

People hook in a lot less in both of those countries, but that could just be because the weather sucks

--
"I'll tell you how all skydivers are judged, . They are judged by the laws of physics." - kkeenan

"You jump out, pull the string and either live or die. What's there to be good at?

[davelepka 4]

Quote

Again, a very valid point, but I don't think it's practical with the people this thread is aimed at helping.

"You can't do that" and "You can't do that for five years" would have sounded very similar to me when I started dancing with the reaper!

Here's the catch, at that point nobody should give two shits what you think.

If you're the guy who is posing a danger to themselves or others, your opinion has just been rendered null and void. What you want, what you like, how you learn and what you think no longer count, you lost those rights when you made whatever mistake it was that you made.

This situation is simple, all it takes is knowledgeable people who care, and this comes in one of two forms -

1. The one is in a regulatory body that restricts canopy type and WL with regards to jump numbers and continuing education. The only way to truly cover your bases is to connect both to advancement in canopy piloting. Just using an equipment restriction or education is leaving the door open for too many people to slip through the cracks.

Equipment restriction only doesn't work for the guy who amasses 500 jumps over many years on bigger wings with no training. Then, all of the sudden, he's allowed to jump virtually anything he wants, and that doesn't 'add up'.

Education only allows for poor judgment on the part of the instructor, or the student getting lucky on the day of the class. If the student is your 'best bud', and you push him through the class with a nudge and a wink because he's 'super cool' and he'll probably be fine, that doesn't work. Likewise, if the guy put's on a 'show' the day of the class, he might come across as solid and reasonable, when he had other ideas once he gets that hot canopy he wants (anyone ever 'adjust' their personality/behavior on a first date or job interview?)

So you need both ends of the spectrum if you're going to start making written rules.

2. The other option, and this is essentially what we have now and it's not working that great 'overall', is just individual supervision at each DZ.

In some places, it works like gang busters. Where I jump, we have a DZO, two S&TAs (so one of them is always at the DZ) and a staff who keep a close eye on all of the operations, and aren't shy about acting on anything they see that isn't 100% above board. We care about what happens way more than we care about jumpers having 'freedom' or being 'happy'. You can be happy and free somewhere else if it's posing a danger to yourself or others.

The flip side, is that in many places this just doesn't work. Either the locals don't know enough to recognize bad behavior or a bad situation that's brewing, or they don't care, or the operation is too big to keep an eye on every jumper all day long. To that end, years ago I was at Perris and met JC Colclasure who introduced himself as the local 'safety officer'. I said, 'Oh, you're the S&TA?' and he explained that he was not, he was there to stand in the LZ and watch openings, canopy flights and landings, and make sure everything was 'square'. This was 15 years ago, and I'm not sure if they still have a 'safety officer', but that's the right idea for an operation of that size.

Truth be told, option #1 is the right way. Make a couple of hard and fast rules that cover everyone in terms of equipment choice and canopy piloting education. Nobody has to downsize or fly higher performance canopies, and for those people these rules would be a non-issue. For the ones who want to, you have to put in the time and do the work. I can't think of one accomplished canopy pilot who wouldn't recommend that new jumpers build experience and get coaching, and that's what those sort of rules would do.