Jump number requirements for swooping?

[listo 0]

Should we try to implement some kind of guidelines as to who is swooping to keep the less experienced from trying things they shouldn't until they have adequate experience. Should we try to implement some kind of canopy requirements for licensing purposes. Such as having certain required tecniques mastered for a certain license......such as CANOPY PILOT "A" (CPA, CPB, CPC, CPD)? and have this set up based on a wing loading scale as well. And could we safely implement this. By having student training the same way we have for free fall or free flying as in the AD licensing or 3-D awards.

Live today as tomorrow may not come

[AggieDave 6]

No. Some people progress faster and have a lot of coaching time for canopy control, putting them well ahead of the curve. Sort of like people who have a ton of tunnel time are really good in the air, and get on some seriously big RW dives with very low jump numbers. Someone with out that training would be in a great amount of danger, but since they have the training they're fine. Same with the high-performance canopy pilots. It should be up to the S&TA/DZO to decide if someone is flying unsafely, not the overall governing body to try to lay some sort of blanket law down.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[skygod7777 0]

i agree with dave on this one.

and to add, it would also have low timers pushing there limits to get there "D licence" in canopy swooping. just like everyone wants to hurry and get 200 jumps so they can get there "D" licence.

just my opinion, and opinions are like assholes...........everyone has one...............and they all stink

later

[listo 0]

ok, but what if you set a preliminary starting point of having say.......400 jumps and a WL of 1.2 with a straight in approach and have coaching to ensure safe tecniques and have it build up to say ......a "D" being 1500 jumps and anything over 2.0 and have it broken down equally as far as numbers and tecniques used? Jump numbers not being skydives, but actual jumps on the canopies being flown for the licensing purposes.
Just a thought to keep low timers from killing or permenantly maiming themselves. The canopy market is getting flooded with HP canopies and low timers are getting them and hurting themselves when they can't buy them from manufacturers. Shouldn't we have some kind of control over who is jumping what.

I know that is primarily the DZO's and S&TA's job, but it isnt' being done well enough in my opinion

Edit: I guess I should have said this earlier as well, but this would be for a swoop course that would be required and the only people allowed to land there would be swoopers only on predeclared jumps. This thing should be set up outside of the normal landing area as well so as not to affect the usuall canopy traffic.

Live today as tomorrow may not come

[Zlew 0]

<>
No...
in fact hell no

I like the sport being unregulated. I dont' think anyone has the right to tell me what i can and can't jump. I"m sorry that you got hurt when you got in over your head, but for the most part the sport does a good job of guiding it's own and helping eachother out.
Dino's seem to have all of the power in these things, and I don't want a dino skydiver who thinks that anything over a 1:1 7 cell is "Crazy" making the rules. 400 jumps for a 1.2:1 ? for some that might be good...but thats WAY off for others.

Learn, listen, experiance....work your way into things with the understanding that you can get hurt or killed if you don't..... help the people who are comming up behind you....but don't regulate who can buy what.

Z

[listo 0]

ok, you are right about who is controlling what. I agree with you there.

What I am talking about is the 200 and 300 jump wonders going out and buying second hand HP canopies that they will be ready for in about 400 jumps in the future, flying them for about 50 jumps and then deciding one day that they are going to "try" a front riser 180 with a little accuracy and end up getting hurt.

It apalls me to think that mature canopy pilots dont want to make what we do safer for all involved and to get the injuries and fatality rates down. Almost 90% or more of the injuries or fatalities in the last 3 years have been because of John "wanna be cool" Swooper going out and doing dumb stuff. Why can't we do something to regulate this kind of thing the same way that the aviation community regulates who flies turbines vs. prop jobs or general pilots vs. aerobatic pilots?

I am not saying that we need the USPA to step in by any means, they already do enough. I am suggesting that we come up with a plan to implement some kind of award and test of ability in a controlled atmosphere to make swooping safer for all involved. I only used licensing as an example.

Live today as tomorrow may not come

[PhreeZone 15]

I think the Pro Swooping tour is trying to do just that by having week long camps and qualifiers.

And only about 60% of the fatal incidents involved an open canopy. You are more likely to die from an unintentional low turn then you are to die of a freefall collision acourding to the last fre years stats.

There are a lot of people on this site at or above 1.5 at under 500 jumps, a few way higher at less jumps, a lot of what you are trying to say won't matter to them since they have already bought the canopy and fly it today and are yet to get hurt...

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[AggieDave 6]

Look at it this way, I have about 330 jumps and fly a high performance canopy loaded at 1.64:1 and have flown it for over 120 jumps. I have also had quite a bit of canopy coaching. Am I safe from injury or stupidity? Nope, I blew up a knee back in June under a canopy loaded even lighter then that, but that was a stupid mistake that has not been repeated. Could I still get hurt? Yup, but its still my desicion and I'm ok with that. What am I doing now? 90-180 deg front riser turns resulting in swoops from 100-150ft. As proven at the collegate sport accuracy meet, I can swoop in a lane, on heading (hitting the center target after "hooking the shit outta my canopy") and still be safe. Personally, I think I represent the newest generation of jumpers, learning good canopy flight characteristics sooner in their jumping career, which is possible due to people paving the way before us. Some of those people who died trying the wrong thing, getting seriously hurt sometimes doing the right thing, learning what worked and what didn't, passing that knowledge along to us with out the trial and error process. Remember, a few years ago, someone with 100 jumps wouldn't even be allowed on a square canopy...

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[listo 0]

I agree that the PST is doing a great job, but their primary focus is competition and $$$. I am suggesting something for the average person who doesn't want to compete. Not everyone who swoops is interested in competition.

Live today as tomorrow may not come

[PhreeZone 15]

> Remember, a few years ago, someone with 100 jumps wouldn't even be allowed on a square canopy...

Training techniques have changed all the way across the board since then too. Have canopy instruction after student levels kept up with canopies? At a few places like SDC the staff spends the time, but at most DZ's they don't. Untill all DZ's upgrade their canopy skills teaching (and canopy skills are a lot harder to teach then freefall) level, loading up canopies is always going to be a pot shot with most people.

The average loading is closer to 1.3 then it is 2.0.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[listo 0]

Dave, I commend you on your accomplishments! I really do. However, someone with only 350 jumps is not considered experienced by any means. Not very many people with 1,000 jumps or better would say that it is safe for someone with 330 jumps to be jumping at 1.64:1. I dont think a canopy manufacturer out there would even send a demo canopy to someone with that experience vs. wing loading ratio. You are by far an exception to the rule. I really hope that you dont ever get hurt.

At the same time, you hit on a key issue. COACHING Obviously you had good coaching because you haven't been hurt and you are alive. That is the point that I am making here. We need to implement some kind of coaching with rewards to recognize certain accomplishments, but I feel that it needs to be done with a certain reguard to jump numbers on any given canopy. The same way a Pro rating is acheived. You can't get a Pro rating on a stiletto 150 and then jump a stiletto 135 into a demo. I think that we should have something like that for swooping.

Such as a swoop rating on a stiletto 120 and make it so you can't jump anything smaller until you can prove in succesful predeclared jumps with a qualified coach monitoring that you can do it. I am referring to high wing loadings here people, 1.5 and higher. I am not making referrence to anyone who is just progressing to a smaller canopy. I am referring to swoopers who are hooking and carving it.

I think that if someone wants to go out and get a wing loaded at 2.0 and they want to fly it straight in on a normal approach, then fine. I am referring to the people who are trying to maximize their swoops and performance. Straight in approaches are one thing, hooks and carves are something completely different! A swoop isn't just something someone does when they fly over the ground parallel to it. A swoop is a high performance manuever that is done by diving your canopy in an attempt to gain as much speed as possible for the longest possible level flight parallel to the ground.

Live today as tomorrow may not come

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

I think that if someone wants to go out and get a wing loaded at 2.0 and they want to fly it straight in on a normal approach, then fine.

They won't be fine, since they don't know how to fly their canopy properly. At some point they'll get cut off on final, or see something in the landing area that they have to avoid or they'll have to land in someone's small backyard on an off DZ landing and they'll get hurt, since they don't know how to properly fly their canopy.


Oh, I never claim I was an 'experienced' skydiver, I just said I had a lot of coaching.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[murrays 0]

Quote

Remember, a few years ago, someone with 100 jumps wouldn't even be allowed on a square canopy...

That's right, and before that a 7TU round was considered hot enough to preclude all but the most experienced jumpers from using one.
I made my first square jump on my 27th jump (1981)...at that time the soonest anyone in our club had been allowed to jump a square.
It's very much about knowledge and training....once we have the knowledge, we can do a better job training. Unfortunately, as you point out, some of this knowledge comes with a very high price.

--
Murray

"No tyranny is so irksome as petty tyranny: the officious demands of policemen, government clerks, and electromechanical gadgets." - Edward Abbey

[callahan 0]

If we didn't have so many people crashing themselves into pieces under canopy it would be easier to get health insurance . I have it now but I couldn't put down that I skydive . I wouldn't be covered for anything very serious if I can't walk into the emergency room . It might be nice to come up with something to help the people that have poor judgement on what canopy size they should be on instead of upsizing after their injury or worse .

[dragon2 0]

We will probably get a new set of rules this year, in Holland. You can pick your canopy based on jump#, wingload, type of canopy, currency and min. size of canopy. Not sure if this will go for reserves as well. There will also probably be some canopy flight licensing/downsizing requirements to be met.

You would be allowed to keep jumping what you jump now, but my safire 135 would be ' illegal' for my 256 jumps (would need 500) under those new rules, even tho I´m current and have a < 1,2 wingload. Because I don´t weigh all that much I wouldn´t hit the wingload limits but would hit the canopy size limits first: most I´d be allowed to jump with between 100 and 500 jumps would be a non-HP 150.

If I´d want to jump anything less than 120 ft I´d need 1000 jumps (and 100 during the last year). Right now Í'm allowed a 120 (I´m only allowed wingload up to 1,25 right now because I still haven´t got my B yet). Also right now, if you want your C you need 5 CF instruction jumps (which I think is a good thing).

These new rules aren´t definite yet, but some-such will be the case.

ciel bleu,
Saskia

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

Obviously you had good coaching because you haven't been hurt and you are alive.

This is an illogical conclusion. Almost anyone can learn to swoop at a basic level and not get hurt, it's just not that difficult. It's experience however that will keep you alive during a swoop gone wrong. That experience doesn't necessarily need to come from swooping, it comes from time under canopy and the only way I know to get that is to increase your jump numbers.

I'm not advocating a swooping license or additional regulation in our sport, but please do realize that coaching is not a substitute for experience. They're both important parts of the puzzle and you just can't survive without both.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[rmcvey 0]

I think setting rules/limits to wingloading regarding jump numbers is a poor excuse for the huge lack of canopy training available. And i dont just mean "swoop coaching",

eg. ask around a dz and see how many jumpers can explain basic aerodynamics.

how many can explain (even in basic terminology) why a stall occurs, the basics of lift, AOA, Centre of gravity etc... etc..

The only "official" training i have received from a qualified instructor on how to land a canopy is

......"at 15 feet, flare, ie pull both toggles down as far as they go."

Once serious training is in place (which in my opinion should be financed by a countries parachuting organisation), let the jumpers make their own INFORMED decisions.

Knowledge is the key. (and we shouldnt have to pay shit loads of cash for it)

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"how many can explain (even in basic terminology) why a stall occurs, the basics of lift, AOA, Centre of gravity etc... etc.. "

Why do you need that level of knowledge?
eg, in order to drive a car, you don't need to know how the engine works, what you do need to know is the effect your control inputs will have.
Under your suggestion, people will require an A-level (high school qualification for our colonial pals) in physics in order to attempt to swoop. How would this qualification be administered?

"Once serious training is in place (which in my opinion should be financed by a countries parachuting organisation),"
Man, try that suggestion at the upcoming BPA AGM, you'll be about as popular as a bacon butty at a barmitzvah.
BPA, USPA etc get their funding from their members, ie you and I, their job is to keep jumpers jumping, not to fund the training of swoopers. I'm buggered if I'm going to pay for someone elses training out my own pocket.
They do a pretty good job with the roadshows, and subsidising instructors during their qualification process, but thats about as far as I am prepared to go.

"Knowledge is the key."
Absolutely agree with you, and there's loads of online documentation available, PM me if you need some links.

"(and we shouldnt have to pay shit loads of cash for it)"
Free education for all, its a great ideal, but a little utopic these days.

Sorry to rag on you Rob, but this thread has been getting my back up, introducing even more prescriptive regulation in our sport is one of my pet peeves. I don't think there is a workable solution to controlling downsizing, and I don't really want to see it. There are just far too many variables in the mix to achieve a workable solution.

Its about time we stopped molly coddling people, and start making them responsible for themselves.
If a jumper is exceeding their own skills limitations in equipment choice and use, they will either attract the attention of their peers, the CCI (S&TA equiv), or the local paramedics. If they can't learn from that, they have no business jumping at all.

I'm disappointed that the Dutch are adopting this route, considering they are so liberal with many other things.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[listo 0]

***Almost anyone can learn to swoop at a basic level and not get hurt, it's just not that difficult. It's experience however that will keep you alive during a swoop gone wrong. That experience doesn't necessarily need to come from swooping, it comes from time under canopy and the only way I know to get that is to increase your jump numbers.***

This is the point that I am trying to get across. How can we implement something to increase the experience levels without hampering the fun and liberty that we enjoy each time we go out? This is the MAIN QUESTION for this thread guys.

I am not suggesting that we have laws. I am merely putting out ideas and trying to get feedback. I promise, I am not trying to ruffle any feathers! I think that who ever said that basic aerodynamics should be a required knowledge is right on the money. Sure, when we are flying we aren't anallizing what the canopy is doing in relation to physics, but the basic knowledge DOES lead to a better understanding of what it is doing and MIGHT help us to make better decisions.

........and to recap, THIS IS CONCERNING SWOOPING ONLY. Not just people who want to downsize. PLEASE DONT CONFUSE THE TWO! I know a lot of people that fly at 1.3-1.6 that don't do hooks or carves at all. I am referring to the people who are doing hook turns and carves.

PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT BEFORE YOU ADD YOUR COMMENTS GUYS.

Again, just to note. I use caps to hi-lite certain things, not to sound rude or irritated

Live today as tomorrow may not come

[Ron 7]

I think its a good idea....Look at the US fatality reports...

The largest segment of DEAD jumpers under canopy was jumpers with less than 500 jumps at a 1.5.

Facts are facts folks....Low jump # jumpers are getting high wingloads, and killing themselves.

Only ONE jumper died under canopy last year with over 600 jumps.

Training is a good thing, but it is EXPERIANCE that counts...

No matter how long I talk to a student (on any activity)....Talking all day will not make him better with out PRACTICE....and you only get one landing per jump.

So Jump #'s can equate to EXPERIANCE.

I can say with some certanty that ALL of the DEAD skydivers thought that they could handle the canopy that they had....

What makes you think you are different?

We have training programs... and pull altitudes, and RW restrictions, and CRW restrictions ect for freefall...Why not canopy wingloads?

Because some young, hotshot, non experianced jumper can try and be cool?

We don't let people get on a plane with out training....We don't let someone with 2 S/L's an AFF and a Tandem go on a solo freefall, or start doing head down on jump #2....

Why? Because it would be stupid.

Just like letting anyone jump whatever they want is stupid.

Training is great, but it is nothing without EXPERIANCE.

Ron

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

[Spy38W 0]

Quote

Why can't we do something to regulate this kind of thing the same way that the aviation community regulates who flies turbines vs. prop jobs or general pilots vs. aerobatic pilots?

The USPA has a program in place that directly mimics the FAA on controlling what type of wings a person can fly. Both organizations let the pilot decide what the person decide what they want to fly. I think the FAA puts more emphasis on suggesting getting training, and using judgement to decide what would be appropriate for a person to fly. Other than that, the biggest regulators for airplanes are the insurance companies.

A person who lands from their private checkride could go out and buy a turbine airplane and fly it with no further instruction (except a high performance sign off, which could be gotten in an aircraft with >200 HP, usually in less than 5 hours.)

So far as aerobatics, no special sign off or training is required, but it is suggested that a person gets aerobatics instruction from an instructor. I personally know a guy who bought a Pitts S2-C (aerobatic) with 50 hours of flight time.

--
Hook high, flare on time

[Samurai136 0]

To extend some of the analogies here:

It sounds like you're saying you want to allow people to have their WRC Rally car or F1 Ferrari as long as they don't drive their car exploring it's limit. If you do, you need to be trained and have some sort of rating or permission.

Every student is told "you are responsible for your own ass. it's your job to deploy a parachute and land it safely." Skydiving, for me, is as much about freedom as it is responsibility for personal decisions. If you choose to fly a high performance canopy and swoop, it's that individuals responsibility to develop the skills.

Ken

"Buttons aren't toys." - Trillian
Ken

[Steel 0]

Ok I have read about as much as I can read before getting annoyed about what this Listo character is posting here. First of all how long has Listo been jumping? I read in his profile that he has just over 600 jumps. I have been jumping for 9 years and did more jumps that that in 2001 alone. I guess the reason I make that comparison is because the crap he is talking is stuff that would be pointed directly at someone like me. See when I first started in 1994 my first canopy was a Robo 185 loaded at about 1.2. And I heard many people echoeing the crap that he has posted here. People were making bets on how long it would be before I broke a leg. Well less than 60 jumps later I was on a saber 150 loaded at about 1.4 and now people were really sure that it was a matter of time before I broke something. Well again they were wrong. I jumped that for years without incident and then I got a saber 120 in 1999, loaded at 1.8. Now I heard the same bogus over again. The standard responses, "oh you can jump that on a good day but what if the spot is off what if you have to put in a tight spot what if somebody cuts you off", and again I went through without incident and proved the overwelming majority wrong. Then I got a stilleto 120. Oh no nw he has an eliptical now everybody knew for sure it was a matter of time. Well they were wrong again. Then I wanted to go small and wasn't sure exactly how small so I started borrow different gear and jumped a velocity 103 for some 30 or so jumps and heard all the standard negative responses. (what if you have to land it in a tight spot what if you get cut off, etc, etc) Then I jumped a velocity 96, 90, a vx 90, and FX 88, 84,79. By the time I got to the FX 79 I was loading it over 2.9. I put over 350 jumps on that FX 79 with no incidents and with over a 99% standup rate. I started doing 45 degree turns on approach to landing and finished doing 720s. And as time went on people like Listo still would not admit they were wrong or even just shut up. Well after that I got a VX-70 loaded at 3.1 and put four hundred or so jumps on that but the results were the same. This Listo's still felt the need to talk crap. Hell, even top ten pro circuit canopy pilots felt the need to voice their predictions on my future injuries and interestingly enough, literally, exactly what was predicted would happen to me, happened to the person making the prediction within 2 days. I saw the same person who said to me, with authority, that it was just a matter of time before I bust my ankle bust his ankle instead and limp around the dropzone. Recently I got a VX 62 loaded that at 3.4. I even put 24 pounds of weight on and loaded it at 3.8. I will say the responses have gotten a little better but there are still a significant number of Listo's out there that I really wish would shut up and mind there own business.
To have an opinion is fine but to advocate passing policies that will infringe on the rights of others is something that really makes me mad. And I think it is obvious that if we allowed popular opinion to determine what is safe enough that our entire sport would eventually be banned. Just think about what "whuffo" stands for. The vast majority of people ask, "why would somebody jump out of a perfectly good airplane?". Why would somebody load a parachute heavier? Why would somebody not land their parachute straight in. Hell why even jump? After all we would all be safer on the ground.
Blue SKies!
Pyscho Bruno out

Quote

If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

[Ron 7]

Steel you have an opinion....

and yes you did not get hurt.

But look at the FATALITY reports.

300 jumps 1.5 wingloading.

Only one person with over 500 jumps died under canopy.....
He had 1500 and hooked it into the water...

So it can happen to anyone, but it seems to happen to guys with less than 500 jumps a lot more than to people with more than 500 jumps....

Care to guess why?????

EXPERIANCE.

It has been said that we all start out with a full bag of luck and an empty bag of experiance...The trick is to fill the experiance bag before running out of luck.

It is the way it is....

Ron

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

[Samurai136 0]

ExperiEnce is spelled experiEnce not experiAnce.


I agree. It seems that people are getting enough experience to believe they're experienced and just run out of luck. I think more pilots should pay attention to these facts and seriously self-evaluate their skills if they have less than 500 jumps and wingloadings approaching the 1.5 range. Use more caution until their skills advance further.

Ken

"Buttons aren't toys." - Trillian
Ken