I can't believe I pay for this crap.....

[Cloudi 0]

Quote

Finding people who actually want to LISTEN is the problem.

All the more reason to have canopy training more strictly regulated by a skydiving governing body before it becomes a whuffo governing body's agenda. Try as we might, we can't teach common sense, so restrictions on who can do what will help slow down those who think the "rules" do not apply to them.

I think we are on the same page and I don't think anyone expects or even wants jump # limits put on any progression in our sport. I do believe that most of us want to see people "testing out" before they are clear to do certain things. Just like other requirements that must be met before certain licenses or ratings are granted. What's the big deal of showing that you are capable of doing something unless you aren't confident that you can do it? If you aren't confident that you can do it, why are you doing it?

Canopy control isn't limited to the individual. It often has an impact (excuse the pun) on others as well. We must try to understand that our current way of regulating canopy progression is obviously not working since death and significant injury while operating perfectly functioning canopies has consistently been on the rise.

The USPA is set up to and is expected to set the standards for safety in our sport. I don't think it's expecting too much for some proposed regulations that its members can vote on, do you?

Kim

Kim
Watch as I attempt, with no slight of hand, to apply logic and reason.

[ianmdrennan 2]

Hi Kim,

Great post. I am 100% in agreement of a testing system. I know Ron and a few others have some ideas floating around. I think making a pilot pass a test(s) of some sort is a great way to avoid overregulating but still keeping tiny canopies out of obviously incompetent pilots hands.

I can't really understand why people would be against this (yet some are). It just makes sense.

Blues,
Ian

Performance Designs Factory Team

[davelepka 4]

So far, all seem to agree that additional traiing is needed, the sticking point, however, is if the USPA needs to be involved or not. There are a few good reasons why some structure and uniformity are needed, and due to a lack of options, the USPA would be the best to administer them.

Here's why:

- Who is qualified to teach canopy control? We all know that the best swooper on the DZ is not always the best teacher, but more often than not, the guy who is going to start a canopy school will be th ebest swooper, who may really just want to teach swooping, but will most likely take on beginner students because beginners have money too.

- Provided we can dodge problem #1, and jumper with teaching skills steps up. what will they teach? In inverse of problem #1 is that the best teacher is not always the best canopy pilot. Furthermore, the ideas this teacher may have may not be the best or most effective techniques for canopy control.

- Lets say we can get a good teacher with a good lesson plan, we have the 'water', how do you get the horses to drink? With the added cost of this coaching, and many jumpers feeling that either, "I'm not planning on swooping, so it's not for me", or "Canopy control is simple, I'm a natural", you have a situation where the instructor and lesson plan mean nothing.


So given the above problems, how do you avoid them? It's really pretty simple.

- Current instructors and coaches are qualified to teach. Why? Because all of them have either taken the coaches course, taken the BIC, or been an instructor long enough to have built up years of experience teaching.

- The material is gathered and structured with the assistance of the best canopy pilots and the best instrucotrs around. After being assembled into a logical and teachable lesson plan, the material is always subject to review and revision, with any changes being faxed/e-mailed/mailed to the group member DZ's.

- The training is not optional. The cost is built into the cost of AFF training and licensing. You want to graduate, you get the training. You want a license, you get the training. Period.


So that solves those problems, lets see how we could implement all that into reality.

- AFF traiing will include more in depth canopy control. The first 4 or 5 levels will not change, but beyond that the chances of jumper sticking with skydiving go up, as does the need for the training. During the later levels of AFF, the ground prep time goes down, as the student is building experience. Instead of writing that time off, apply it to teaching some more ideas and strategies for canopy control.

- B, C, and D license requirements need to include formal canopy training. Each license will be paired with a lesson on canopy control, with each lesson being more advanced than the last.

The end result? By the time you have your D license, you will have been through at least four canopy contol lessons, which would be designed to give you a good understanding of canopies, their flight, and your job as a pilot.

OK, now everyone send me $50.

[PhreeZone 15]

Quote

Now here's another question... When was the last time that there was an unintentional water landing fatality??? I can't recall one in recent history.

April 16, 2005 -

Quote

http://www.dropzone.com/fatalities/Detailed/110.shtml

Happened in Russia.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[AggieDave 6]

Whats funny is how these ideas parrallel the better "wingloading BSR" suggestions. A lot of ideas along those lines are more inline with these ideas of teaching and learning then simply limiting canopy size in accordance to your weight.

Quote

OK, now everyone send me $50.

Sure, aslong as you send me a shitty magazine each month with only pictures from a handful of people at only a couple of DZs because they came from "names" in the sport.

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

[davelepka 4]

I already did a wingloading thread. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.

[jeiber 0]

Quote

- B, C, and D license requirements need to include formal canopy training. Each license will be paired with a lesson on canopy control, with each lesson being more advanced than the last.

You can't be serious... multiple choice questions to test canopy knowledge?

Or are you suggesting that we force everyone to perform high performance maneuvers, even if they have no interest in swooping?

Or are you suggesting we only test things like obstacle avoidance, flat turns, etc.?

None of these options appear to address the problem at hand. If anything, incidents will probably increase as a result of these testing methods. Why? People will pass their D license test, and poof, now they're competent canopy pilots, ready to fly any canopy at any wingloading, right?

I'm with Ian and Kim. You want to swoop, you have a whole new, very distinct set of criteria to meet.

Jeff

Shhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring!

[davelepka 4]

Shirley YOU can't be serious.


OK, really, this never had anything to do with swooping. I'm sure there are 50 non-swooping related things most D license applicants have never thought of with regards to canopy control. Should we classify them 'expert' skydivers without that knowledge?

Furthermore, who ever mentioned a multiple choice test. Seeing as the whole thread is about the short comings of the USPA's traiing criteria, why would we arbitrarily stick with the current multiple choice format?

People seem to jump to the conclusion that canopy coaching entails swooping, and thus requires a swooper to teach. Both of these are incorrect. An in depth discussion about the principals of flight (as they apply to canopies), wind/weather conditions, and general strategy and thought processes under canopy would go a long way toward improving safety. Offer some exercises to illustrate the classroom points in the real world (at altitude), and you have a more informed jumper, with the hope that the understanding will foster some additional interest. Once they begin to understand more of what's happening, there's a better chance they'll want to persue it further.

By jumping to conclusions as well as limiting your options to what you have already seen really cock-blocks the whole process. There's no reason that this can't be approached in a diffeent manner than what we are used to.

[YISkyDive 0]

Quote

pilot pass a test(s) of some sort is a great way to avoid overregulating but still keeping tiny canopies out of obviously incompetent pilots hands.

I can't really understand why people would be against this (yet some are). It just makes sense.

Ian, a testing system would not bad bad at all.. but how do we test people?

Someone needs to be qualified to test them, no? Or would it be a paper and pencil test? I don't know how a test a lone could help, i'm kinda missing it a little. Would you mind explaining what you mean?

It can be via PM or here, im kinda intrested in the idea, i'm just not exactly sure how it could be set up to work.

-dave.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

the bigger question is could a canopy control course help elminate a students or parachutists want to bury the toogle low to the ground. Aside from swooping, it seems that many deaths/ incidents happen from the notourious(sp?) low turn. how does a body like USPA teach that?

There's no direct fix, but if you just got people to fly their pattern early enough not to be surprised by the power lines in front of them, and removed their reluctance to do a downwind landing, you remove a big chunk of the situations that made people bury one toggle. And more work with the various forms of 'flat' turning gives them a better chance of getting away with a low turn if necessary, or thought necessary.

[jeiber 0]

Quote

OK, really, this never had anything to do with swooping.

In that case I apologize. I was under the impression that everybody wanted some sort of regulation because low time jumpers were getting broken under small canopies.

Further, a majority of the 'low turn' accidents were a direct result of a high performance turns.

Put two and two together, and you have low time jumpers under small canopies, executing high performance turns and getting hurt. THIS was the problem I was hoping to find a solution to. Again, my apologies, wasn't trying to hijack your thread.

Jeff

Shhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring!

[jeiber 0]

Quote

There's no direct fix, but if you just got people to fly their pattern early enough not to be surprised by the power lines in front of them, and removed their reluctance to do a downwind landing, you remove a big chunk of the situations that made people bury one toggle. And more work with the various forms of 'flat' turning gives them a better chance of getting away with a low turn if necessary, or thought necessary.

On one hand, we could force students to slide in a couple down wind landings, and mandate that they perform some flat turns, but I can't help but wonder if injuries would actually increase while practicing.

Granted, they would probably be less severe, but how many broken ankles while practicing are worth a broken femur by accident? This isn't to be taken literally, I'm just trying to make a point.

Jeff

Shhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring!

[ianmdrennan 2]

Jeff,

I agree with him. I think at the very least we should regularly do cross wind landings. It never ceases to amaze me how many people are scared of them. Funny thing is that they're hardly different from a no wind landing at all

Regardless I think 'breaking the mindset' that Kelp is referring to is a big issue and we shouldn't ignore it. How many times have you heard 'I land into the wind, no matter what'. I've heard it a lot...from Instructors Pity cause they're reinforcing a bad thing.

Blues,
Ian

Performance Designs Factory Team

[davelepka 4]

Quote

a majority of the 'low turn' accidents were a direct result of a high performance turns.

Are you sure? I know there are stats somewhere around here that breakdown the WL and jump # for incidents. It is limited to fatals or reported incidents, and I'm sure there are many that don't get reported.

I know there are plenty of low turns attributed to newbies on reasonably sized canopies who either had an obstacle problem or were just trying to get into the wind over a large open field. The best thing for these people would have been better planning several thousand feet earlier.

These are the jumpers who need to have some additional classroom time. A little question and answer, along with some 'what if's' would not only get the knowledge into their brain, but maybe impress upon tham that this is an area that deserves their attention, and that they would be wise to spend some of their own time thinking about canopy control.

[ianmdrennan 2]

Quote

a majority of the 'low turn' accidents were a direct result of a high performance turns.

The stats I see read about 50/50 from what I can tell. Either obstacle avoidance or 'intentional'HP into the dirt.

Blues,
Ian

Performance Designs Factory Team

[divnswoop 0]

Fatality reports from last year.....11 deaths with good canopies above their head at one point.... a little of the breakdown:

3 deaths due to intentional low turns to build speed.....

3 deaths due to non-intentional low turns to avoid obstacles....


(other 5 were.... crw accident, somebody catching cut-away gear)

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

On one hand, we could force students to slide in a couple down wind landings, and mandate that they perform some flat turns, but I can't help but wonder if injuries would actually increase while practicing.

Last month I posted an analysis of the landing fatalities from the past 10 years. While there were certainly a lot of blown low hp turns, there was also quite a few "turned at 100ft to avoid power lines" and "attempted 180 at low altitude to face wind."

Power lines shouldn't be a surprise at 150ft. A lot of these accidents start early with bad planning. I know I've let myself get distracted by the chest strap and other stuff when it was key to lay out my course. In my case, just meant I went too far downwind in a giant LZ. People need to look further than 10 seconds ahead. And higher wingloading increases the look ahead required. Otherwise, the potential for a panic decision to do a fatal toggle turn.

But if the jumper has failed in this regard, they have the option of landing in whatever direction they're going, or doing a safer turn. Certainly the flat turns can be practiced high safely. Maybe you only want to practice crosswind instead of downers. It is a valid concern you raise.

[Gandhi 0]

I agree entirely youth you dave if i clearly understand your post.. which i think I do!

I know that in the UK the BPA are shit scared of swooping, and despite the efforts of the UKs best swoopers, they are reluctant to host a UK swooping tour. I think thats what has brought about the new CH (canopy handling) rating.. in the same way as we need to get FS, FF or CRW ratings to partake in our given disciplines.. if we wish to persue HP landings then CH ratings are going to be required. If im not mistake there is more than one level.

I'm gonna assume that coaching and some sort of test will be the format of the course..
I agree that its a great shame that beyond AFF/Student status, there is bugger all organic coaching at DZ's.. which is scary to think that in say 5 years, I could have gone from a NAV 260 to a Katana withought any coaching, and left to fend for myself..

all I will say though is that the coaching courses offered in the uk by a couple of pro swoopers are fantastic regardless of the student's needs.. ideally it shouldnt be necessary because i'd have hoped that we would be coached/nurtured throughout our careers, but that said, i dont have any regrets at all about forking out a few notes because its completely changed the way i view canopy flight, and also included some life-saving skills.

anyway, im gonna stop talking now... probably gonna get some coco-pops... cheers!!

Blue Skies

Gandhi
.

quote 'you are to go around... next time extend your landing gear'

[skybytch 259]

Great thread.

Nothing's going to change at USPA until USPA members get off their butts and make the change happen.

A few letters to the S&T committee from some people here were a big part of getting the section on canopy control added to the SIM. We were asking for much more than that... but it was a start.

Talk to your regional director. Email the S&T committee. Go to the next board meeting and insist on being heard. If the current board won't address the issue, run for a slot next election. It's "our" organization - we can make change happen only if we get involved.

[davelepka 4]

How hard would it be to make this happen? Here are few thoughts illustrating how not hard it would be.

Once the cirriculum has been established, which would be the hardest part, I see each DZ having a staff meeting for rated instructors and coaches. At this meeting, have the guy with the best grasp of the material review it for the staff. This is just to make sure that everyone is on the same page. Total time, maybe 30 min.

Next, the DZ needs to scedule two or three times when each canopy control lesson will be taught. Maybe one early in the season, and one later. Keep in mind that the lessons that are intgrated into AFF would apply toward the A license, so you only need to hold a classroom session for the B, C, and D license graduates. The only requirement for the training date would be that you have the previous license already. For example, if you have your B, you can take the C class at any time before applying for your C license.

Now for the actual class, scedule it after jumping some evening. The whole session would be about an hour betweem lecture time and open discussion. Each participant would give the instructor $5 for their time. That's it. Done deal.

You don't need to have any supervised jumps, or exersices. Air to air is silly, and you really don't need to 'offically' watch someone land. There's no reason to test any of the practical info either. What's important is that people have the info, not how well they test.

What I think would be interesting is how many people participate in the classroom time who aren't up for the next license. My feeling is that if you have a class going on, and it's $5, plenty of newbies will show up, just to advance their knowledge.

The more thought I put into this, the more I want my $50 back from the USPA. They suck.