2k5, the year in review

[johnny1488 1]

Nothing against the cpc but you dont need to be in the cpc.

You could do a canopy leage on your own. Or not even a league. Get a few expierienced jumpers to donate half a day to doing a bit of coaching, maybe 2 or 3 hop n pops. The possibilities are endless. The slightest motivation could cause a lot of good.

We did a league at the ranch in 2004 that worked out awesome. No one getting payed, no one having to pay. Just jumpers exchanging information and newbies gaining experience.

I also agree with Dave about changing the sytem at the source (student training) not putting a band aid on it. I am all for canopy coaching, but I think students need to be tought better first.

I have been charged by a national director to put my thoughts together the best I can for something physical for the board to look at. He said they get too many ideas and no plans.

Talk to your DZO about organizing a league/group/whatever. I have to imagine the knowledge is spread around enough that we can touch almost every DZ.

Johnny
--"This ain't no book club, we're all gonna die!"
Mike Rome

[dharma1976 0]

Quote

Does Sweden do the same number of jumps as the US per year?

I think per capita of jumpers they jump their ass off...

and then they do things like combine clubs get disounted airfare and coe to arizona in March and jump their asses off too...

Cheers

Dave

http://www.skyjunky.com

CSpenceFLY - I can't believe the number of people willing to bet their life on someone else doing the right thing.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

the WL Chart that he is submitting to the USPA to try to actually put some numbers to this situation...instead of complaining about it, lets work with each other to try to do something about it

For the record, I tried the same tactic last year. I floated around a similar chart, listened to the feedback, twaeked it and submitted it to the head of the safety and training comittee at the USPA.

I know it made it to the BOD meeting last year, and was discussed, but that seemed to be the end of it.

You want to get skydivers to work together? Here's two ways to make that work

1. Dangle a world record in front of them, and even then, collect all of their money before you start jumping, then you'll have their cooperation.

2. Have the USPA tell DZO's that WL's need to be limited, and that additional canopy control training is no longer optional. Not following the 'standard industry practice' is a sure way to lessen the effectiveness of a liability waiver, so DZO's will likely hop on the bandwagon.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

You could do a canopy leage on your own. Or not even a league. Get a few expierienced jumpers to donate half a day to doing a bit of coaching, maybe 2 or 3 hop n pops. The possibilities are endless. The slightest motivation could cause a lot of good.

The bottom line is that any league is optional. Those jumpers who would choose the option, are most likey also the ones who would study canopy piloting, do dedicated canopy control jumps, and seek out advice from expereinced swoopers.

What do you do about those jumper who feel that the training they recieved via the A license program was sufficient, and want to leave it at that? Those are the jumpers who will end up low, and off field on a bad weather day. What do they do then?

[davelepka 4]

As general reply, or more of an additional thought, I wonder if anyone out there has any information regarding to the canopy control training from, say 1989 or 1990?

I'd like to see how the current training differs from that training. My guess is that there is little to no difference between the two.

Now lets look at the state of canopy design and technology circa '89, and compare it to today. Lets take that one step further, and just by looking at what was availalbe, lets look at what size canopies were most popular around '89. My guess is that even if you create a conversion factor to go from F-111 WL ro ZP WL, we'll still see that people are tending to jump smaller canopies today.

Look at general aviation. There's a real draw for flight schools to offer training aircraft equiped with the latest avionics, GPS, and some are even training with all glass cockpits. Why? Becasue thats what people are flying, and thats what students need to learn. Yes, basic stick and riudder work has it's place, and is the foundation for all flight training, but any student looking to advace in flying, or even just get beyond small airport operation will need to be versed in radio work, GPS, and the like.

Much like skydivers; if you want to get off of the student eqiupment, into a more sporty canopy, or you want to leave your Cessna DZ for Perris or Eloy, you're going to need the extra information.

It seems so simple. Such common sense. Canopies have come a long way, and canopy flight has become it's own entity, yet we still minnimalize it in training new skydivers. It just doesn't make sense.

Now I'm all pissed off again.

[johnny1488 1]

Quote

What do you do about those jumper who feel that the training they recieved via the A license program was sufficient, and want to leave it at that? Those are the jumpers who will end up low, and off field on a bad weather day. What do they do then?

I would actually make the A license training sufficient. There is no reason the material included in almost every one day canopy training program couldn't be made part of the student training program.

Again why try to focus on another training program for unexperienced canopy pilots when I believe we need the first one to actually work?

Johnny
--"This ain't no book club, we're all gonna die!"
Mike Rome

[davelepka 4]

Quote

Again why try to focus on another training program for unexperienced canopy pilots when I believe we need the first one to actually work?

Actually my whole point is that we need the first (and mandatory) one to work.

Even beyond the A license, we need to be teaching. You want a B license? Take the next level of CC training, and learn to fly like a B licensed skydiver. Ditto for the C and D. There is no excuse for an 'expert' skydiver who cannot pilot a canopy like an expert. This doesn't mean swooping per say, but every D licensed jumper should be well versed in weather/wind conditions, aerodymanic theory, all flight controls, and off field landing stratagies. these are all a part of skydiving, and you cannot be an 'expert' without them.

[johnny1488 1]

Thats true, but look at the freefall requirements for licenses now. They are bullshit. The same will become canopy requirements.

I believe if the initial training is actually training, then a jumper will want to continue learning about canopy control. Look at freeflying now. Most new jumpers I see now look at it with respect and ask knowledgable skydivers about it before trying it. I think the same can be done with CC.

I think if more DZ's organize canopy control events into their schedules, (which some are) it will become more popular to try to gain more skill and knowledge. You can almost make it mandatory without having to make it mandatory at all.

I just dont see American skydivers or DZ's ever putting restrictions into place that actually mean anything.

Johnny
--"This ain't no book club, we're all gonna die!"
Mike Rome

[frenchyflyer 0]

Quote

2. Have the USPA tell DZO's that WL's need to be limited, and that additional canopy control training is no longer optional. Not following the 'standard industry practice' is a sure way to lessen the effectiveness of a liability waiver, so DZO's will likely hop on the bandwagon.

I think that the WL restriction is a good idea (cf. Brian Germain's chart).
Now most people who are against it are young jumpers who do not see why they should not be jumping their canopy. So the idea is to let people jump what they currently have (i.e. have all S&TA sign off people in 2006), but from then on, each canopy change must either obey the chart or be approved by some authority (S&TA or canopy coach whichever is available).
That way the future participants in our sports will find it normal that they cannot jump at a 1.6 WL at 200 jumps because that's what they've always known as being the rule.

We started such a WL restriction in France last year and at least we no longer have 400 jumps wonders killing themselves under a 1.8WL xfire. OK maybe we're only saving one person every 2 or 3 years, but at least we do that (and I'm not counting the number of non-fatal injuries for which we do not have any valid statistics available yet).

[davelepka 4]

Quote

Thats true, but look at the freefall requirements for licenses now. They are bullshit. The same will become canopy requirements

The freefall requirements are bullshit because aside from being stable for deployment, freefall skills are all optional for skydiving.

Canopy control is not optional, and applies to EVERY skydiver, regardless of their freefall dicipline of choice.

Here's the long and short of it. Most DZO's are not going to implement a mandatory program. Most jumpers are not going to voulenteer to take a CC course, let alone pay a premium price for it. These are facts, and just a look around willporve them to be true.

A USPA backed, license system related program solves all of the current roadblocks.

Want a license? You have to take the course.

Want to be a USPA DZ? You have to conduct the training.

By using a local USPA instructor, and having a shorter mini-course (as opposed to all day or all weekend), you redcue the cost to the jumper.

As much as it sucks, and as much as I hate it, the USPA has the lock down on skydiving in the US> They are the big dogs. They can drop the hammer, and make this happen. It would help everyone. There are no downsides. None.

[johnny1488 1]

Quote

Most jumpers are not going to voulenteer to take a CC course, let alone pay a premium price for it. These are facts, and just a look around willporve them to be true.

I dont know what happens at other DZ's but the annual Scott Miller camps here at the Ranch are usually sold out before they are even announced. And Most new jumpers are very keen to speak with our swoopers and coaches about furthering their knowledge. Maybe we are different than everyone else.

And what if someone doesnt want a license. They just keep their A and skydive for the rest of their career. Does this license restrict the canopy they can fly? This is a lot of babysitting we are asking DZs to do.

Sounds great on paper, I just think it is totally unrealistic. Sorry.

Johnny
--"This ain't no book club, we're all gonna die!"
Mike Rome

[davelepka 4]

I know that CC courses are popular where and when you can get them. I also know that the capacity is fairly small, so filling the slots is pretty simple.

I know that there are jumpers who see the forest from the trees, and seek out the knowledge they need. Again, these folks are the least of my worries.

The folks who came away from Scotts beginner course with loads of new info are my concern. Lets face it, Scott isn't teaching rocket science, his course is full of basic information that every jumper should already have. The fact that anyone could make it to his course without that info is the problem.

(Disclaimer: Scott's courses are awesome, and sorely needed, and he is a wealth of accurate and important info).

It's true, that if a jumper really wants to 'stick it to the man, they can get by with the A licese forever. This is unrealistic though, as we all know that boogies, night jumps, demos, special events, and big ways all require a higher license than an A.

Also, the longer this would be in practice, the more it would just be par for the course, as opposed to the new 'hoop' hung up by 'the man'.

I don't see how this would be hard to implement. The licenses already have requirements, and the jumpers work through them unitl they get their new license.

Instructors would be paid for their time in the classroom, which would be brief, and sceduled in advance for convience. Hop-n-pops would only need to be observed by an instructor.

I'd like to hear some expansion on why it's unrealistic. Lets look at the roadblocks, and knock them down one at a time. Learn to release your impression of how things should be, which is most likey based on current conditions, and see how things could be, based on what is best for todays jumper.

Licensing, training, and general skydiving is vastly different in other countries than in the US, so it is possible to run things differently than we do now.

[divnswoop 0]

Quote

I wonder if anyone out there has any information regarding to the canopy control training from, say 1989 or 1990?

As someone who went through AFF in 1993, the only canopy control training I got was, "The left yellow handle makes it go left and the right makes it go right...pull em both to stop..." Most of the stuff I learned was by mistake and watching other people's mistakes. But we still had people selling canopies to underqualified people back then. At 9 jumps I bought a sabre 120 and had it in hand at 25 jumps.....with an exit weight of 185.

I think the DZ you jump at Dave has one of the best AFF canopy control training in the US. (that's through 25 jumps...not 7) Even with that program in place it comes down to time constraints sometimes. If the instructor gets his student early, it will be covered more. If he gets his student on a 20 min call, there is less time to cover that. (of course we can cover that while we wait on the cameraman...not you!)...... I completely agree about a lack of continuing training though. I also think that is true across all aspects of jumping. I know there are a good amount of people with 500-2000 jumps that think it is stupid to pay people for coaching. People train to a level that "they" think is good and then level off. Those who want to learn more seek it out and ask questions. Those who don't, don't have to worry about it cause they can still get their license!


------------------------------------
Dave for BOD!!
What are the dates for next years canopy control discussions at the dz?

[johnny1488 1]

Make no mistake I am all for better canopy pilots. I admire your determination in this matter.

I think the biggest roadblock is the DZO's. I dont think many are willing to look at the problem. They think nothing is wrong. Most DZOs I have seen are old school and think there is no reason for additional training if they got there with none.

Also USPA sees CC as the major cause of injuries in the sport. If they take action to fix it and it doesnt work/isnt inplemented properly or at all, I believe they think they are putting themselves in a more liable position.

And also getting DZOs to pay instructors for classroom time seems hard now.

Do I think it's USPAs job to figure out something. Yes.

I will have to think about this for a while but I will post my ideas as I have them.

Johnny
--"This ain't no book club, we're all gonna die!"
Mike Rome

[davelepka 4]

Quote

I think the DZ you jump at Dave has one of the best AFF canopy control training in the US. (that's through 25 jumps...not 7) Even with that program in place it comes down to time constraints sometimes. If the instructor gets his student early, it will be covered more. If he gets his student on a 20 min call, there is less time to cover that.

I'm thinking that the additional A license training would be a slot on the proficiency card, as opposed to connected to a specific jump.

I'm less concerned about the under 20-jump jumper on studetn gear, making a supervised jump, than the same jumper, 40 jumps later with their own gear and no supervision.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

Also USPA sees CC as the major cause of injuries in the sport. If they take action to fix it and it doesnt work/isnt inplemented properly or at all, I believe they think they are putting themselves in a more liable position.

I don't buy that. The USPA holds no liability with regards to training principals. Unless a laywer could prove that another training method would have been prudent, while the USPA method was negligent, there's no liability.

Quote

And also getting DZOs to pay instructors for classroom time seems hard now.

Agreed. The jumpers would pay the instructor. Figure on a limit of 10 students per session, with a classroom session desinged around an hour of time for 10 students.

A full class takes an hour, and costs, $3 per student. A half class takes 45 minutes, and costs $5 per student. Smaller classes take even less time, and cost, at most, $10 per student. End result, the instructor gets between $20 and $30 for 30 to 60 minutes woth of work.

I can guarantee that there is an instructor on every DZ who wants/needs the money, or who wants to teach the class.

Please do keep ideas coming.

[davelepka 4]

For the record, I would be willing to personally take my time to develop the training. I'd be willing to take my time and money to travel in support of the training, and implementing it into being.

The catch is that I'm not doing anything until the USPA makes a commitment to follow through with the program. I have already tried, without success, to get this into motion. I have contacted members of the BOD and safety and training comittee, submitted in writing ideas, outlines, and proposals, and gotten absolutely nowhere.

I'm willing to put my time, knowledge and money where my mouth is, but I'm not willing to waste any of the three anymore.