Safety rules and USPA

[kallend 1,621]

Quote

If the DZO's and PIA dont want something the BOD will not do it. And that is backed up by history.

Making a rule that DZOs won't enforce is a complete waste of time and just causes irritation to everyone. The DZOs have to be on board.

I am quite confident that all of the DZOs where I jump fairy regularly (Chicago, Deland, Perris, Elsinore, ZHills, Spaceland) have the interests of their jumpers squarely in mind.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[dragon2 0]

what happened over here, AFAIK, wasn't dramatic.

We had a max WL of 1.2 in place for up to B, other than that there were no set rules, it was instructor's discretion.

When the rules were implemented, it was sort of sudden, so not everyone knew about it beforehand.
For those that did, there probaby were a few that got smaller canopies real quick. They still had to be sensible enough to be grandfathered in like the rest, and Im sure some were denied permission to jump that brand new canopy.

The grandfatherin-in meant that you could keep the canopy you were jumping at the time, but anytime you wished to change canopy categories you had to meet the requirements of that category.

I always thought that wording should have been "change to a HIGHER canopy category" but it wasn't.

Anyway, instructor discretion was/is still in play, and I was not permitted to jump a stiletto 135 when it was in the same category as my then current spectre and safire 135.

All in all, there was some grumbling about the rules from <1000 jump jumpers, but by now there's uch much less,

ciel bleu,
Saskia

[dragon2 0]

There's 2 kinds of jumper who grumble these days: the Mad Skillz jumpers and the occasional featherweight.

For the featherweight there is the option of asking the KNVvL for permission to jump a smaller canopy, which is occasionaly granted.

ciel bleu,
Saskia

[Ron 7]

Quote

I really don't think there's any conspiracy to support PIA and DZO's at the expense of skydivers

Funny, I never said at the expense of... I said the BOD favors and follows PIA and DZO's. That is not what you are claiming I am saying.

But hey, others seem to understand what I am saying even if you don't and they seem to be agreeing.

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

[Ron 7]

Quote

What about the new B license proficiency card

A half measure and 10 years behind. And it does nothing to prevent a guy passing the class on a 1:1 loaded navigator and then jumping on a 2:1 Velo.

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

[ozzy13 0]

Thumbs up to USPA for taking action on this problem. I'm glad we are moving in the right direction.

Once I did a tandem all bets were off. My jump numbers climbed very fast. I received my A and I was looking for direction. Back then if you wanted to continue to learn you had look for it and that was not that long ago.
Having this card is a plus. Its not a end all. I don't see the problem.

As far as a wing loading card. I look at it this way.We are all grown ups here I hope. If someone told me your not good enough to jump this or that Id would be the first one to go and prove them wrong. So I really dont think that card would be such a good Direction. My first TI told me this. We are in a extreme sport with extreme personalities. All different walks of life. People learn faster. Have more abilities. Its up to that person to know their limits. Yes giving direction is good but we are not kids here.

Last but not least separate landing areas. Works great if people know how to fly their canopy's. Just like one landing area works great the same way. Teach people to fly their canopy's and there will be less collisions. I know of a DZ that has separate landing area's and it has not helped. I know another DZ with one landing and does not have a problem.

I think education is the best direction. Just don't see how it could hurt. Most canopy courses have been out there for years. My AFFI's told me to go take one of them. I did just that. I have taken three canopy courses. Everyone used advanced sec. of the sims. So now USPA is just making them a requirement.

What is the problem?

Never give the gates up and always trust your rears!

[crotalus01 0]

Thats all pretty basic lifesaving stuff with the exception of the double fronts....

As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD...

[billvon 2,384]

>If someone told me your not good enough to jump this or that Id would be the first
>one to go and prove them wrong.

And that's a good way to approach it, I think,

"You can't jump this canopy kid, you're not good enough."
"Yes I am!"
"OK then. Prove it."

[davelepka 4]

Quote

If someone told me your not good enough to jump this or that Id would be the first one to go and prove them wrong. So I really dont think that card would be such a good Direction.

If you mean you would prove it based on following an established training protocol, and developing the skills over time to prove them wrong, then great.

If you mean you would hook that canopy up for your next jump, and show them how wrong they are, then that's not so great.

Again, you're looking at these ideas in the short term. You're thinking about you when you started jumping, or someone who's still new to the sport today. Forget about those guys because they all have a preconcieved notion of what slydving, and more importantly canopy education and selection is all about, that being that it's 'anything goes', and that's not something they want to give up.

The lure of HP canopies, swooping, and just going faster in general is a strong one. If it wasn't, none of this talk would be neccesary. Notice that there's no talk about regulating people climbing out of their harness and hanging from their legstraps under canopy. Surely there's a great deal of training and preparation needed for a stunt like that, but so few people are interested in such a stunt that there's no need to make it an issue for the general public. Wanting to jump smaller and faster canopies is an issue, and needs some consideration.

Back to the idea of WL regulation, while there might be some backlash at first, within time it will just become a part of the status quo. We tell jumpers all the time that they can't pull lower then 2k, how many of them run right out and suck it down to 1k to prove us wrong?

Not many now, but when the pull altitude BSR firast went into effect, I'm sure there was a group of jumpers who did just that. These days, it's generally accepted that 2k is as low as you want to be in freefall, and people just go along with that. I know I did when I started jumping, I never questioned the idea that I should be opening a parachute above 2k. I found out by accident that you can get away with it sometimes, but to this day I still accept that the freefall should be ending by 2k.

[ozzy13 0]

ok ill bite Dave. Under loading a canopy is just as dangerous. This is one of the reasons we limit the winds that students can jump in.

So what wing loading do you feel is safe for everyone?

To put a restriction on this does not work for me. Again we are all adults here. So I wouldnt be ok driving a bus around in the sky. Some like driving a sports car. If you teach them to drive they can then make the discussion themselves on what to drive. If I want to learn to drive a bus. I take a commercial driving course. If I want to learn how to drive a race car I go to a racing school to learn. So what is the problem here. teach them how to drive and these numbers we see will go down.

People are going to die plain and simple. They will be people dieing every year in our sport for this reason or that reason. The numbers are down from past years http://www.dropzone.com/fatalities/ Putting restriction on what people can jump will hold people and our sport back. What do I know tho. I am still very new to this sport. I just dont think restriction is the way to go here. Eduction is.

Edited to add: I would be ok if they put a check list like this before moving down in canopy size http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/safety/detail_page.cgi?ID=47 Its what I did before moving down and seem to work for me.

Never give the gates up and always trust your rears!

[davelepka 4]

Quote

Under loading a canopy is just as dangerous

As overloading? Not even close, but when taken to extremes, underloading can present some problems.

Quote

So what wing loading do you feel is safe for everyone?

In case you were not aware, all of the ideas so far have included a chart that indicates the maximum allowable WL based on jump numbers.

The rough idea is something like 0-100 jumps has a max allowable WL of 1.0. Jumpers with 100-200 jumps could bump up to 1.1, and so on. Factors like high altitude DZs, or exceptionally small jumpers are accounted for, and the numbers get shifted around a bit for them.

There is no 'universal' WL for everyone. Given how fast and how HP canopies have become, it's really become a 700, 800, or even 1000 jump progression before a jumper is anywhere close to being ready to jump 'anything' they want. So up until that point, there some WL that are close to being 'universal' in that they limit the performance of the canopy to match the experience of the jumper.

Eventaully, if you keep jumping you'll get past the requirements of the Wl chart and be able to do anything you want. You reach a point where you have proven you have the skill and judgement to jump 'anything' out there, and when you reach that point, you should be able to. Before that point, however, you lack the experience to prove you can handle yourself, and the judgment that comes from that experience, and you really shouldn't be able to just jump anything you want.

Every other facet of avialtion has some sort of stepped licensing program where the level of license you have dictates the type of equipment you can fly. Hell, even skydiving in countries outside the US have Wl restrictions in place, why not us? What makes skydiving in the US so special that it doesn't need the same type of programs in place?

[billvon 2,384]

>ok ill bite Dave. Under loading a canopy is just as dangerous.

No, it's not. That's like saying that opening 3000 feet too high is just as dangerous as opening 3000 feet too low.

>If I want to learn how to drive a race car I go to a racing school to learn. So what is
>the problem here. teach them how to drive and these numbers we see will go down.

Agreed!

Now let's say you do that. You put the time in to learn to drive that car at 130mph around a banked track. You put in the money and time on the course. You get pretty good but you realize it's also dangerous; you have friends who have died doing it, you've had a close call yourself etc.

Then you see a new guy come along and buy that race car - and he drives it without training on the street at 130mph. You tell him "dude, you're not ready for that car; you have got to get some training."

He tells you "what the hell do you know? You're some fossil who grew up on boring street legal cars. You don't know what it's like growing up in the modern age of fast cars. You probably can't appreciate my innate skills, because you obviously don't have them."

That's one of the situations we're facing now. What do you do? One answer is just "let him do it." The problem there is that he's not only likely to injure or kill himself, he may kill another friend of yours in the process.

[ozzy13 0]

Ok so a jumper weighting 100lbs would be under a sub 100 canopy at 100 jumps. Is that safe? I think not.You cant go off a chart with something like this. Where is the education in a chart? USPA already considers anything under a 150 a HP canopy. I can get hurt just as bad on a 129 CF as I can under my 90 velo. Ill take it a step further. I can still kill someone else under a 190 saber as well. If I dont know how to fly said canopy. It really dont matter what size is over my head. To get your A uspa has a standard. Its not the end. In my opinion its bear minimum. The way things were before, If you wanted further education you had to seek it out. Now you must get it if you want to progress. I know people that got their A and never went further. Have 1000s of jumps and still have their A. I just think if you teach them how to fly a canopy. Have them understand how it works. It will much better in the long run. Putting restriction on anything. limiting them to what they can do and when they can do it is the wrong approach. Teaching them to understand it is the better choice. We can go round robin on this matter all day. With a chart there will be exceptions. You said it yourself. So who gets to decide on them? So on and so on. If everyone has to go threw a course from this point forward you will see the benefits.

Never give the gates up and always trust your rears!

[ozzy13 0]

Bill Im with you 100% This is why I think its great USPA put this canopy card in for the B.

Never give the gates up and always trust your rears!

[davelepka 4]

Quote

Ok so a jumper weighting 100lbs would be under a sub 100 canopy at 100 jumps. Is that safe? I think not

Nobody else thinks that either. That's why I mentioned lighter people and DZ with higher elevations, the charts have exceptions for them.

Lighter folks generally lose .2 lbs/sq ft on the WL, so instead of 1.0, they would be at .08. A 100lb jumper, with an exit weight of 125/130, would be jumping something like a 150.

Higher elevation DZs also make adjustments, where they subract .01 off the WL for every 2k above sea level (or something like that).

These charts are well thought out, and contain adjustments where they are needed, and prohibit eliptical canopies at any WL below 500 jumps.

Quote

I just think if you teach them how to fly a canopy. Have them understand how it works. It will much better in the long run

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that this is the first time you're hearing about any of these proposals, but continuing education has always been a part of the idea.

I've always liked the idea that you require a canopy control course in order to earn a licesne. There's one in place for the A for the most part (of course, I feel like it needs more work), and now I guess there's one for the B as well. I feel that the material and performance requirements should ratchet up with the higher licesnes, and there should be an advanced course and an expert course to go along with the C and D licenses, respectively.

If a jumper chooses not to earn additional licenses, they are free to jump at the highest WL allowed for the license they do have. For example, if you have a B license and choose not to advance to a C license at 200 jumps, you can jump a canopy rated for your weight at 200 jumps 1.2 WL. If you stop at a C, and do not get your D when you have 500 jumps, you're capped at 1.5 until you take the expert course and earn a D license.

Quote

With a chart there will be exceptions. You said it yourself. So who gets to decide on them?

Again, the exceptions are based solely on situation, not jumper performance or desire. If you happen to be a leightweight person, then the 'standard' chart does not apply to you as you're not a 'standard' person. if you jump at a high elevation DZ, that needs to be taken into account.

At the end of the day, all of the exceptions involve lowering the WL of the effected jumpers anyway, so it's not like jumpers will be lobbying to be exceptions. If they are, then they are, it's just situational and up to the math.

[billvon 2,384]

>Ok so a jumper weighting 100lbs would be under a sub 100 canopy at
>100 jumps. Is that safe? I think not.You cant go off a chart with
>something like this.

I think you can, as long as you have a good chart. Using Germain's chart, for example, that 100 lb 100 jump person would be under a 135 - which seems pretty reasonable.

>Putting restriction on anything. limiting them to what they can do and
>when they can do it is the wrong approach. Teaching them to understand
>it is the better choice.

Agreed. But those limitations might just keep them alive until they do understand.

[ozzy13 0]

2011 report
http://www.dropzone.com/fatalities/2011/North_America/index.shtml

5 out of the 11 canopy incidents were with jumpers over 2000 jumps about 45%

how is your chart helping them?

One was by a jump breaking more then one brs. and one was a student. That's all the low turns.

The canopy collisions I don't know what to say about. If people are aware of their surroundings this would not happen. People need to know who's on the plane and what they are doing. Give enough separation on exit, track the right direction. Check air space and after opening giving canopy separation . If you know a guy behind you is jumping a smaller canopy then why bother to spiral down. Thats up to the AFFI at the DZ's to teach their students this stuff. Do people fall threw the cracks. Yes and it is a good thing that USPA is stepping up.

Never give the gates up and always trust your rears!

[davelepka 4]

Quote

5 out of the 11 canopy incidents were with jumpers over 2000 jumps about 45%

how is your chart helping them?

How long had they been in the sport? This idea was hatched 10 years ago, let's say the USPA took action, and those jumpers had all been through 4 canopy control courses and all followed a 'sensible' canopy progression. What you end up with is the best possible canopy pilots, and hopefully the least possible incidents.

Let's go back to the concept that only fatalites are reported. You have to kill yourself to have a record of it, and from where I'm sitting, high time jumpers are jumping the smallest, fastest canopies, and taking the most risks with them via swooping. They stand the highest chance for having a fatal incident based on their canopy choice and what they do wth it. I would suggest that lower time jumpers have a greater chance of a less severe incident, again, based on their equipment choices and what they do with it.

As much as I dislike fatalities, I don't find non-fatal incidents any more acceptable.

This is common sense stuff. How can you argue that continuing education and regulating canopy selection aren't both steps in a safer direction. You could offer your opinion that you don't think it's neccesary, or maybe you don't think it's doing enough, but there's no way to argue that it's a bad thing. Show me the planet where a more informed jumper is worse off? Is that the same planet where a lower WL isn't safer than a higher one? Where is this place?

[skybytch 259]

Quote

If a jumper chooses not to earn additional licenses, they are free to jump at the highest WL allowed for the license they do have. For example, if you have a B license and choose not to advance to a C license at 200 jumps, you can jump a canopy rated for your weight at 200 jumps 1.2 WL. If you stop at a C, and do not get your D when you have 500 jumps, you're capped at 1.5 until you take the expert course and earn a D license.

Issue with this is that it limits who can get a D license. Why is that important?

Instructional ratings - I choose not to swoop or fly a high wingloading, and I know many very good instructors who also choose not to swoop or fly a high wingloading. None of us would have been able to get an AFF rating if we were subject to the above rule. While having intellectual knowledge of high performance flight is important for an AFF instructor, actually having done swoop landings is not.

Record attempts - A D license is required to be on a world record attempt. Limiting D licenses to only those who have swooping training and experience would negatively affect many jumpers who have no desire to swoop but want to be on an RW world record.

If your point is that a D license holder should be a "master" or "expert", then it should also be required that jumpers do a specific number of (or get specific advanced training on) RW, freefly, wingsuit, CRW and camera jumps before getting that license. If it's required that an "expert" have training in one discipline, it should be required that they have training in ALL disciplines.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

If your point is that a D license holder should be a "master" or "expert", then it should also be required that jumpers do a specific number of (or get specific advanced training on) RW, freefly, wingsuit, CRW and camera jumps before getting that license. If it's required that an "expert" have training in one discipline, it should be required that they have training in ALL disciplines.

First off, I disagree with the premise that the D license canopy control course should require induced speed landings of any kind. Adding speed absolutely adds to the risk, and there's no reason anyone should be forced to do that.

You can have an 'expert' canopy control course without requiring induced speed landings. Going faster is a choice, and if you never make it happen to yourself, it's not going to happen on it's own. True, you 'might' find youself landing at the bottom of a turn 'someday', but the chances are slim, and it's no reason to force people to add risk to their canopy control course.

You can have an 'expert' course that covers info and theory of jumping at higher WL, which would be becoming a reality for a jumper with 500+ jumps, and you could also have some tighter accuracy requirements. Any sort of induced speed landings, like double-fronts, could be optional during the D license course. It should certainly be a part of the class, but actaully demonstrating them should be optional.

In terms of the other things you mentioned, none of those are required to make a skydive, but flying your canopy is, which is why you can require an 'expert' canopy control course to become an 'expert' skydiver, but you don't need those other things. I have a feeling you were focused on the swooping aspect of it, and as indicated above, I agree that nobody should 'have to' swoop.

The truth is that the number of skills coverd by the time you are at the D license level would be lower, and the 'book learning' would be a bigger part of the class. The theory and aerodynamcis become more important as WL (and speed) goes up, so that would be more of the focus at that point. Once a jumper has reached 500 jumps (and taken 3 previous canopy control courses), you're running out of things to cover, but at the same time as this is the last 'required' canopy control course, you want to take advantage of that and maybe look forward another 500 jumps and prep them for what lies ahead.

[kallend 1,621]

Quote

*** What makes skydiving in the US so special that it doesn't need the same type of programs in place?

'Merica is God's Own Country - didn't you get the memo?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,621]

The Devil is in the details.

A rule needs to be simple or it will not be enforceable.

So now we enshrine a WL chart into the rules.

Exceptions created for altitude.

Exceptions created for "featherweights"

Exceptions created for those of exceptional talent who can demonstrate proficiency.

Then there are those who want to set world records but don't want to swoop. Need to accommodate them.

Etc. Etc.

Pretty soon it will be like the tax code, and be unenforceable.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

Exceptions created for those of exceptional talent who can demonstrate proficiency

I disagree with this. This is where we come back to the same thing now, which is 'someone' says that this guy 'should be OK' on a higher than average WL.

There's no reason not to hold everyone to the WL chart, if you have exceptional talent, then you have it on any canopy of any size. If you're jumping at a fast pace, you can work your way off the chart in 2 or 3 years. If you're not jumping that fast, you shouldn't be allowed outside of the chart anyway.

The other exceptions are not 'judgement calls', they're basic situational factors. Do you have an exit weight under 150 lbs? If yes, you need to factor that in, if no, you're on the 'standard' chart. Do you jump at a DZ above 2kft MSL? If yes, factor that in, if no, back to the standard numbers.

The thing is that just like everyone in oppsition wants to crow about, there is no 'magic' number. There is no magic WL where everything will be fine below it and you die if you go above it. The chart isn't there to keep people to the 'magic' number, it's designed to keep the average jumper 'close' to a reasonable WL.

Jumpers gain or lose weight. Jumpers wear weight belts. Jumpers jump at DZs with different elevations. Jumpers much heavier or lighter than average exist. All fo these things will reduce the precision of the chart, but it's not designed to be 'precise' and it's effectiveness does not depend on precision.

The idea is that it provides a reasonble progression for jumpers to follow as they learn, and it will serve that purpose for the majority of jumpers in the majority of situatuions.

On top of that, you add in the canopy control courses, so that when a jumper does pay a visit to Mile-Hi up in Co, they know and understand what to expect from their canopy.

Quote

Then there are those who want to set world records but don't want to swoop. Need to accommodate them

I addressed that in my previous post. There's no reason to require people to induce speed on their landings. Make it available to them in the D license canopy control class if they want, but not required if they don't.

By the time you get to the D license level, more of the class would be theory and aerodynamics. Just like the A license class is for more techniques and practice, the B class would be less so, the C even less, and the D class would be the least amount of practice, and the most amount of theory. In the beginnig you teach them the 'how' and the 'when' because those are survival skills. In the higher classes, you teach more of the 'why' to prepare them for the what the future holds.

The ideas only become complicated when people whine about exceptions. Part of our problem is that everyone thinks they're an exception, but they're not. Even if they are, there's no reason they can't follow the chart like everyone esle. You want simple? There is it, follow the chart and take the classes. Simple.

[kallend 1,621]

Quote

Quote

Exceptions created for those of exceptional talent who can demonstrate proficiency

I disagree with this. This is where we come back to the same thing now, which is 'someone' says that this guy 'should be OK' on a higher than average WL.

.

You disagree with anyone who has ideas different from yours.

That is why the devil IS in the details.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

You disagree with anyone who has ideas different from yours.

Isn't that the basis of a disagrrement? You have one idea, I have another, the two of us disagree?

Am I supposed to disagree with someone who has the same ideas I do? How would that work?