Safety rules and USPA

[skyjumpenfool 2]

Wing Loading BSR...For a Pro rating, I believe you need to be rated on the canopy you're going to use on demo's? I'd say this could work for a wing loading rating. You do a course, put in the time, and become "Rated" on the wings allowed for that rating. If you want a higher rating, you get certified for that wing.

What if we separated the W/L rating from the actual license? Something like below...

Below is a rough sketch of what I’m talking about and I’ve given minimal thought to the exact numbers/wing loadings/etc. for the ratings. I post this just for discussion.

__________________________________________
No canopy rating.. Non elliptical up to .8 w/l

class 1. B license required (card complete)
non elliptical up to 1.2w/l

class 2. C license required
non elliptical up to 1.5 w/l
semi-elliptical up to 1.2 w/l
No ellipticals! No X-braced

class 3. 500 jumps in class 2
non elliptical up to 1.7 w/l
semi-elliptical up to 1.5 w/l
elliptical up to 1.2 w/l
no X-braced

class 4. 500 jumps in class 3
unlimited non elliptical
semi-elliptical up to 1.9 w/l
elliptical up to 1.6 w/l
X-braced up to 1.4

class 5. 500 jumps in class 4
Open/swooper class
_______________________________________

I could now hold a C-3 license. I'd have the privileges of The C License on a canopy up to the class 3 restrictions.

Or, I could have a D-2 license with the privileges of the D license and fly a canopy up to the class 2 restrictions.

No Exceptions needed or allowed!!

Food For Thought …flame on! ... or better yet, revise my rambling to make it work!

Birdshit & Fools Productions

"Son, only two things fall from the sky."

[ozzy13 0]

Quote

Wing Loading BSR...For a Pro rating, I believe you need to be rated on the canopy you're going to use on demo's? I'd say this could work for a wing loading rating. You do a course, put in the time, and become "Rated" on the wings allowed for that rating. If you want a higher rating, you get certified for that wing.

What if we separated the W/L rating from the actual license? Something like below...

Below is a rough sketch of what I’m talking about and I’ve given minimal thought to the exact numbers/wing loadings/etc. for the ratings. I post this just for discussion.

__________________________________________
No canopy rating.. Non elliptical up to .8 w/l

class 1. B license required (card complete)
non elliptical up to 1.2w/l

class 2. C license required
non elliptical up to 1.5 w/l
semi-elliptical up to 1.2 w/l
No ellipticals! No X-braced

class 3. 500 jumps in class 2
non elliptical up to 1.7 w/l
semi-elliptical up to 1.5 w/l
elliptical up to 1.2 w/l
no X-braced

class 4. 500 jumps in class 3
unlimited non elliptical
semi-elliptical up to 1.9 w/l
elliptical up to 1.6 w/l
X-braced up to 1.4

class 5. 500 jumps in class 4
Open/swooper class
_______________________________________

I could now hold a C-3 license. I'd have the privileges of The C License on a canopy up to the class 3 restrictions.

Or, I could have a D-2 license with the privileges of the D license and fly a canopy up to the class 2 restrictions.

No Exceptions needed or allowed!!

Food For Thought …flame on! ... or better yet, revise my rambling to make it work!

Thats all great but you will be under loading some of the canopy's say a x-braced canopy by manufacturers recommendation is higher loadings on them. Im just playing devils advocate here. By putting a number on anything. It will lock you in. Now someone gets hurt under your chart. Lawyers will come in a say USPA knows better then the manufacturer that built it? What about that 100 lbs girl? What about all the other exceptions that come into play? Im not trying to be a dick. Just looking at the whole picture and what the real problem is.In my option is lack of education.

Never give the gates up and always trust your rears!

[airtwardo 6]

I don't know if those exact numbers would work...but the concept and lay-out are 100% IMO. I think you're onto something.




FWIW...I guess I'd qualify for the C-4 having over 500 jumps on a X braced Excalibur loaded @1.4? ...me & my Madd Skillz!

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[billvon 2,400]

>Thats all great but you will be under loading some of the canopy's say a
>x-braced canopy by manufacturers recommendation is higher loadings on them.

Then you should not be jumping a cross braced at those loadings.

>Now someone gets hurt under your chart. Lawyers will come in a say USPA
>knows better then the manufacturer that built it?

It is 1000 times better to avoid an injury or fatality than to construct a legal defense to insulate oneself from the outcome of that injury or fatality.

[ozzy13 0]

Quote

It is 1000 times better to avoid an injury or fatality than to construct a legal defense to insulate oneself from the outcome of that injury or fatality.

Agreed and your point is? Education is the best way. I don't understand the argument in this. I say black you say blue. Good luck figuring out what would be good in those charts and ill just teach them how too fly whats over their head. This has been beaten to death. Im moving on. Good luck!

Never give the gates up and always trust your rears!

[skyjumpenfool 2]

Quote

Thats all great but you will be under loading some of the canopy's say a x-braced canopy by manufacturers recommendation is higher loadings on them. Im just playing devils advocate here. By putting a number on anything. It will lock you in. Now someone gets hurt under your chart. Lawyers will come in a say USPA knows better then the manufacturer that built it? What about that 100 lbs girl? What about all the other exceptions that come into play? Im not trying to be a dick. Just looking at the whole picture and what the real problem is.In my option is lack of education.

I'm no canopy expert. If you could change the numbers to make it right, what would you change? Keep in mind, I agree with your "lack of education" statement. That's why each canopy level increase would come with a course and training. You'd have to work at jumping small canopies.

Birdshit & Fools Productions

"Son, only two things fall from the sky."

[billvon 2,400]

>Education is the best way

Yes, we agree. Now, how do you get people to avail themselves of education? This is the part you keep skipping over. An educational system does no one any good if no one uses it.

[ozzy13 0]

BING BING BING we have a winner. This is why USPA is starting to use one :)

Never give the gates up and always trust your rears!

[billvon 2,400]

>BING BING BING we have a winner. This is why USPA is starting to use one :)

We agree that education is important.

Now, how do we get jumpers to avail themselves of this education?

[airtwardo 6]

Quote

>BING BING BING we have a winner. This is why USPA is starting to use one :)

We agree that education is important.

Now, how do we get jumpers to avail themselves of this education?

The question of course answers itself~

Show comprehension and competence through standardized achievement evaluation. . . testing prior to advancement.

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[pchapman 261]

Compared to the chart, which is mostly about jump numbers, I prefer the systems where one can take courses or demonstrate skills to advance. Then it isn't about being held back while having to do millions of jumps.

(I realize you said you just made the numbers up for the sake of argument. It is a wee bit on the strict side at the moment, requiring a minimum of 1700 jumps to do what I was allowed to do at 205. AND many of those jumps have to be on progressively more aggessive wing loadings so forget the tandems etc in one's logbook.)

The chart does bring up one good concept to be argued: To what degree are you forced to downsize if you want to downsize more?

Certainly, if you are going to jump a certain canopy size, it is very very helpful to already have jumped the next size up of the same style of canopy.

But the chart requires jumping within a class a whole bunch before moving to the next class. Even if the number isn't 500 within a class, what are we looking at? 200, 100, 50, 20, 10? I'll admit the old school way of doing things was a bit rapid, maybe 2 or 3 jumps within a class before downsizing again.

[skyjumpenfool 2]

Quote

(I realize you said you just made the numbers up for the sake of argument. It is a wee bit on the strict side at the moment, requiring a minimum of 1700 jumps to do what I was allowed to do at 205. AND many of those jumps have to be on progressively more aggessive wing loadings so forget the tandems etc in one's logbook.)

Yes, it is on the strict side. The way it clearly needs to be. You see, this is the problem in the first place. I believe, as do others, that experience combined with education creates competance. You get experience by doing something over and over(jump #'s).

Within each category you'll spend 500 jumps going thru the downsizing progression while gaining experience , skills, knowlege, and understanding of each canopy. Again, this idea is just a brainstorming exercise and I'm hoping we're open minded enough to allow change and revision. This, as in all things, is a work in progress.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but the whole idea is to keep people from doing in 205 jumps what should be taking 1700.

Birdshit & Fools Productions

"Son, only two things fall from the sky."

[davelepka 4]

Quote

Compared to the chart, which is mostly about jump numbers, I prefer the systems where one can take courses or demonstrate skills to advance. Then it isn't about being held back while having to do millions of jumps.

Ok, so how do you determine when a jumper is qualifed to demonstrate the skills for 'x' level of canopy or WL?

Without a guideline, you would have all sorts of newbies trying to get an advanced rating. Some of them will get lucky and pass the eval, but how long will their luck hold out while their jumping at that level all the time?

So if you have a minnumum experience required to take 'x' class, then you essentailly have a WL restriction based on jumps.

On the subject of being held back, if you look at Brian Germains chart, do you really think it's holding anyone back? A jumper with 200 jumps is cleared up to a 1.2 WL. If the guy weighs 165/170, than a 170 sq ft canopy would fit into the chart, do you really think that's holding the guy back?

Nine times out of ten, when you hear about a jumper who sounds like they have a 'high' WL, it generally just one or two sizes off what the WL chart would designate. The purpose of the chart is to come up with a plan that conservative enough that it works for everyone, without being overly conservative. If you do the math, and look at what jumpers would using if they worked with the chart, and then looked at where they would be if they went one size smaller, you can see that the 'one size smaller' choice is generally on the smaller side, and could raise eyebrows on some cases.

Overall, the point is that canopy selection and canopy control has evolved to the point that the status quo just isn't cutting it anymore. What canopies can do, and what people want to do with them has changed, and so must the training for using them. Part of that is teaching proper canopy selection, and since a huge part of that is experienced based, the chart will 'help' people until they have the experience to handle an 'anything goes' policy.

[nigel99 144]

Quote

Ok, so how do you determine when a jumper is qualifed to demonstrate the skills for 'x' level of canopy or WL?

Without a guideline, you would have all sorts of newbies trying to get an advanced rating. Some of them will get lucky and pass the eval, but how long will their luck hold out while their jumping at that level all the time?

I believe it should be through proving your ability to meet specific advancement criteria. Obviously a properly structured progression will require you to do jumps in order to progress.

Based on jump numbers alone for canopy flight is rather silly. I have friends who have between 1000 and 12000 skydives each, however the bulk of their jumps are tandems. In some cases they haven't jumped a sport rig for a long time.

By forcing a proper training regime onto people it means those with focus and genuine skill can complete the progression quicker, and the slower, less skilled people are held back. Don't get me wrong though - a proper training regime may require 500 jumps to achieve all the skills. I am not looking for 'shortcuts'.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

I believe it should be through proving your ability to meet specific advancement criteria. Obviously a properly structured progression will require you to do jumps in order to progress.

Ok, so if a level '2' canopy license allows you to jump up to a 1.1 WL, and a level '3' canopy license lets you jup at a 1.2 WL, and you need to make 100 jumps on level '2' before taking the test to advance to level '3', then in essence, that's the same as a WL chart.

With just a chart, the advancement criteria would be simply making the jumps. With your idea, the advancement criteria is making the jumps, and then demonstrating certain skills on your existng canopy before moving forward.

The idea being put forth, that combines a WL chart with canopy control courses at each license is almost the same thing, just with bigger intervals.

You would have a canopy control course in order to get your A license with 25 jumps. and then you would able to jump up to a 1.0 WL.

The next canopy control course would be at the B license level, which is 50 jumps min. The next downsize isn't until 100 jumps, when you would be cleared to jump at a 1.1 WL, provided you took the B license canopy control course. A jumper who chooses not to take the course, is free to continue jumping at a 1.0 WL.

The next downsize and canopy control course would coincide at 200 jumps, when a jumper is C qualifed. Again, take the course, move up to 1.2, Don't take the course, continue on at 1.1.

Finally, there are two bumps in WL at 300 and 400 jumps, with the final canopy control course coming at 500 jumps when the jumper is D qualifed.

Here's an idea, what if we modify the plan to include a test procedure at 100, 300 and 400 jumps, where there is no corresponding license qualification and canopy control course? This way, every downsize up to 500 jumps would have some sort of oversight to go along with it.

It could be a simple matter of an instrucotr or S&TA sign off, with the jumper demonstrating a couple of apporaches and landings within a given accuracy. Keep in mind, I'm not talking about a test-out process, where a jumper can move ahead of the WL chart, just a test-up procedure to make sure they should even be moving up with the chart at all. The chart is not a required downsizing progression, but the max allowable WL and you don't have to downsize to match it, but you can't downsize beyond it.

[ShotterMG 0]

Dave, i have a serious question and i promise i am not posting to be a contrarian or a dick. :)
To me, this whole BSR approach is really ass backwards. Apparently you have been working on it for ten years. Writing proposals, talking about it ad nauseam on the internet, etc.. All in hopes of getting through to the BOD, hoping they create a useful BSR, and then hoping it is implemented and paid attention to. Yet, at the same time, i hear you guys often talking about how USPA doesn't enforce regulations and there is no practical bite to anything they enact. meanwhile years are going by and drop zones are operating as they always have.
in other words, you have taken the discussion away from the drop zone and brought ti the internet, the USPA, and everywhere but where it is needed. All in hopes that it will eventually come full circle and affect the drop zone itself.
I don't know the exact number but the US has something like 300 drop zones. Apparently you are an instructor at one of them. I can only assume your DZO and your instructors keep a close eye on your jumpers and use all your great ideas to keep everyone safe. I also assume Diablo does the same at his DZ. And Bill Vonn does the same at his. And all drop zones with a responsible staff and DZO also do the same. So how many drop zones are left? How many head instructors and DZO's do you guys know other than yours? So why don't you talk to them? Why not spend all this time and energy at the drop zone instead of the internet? All your work for creating new BSR's is most likely, by your own admission, going to be unenforceable. In this sport DZO's are the ones with teeth. Nobody, that is not one person, can get on a plane with a dangerously loaded canopy if the DZO says they can't. Obviously at your drop zone they can't. At Bill's they can't. At Diablo's they can't. I know at my DZ they can't. Every DZ i know of pays close attention to the issue. so who are the dangerous DZ's? Why not spend your time talking to these people? In the last ten years you could have visited every DZ in the country and agreed to make things better. And then, rather than having to wait for everything to come full circle, and for rules and enforcement to slowly trickle down to the DZ's, you would have actually stopped the problem in its tracks, right at the frontline.
If everyone of us takes our concerns to our brick and mortar dz.'s then we can affect change immediately. And we could skip all of the unnecessary regulations and paperwork and liability of creating more and more rules.
I am sorry if you have answered this question already. Its hard to read through everything on the subject But i would really like to know.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

How many head instructors and DZO's do you guys know other than yours? So why don't you talk to them? Why not spend all this time and energy at the drop zone instead of the internet?

The current situation is exactly what you describe, each DZO, S&TA or cheif instructor takes care of their own backyard in their own way. The problem with that is two-fold, first it allows for widely differing opinions on what is, or is not, an appropriate canopy or WL for a jumper. Some people (DZO, S&TA, etc) are better at making these choices than others, so if you're a jumper who happens to be a DZ where the decision maker is not that great, you end up getting bum advice.

The other side of it, and the other side of the BSR, is the education. If you continue to let things 'fall where they may' from DZ to DZ, how to do provide for the continuing education for the jumpers, or the quality of that education?

Quote

In this sport DZO's are the ones with teeth

Correct, and that's why the WL deal needs to be a BSR, and the canopy control courses need to be a licensing requirement.

If you look at DZOs and compliance with the rules, one area that seems to do OK is the training and licensing requirements. The USPA has no shortage of changes, revisions, and additions, and most DZOs seem to stand behind those and implement them into their programs.

When it comes to BSRs, you introduce the legal principal of the 'standard industry practice'. In an activity no governed by actaul laws, the legal principal is that if you can prove that you followed the 'standard industry practice', then you did your duty and are not responsible for accidents.

Let's say a student goes in. If the DZ followed the UPSA student guidelines, used USPA rated instructors, and the like, then they followed the 'SIP' and that's their legal remedy in court. If it turns out they used a rig without an AAD, or a non-rated instructor, then the incident quickly becomes the result of gross negligence due to not following the 'SIP', and gross negligence is one of the things that the waiver cannot protect against.

In the end, aside from it just being a good idea, this is the reason that DZOs follow the BSRs. Once the USPA puts it in wrinting that it's a 'requirement', they have to toe the line, or risk losing big time in the event of an incident.

Quote

Apparently you have been working on it for ten years

Not quite. A little less than 10 years ago I made my play for the BOD with these ideas, and got nowhere. I was told that this type of thing wasn't likely to appear on any agenda of any BOD meeting anytime soon.

A couple years later, in a one-on-one encoutner with a BOD member I brought it up again, and got a similar reposnse. At that point I got the hint, and gave up on the BOD.

As I've mentioned many times before, this is an issue of such significance in the community, that it shouldn't take a member bringing it up for to get attention from the BOD. Things like a slight change in the rules for competition accuracy might take a memeber initiative to get some attention. The competition accuracy crowd is small, and unless you actually compete, you might not know the ins and outs of the accuracy scene.

In the case of open canopy incidents, it's (seemingly) too big to ignore, and the fact that the BOD has managed to do so for so long, indicates there's some sort of systematic problem.

As far as posting it on the internet, you tell me a better method for putting my thoughts out there and reaching 'the masses'. A big part of this issue is shifting the thinking of the community toward conservative canopy choices and contunuing education. The USPA, being the 'ruling body' in the US, can give those issues immediate credibility by taking a hard line on them, and making a BSR and license requirement. Short of that, I can post my feelings and veiwpoints, and hopefully shift the thinking of 'some' jumpers in the meantime.

[airtwardo 6]

In the case of open canopy incidents, it's (seemingly) too big to ignore, and the fact that the BOD has managed to do so for so long, indicates there's some sort of systematic problem.

Quote

One really has to wonder why that is...I mean the USPA even published the FAA Administrator letter in the magazine. Surely they understand the 'gravity' of the situation.

This isn't a problem that will just go away and the trend seems to be a downhill one.

What WILL it take before the BOD recognizes serious action needs to be taken for the safety of the membership...THAT'S their job, it's in the USPA constitution!

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

• Quote

[DiverMike 5]

Quote

What WILL it take before the BOD recognizes serious action needs to be taken for the safety of the membership

This is really bizarre. I have been involved with several high risk hobbies that have national organizations and I have never experienced such a vocal cry from the membership asking the certifying organization to limit their freedom. Usually the requests from membership are either 1. Leave us alone, or 2. Make this change so as an Instructor/Owner I can make more money. I have never been involved with an organization that responds to requests to make the activity safer with "meh - we'll get back to you someday".

If I were king of USPA for a day, there would be a Wing Loading BSR. It might not have an affect on at least 70% of the serious injuries and fatalities, but it would have some affect. I have yet to hear anybody say Brian Germain's chart would be a bad idea to implement.

For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

[ShotterMG 0]

As far as posting it on the internet, you tell me a better method for putting my thoughts out there and reaching 'the masses'

Which takes me again to my point "The masses" are not the problem. It's the DZO's and their instructors And more specifically, the ones who's decision maker is not that great, as you stated. Which translates into a handful, or couple handful of DZO's. After all, you know very well each and every jumper thinks their instructor is the best. Their attitudes and skills come directly from their instructors and DZO's . All these internet skydivers are simply parroting their instructors. These DZO's are a known finite entity. You can call them up and know who you are talking to. On the internet you have no idea who you are reaching or not reaching. Hell, you have told me you don't even think I am a skydiver. I have heard you tell others the same thing when you don't agree with them. So why waste your time lobbying every Tom Dick and Harry on the internet? Why not go to the limited number of DZO's who directly create the problem.
The problem with new BSR's is you are creating more liability for the DZO. More paperwork and more chances for people to sue. One guy packs a new canopy into his rig at home and doesn't tell anyone, gets hurt, and now the DZO has to unpack everyone before their first jump of the day in order to be within industry standards. Hence, you will have many DZO's and USPA people put up a lot of resistance to your plan. Go to these DZO's, ask for voluntary compliance, and they are 1000 times more likely to adopt your plan.
You don't need the USPA to do this for you. Brian created a wing loading chart that has been widely used and accepted all on his own. Create the Lepka progression chart and ask the DZ"s if they will follow suit. By seeking new rules, no matter how good your ideas are the nature of liability in this country will force DZO's to reject your plan outright as a business necessity wether they agree with you or not.

[airtwardo 6]

limit their freedom

Quote

I understand what you're saying, but I still disagree with that terminology.

No one is saying jumper X can't do something...just that they should receive training and follow a safer path of progression to get there.

You can't cave dive or wreck dive without training and a rating.

You aren't 'free' to fly instruments without same...

Continuing to look the other way as people ricochet off the planet with such regularity and gruesome results is irresponsible.

What is it...1/2 the fatalities and maybe 75% of the serious injuries are a result of open canopy flight, and the powers that be recommend pattern control?

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[Ron 7]

Quote

In the last 10 years there have been more books written, articles published, courses given and discussions on canopy safety than any other aspect of skydiving since the sport began. The opportunity for education is there. But the deaths under good canopies continue to rise each year. Only a fool can fail to see that without some form of regulation things are not going to change.

Leave it to Michael to wrap it up perfectly.

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

[Ron 7]

Quote

It doesnt matter if a step is taken in the right direction it will never be good enough for some because the BOD has failed them for the last twenty years.

No, it is the BOD is STILL failing today.

Quote

So, most sit back and bitch rather than let by gones be by gones and get involved.

I and others have been involved longer than you.

Quote

IMO getting involved doesnt mean typing on DZ.com and bitching and moaning how they would do everything differently

Tried other routes.... was ignored. Only an idiot keeps trying to do something when the powers that be ignore them.

Quote

But quite frankly I have gotten bored and discouraged reading threads and threads of complaints.

Now you might have a little clue about how we feel when dealing with the BOD.

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

[airtwardo 6]

More paperwork and more chances for people to sue.

Quote

As long as we're fantasizing about lawsuits...

~why isn't the USPA concerned someone won't bring action against them from a wheelchair, by someone saying the governing body was told there was a problem....

... but refused to take measures limiting the ability for someone to jump a wing they weren't ready for in a way that crippled them.

Deep pocket & hey, anybody can sue over anything.

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[pchapman 261]

Quote

If you do the math, and look at what jumpers would using if they worked with the chart, and then looked at where they would be if they went one size smaller, you can see that the 'one size smaller' choice is generally on the smaller side, and could raise eyebrows on some cases.

I certainly see your points and don't know the answers myself.

I bet a lot of differences in opinion lie with all the "exceptions" and whether to grant them or not. A bunch of people want no exceptions, while I want a lot of exceptions, some because it won't significantly impact safety, and some for personal choice.

Too many exemptions and there would have to be a session with a psychologist before every jump, and supervision by a coach for every landing, to determine if someone still fulfills the criteria to jump a certain canopy.

It is quite possible I suppose that we'd both agree that a jumper of a certain number of jumps and weight should probably be flying nothing smaller than a 170 as his regular canopy. It'll serve him well on starting to learn accelerated landings but is relatively forgiving.

But then I'd argue for exceptions. Like borrowing a canopy and playing with it for a few jumps, with little long term exposure to risk. Or doing hop and pops or otherwise not mixing it up in the pattern at a busy boogie. Or having a canopy that's OK as long as he is disciplined and knows it isn't the one to learn to swoop on. Or he's already put in time and money in other aviation activities, how much partial credit do you give for that?

So then a 150 might really not be particularly dangerous for some people and some circumstances, while a 135 would be acknowledged as high risk but fine to play with a little bit. Clearly it is a minority opinion, at least among those vocal about it here, that wing loading restrictions should only restrict the most dangerous activity, and not be about forcing "good" behavior.