Requiring B license applicants to fly their canopy with their eyes closed for 15 seconds (5 flares, approx 3 seconds each)?

[PiLFy 0]

"...go tell the local S&TA that you've done so and have them signed off. No big deal."

I jump at different DZs, now. Is a different S&TA to merely take my word for it? Also, what about the classroom component? My still unanswered question to instructors, in general: Aren't these canopy drills already a part of every initial student progression? I had to do them for mine.

"btw, one of my hobbies is indeed pot stirring ."

Some people have issues. Issues that can get in the way of teaching. If someone openly proclaims themself as a SkyBeeyatch? Whose stated hobby is stirring the pot (AKA:Trolling)? Whose sig-line reads: Just another anonymous troll. I'm a lot less inclined to hear their message. In fact, I'm more inclined to block it out, entirely. That's not a slam. It's purely an observation. A lot more people would benefit from your knowledge if you dropped the 'Tude.

"And if you stay in the sport, you'll see more."

Sadly, I'm afraid that's a given.

[Para5-0 0]

Quote

Wouldn't it be an idea to allow or require AFF-I's to undertake a canopy control course and for them to do the progression card. Once the USPA had proof that the AFF-I had done the appropriate training they could sign off the card for B applicants?

Discussed at length and it is a good idea but one that will take a bit of work. It would be from a certain point on. Yes this should be part of the AFFI course, you will have no arguement about that. Along with that great suggestion comes probably about 40 hours of in room discussion and debate on a million what if's.

Quote

What is pretty shocking is that this is an apparent admission/recognition by the USPA that instructors in our sport lack basic canopy control skills.

BINGO!! That is why the BOD is trying their hardest to come up with something to get started on this problem. The B license proficeincy card is a start for new up and coming jumpers. At a point in the near future all AFFI's will have gone through the new process. It is not fast enough for my liking so suggestions on how do we get all instructors up to date on canopy instruction, and who will do it?

In my dream world I picture a team of canopy experts who are all working off of the exact same syllabus, traveling to every DZ in the country and giving a Canopy Education Course to all instructors, needed to renew your rating within a certain amount of time. The course should consist of every topic in 6-10 and 6-11 and cover techniques to teach, evaluate, and conduct the canopy course for the B license. or since I am dreaming a bit how about a online webinar with a test at the end. the webinar could easily track who has taken the course and what score they received on it. After completion you are elligible for renewal. Although that takes the hands on training out of the picture.

Now the objections will be:
1) Who teaches the course
2) What syllabus do we use
3) How much to charge for it
4) Some people dont have a computer.
5) Some people will just not do it, then what.
6) People generally complaining about having to pay for another requirement.
7)

I have learned one thing dealing with this process and that is you can recognize the problem fairly quickly. It is the solving and implementing that takes forever. Maybe that is a good thing. If I were king maybe the decisions would be too hasty and not have the proper review and analysis that a 22 member BOD offers it. Who knows.

Here is another thought:
Go to the BOD meeting in February in San Diego and sit in on the Safety and Training committee. They will welcome any input at all from a member who took the effort to show up. It shows a genuine concern. Or if you cant go then pm me your ideas and concerns and I will gladly read them aloud and bring up for discussion. Just remember we have to pre-post agendas for meetings and whatever it is will have to be added to the agenda. Just dont bog me down with bullshit please, seriously you know what is legit or not or I hope so.

[jimjumper 25]

When the Coach rating was first incorporated into the Instructional system, Kevin Gibsson traveled the country in just that way, teaching and rating Coach Course Directors. It's been done before and can be done now. But before anybody can do anything it must be decided what will be taught and how. One of the basics taught to any new instructor is "Define a standard and then teach the student to the standard." What is to be the current standard?

[Para5-0 0]

traveling the country and teaching this class will take forever to reach all instructors out there. I take back my suggestion. Instructors wont want to take it, they wont want to pay for it, they wont want to do anything to make themself a better instructor. No not everyone but many. I spoke to instructors about this already and I got a resounding get the F*&k out of here, im not taking another class.

The webinar on the other hand can be made madatory for renewal of all instructor ratings. The cost of a 45 min to one hour training video with canopy landings, evaluations, and even a demonstration of each of the five jumps would not cost that much in the grand schemem of things. Webinars can log who signs in and what score they receive on a test. Now dont ask me how we know who actually was sitting at the computer and taking the test. I see so many minor issues with this idea even as I type. Screw the test if they at least watch the video we are getting somewhere.

Just thinking aloud. Anyone want to produce a canopy instructors basic canopy teaching syllabus, course, and webinar? lol

[davelepka 4]

Quote

In my dream world I picture a team of canopy experts who are all working off of the exact same syllabus, traveling to every DZ in the country and giving a Canopy Education Course to all instructors, needed to renew your rating within a certain amount of time. The course should consist of every topic in 6-10 and 6-11 and cover techniques to teach, evaluate, and conduct the canopy course for the B license.

Sure, that should be simple and afforable too.

What would be your objection to a team of canopy experts developing a syllabus, and simply distributing it to DZs for them to hold their own canopy control courses, taught by their choice of jumper?

It's simple, cheap, and gets the ball rolling fairly quickly. Again, DZs want to succeed at things, and be good at stuff, and this would be no different. If you give them the syllabus, and tell them to pick their best candidate to teach it, they'll do that. Some DZs will even go above and betyond, and do more, but the min that the USPA provides will get done. Have the person giving the course sign the card, and it's done.

What's the objection to having the air skills demonstrated on the honor system and skipping the signature all together? As of right now, the jumper tells the S&TA or instructor that they did the work, and the S&TA signs off that they were told that the jumpers did the work. In the end, it's no different than the jumper smply signing to the USPA that they did the work, with the exception that now they don't have to hunt down the S&TA.

Again, the harder you make this, the longer it will take to realize. It's about jumpers teaching jumpers, no students are invovled. Everyone in the process had (at min) 50 jumps (as per the B license requirement). Just like Scott Miller or Brian Germain doesn't need a rating to teach a canopy control course because they're teaching licensed jumpers, this is the same.

I think the USPA and the BOD are a little to 'taken' with themselves. Everything they do is mired in red tape, paperwork, hoops to jump through, and fees. None of this needs to be that complicated, come up with what people need to know, print it up, and have DZs conduct the courses for the benfit of their local jumpers. Yes, make it a license requirement to ensure that everyone does it, but then make it easy so every DZ can provide the training without too much trouble. Let the DZ pick the best person for the job, regardless of ratings, fees or otherwise.

[Para5-0 0]

Quote

If you give them the syllabus, and tell them to pick their best candidate to teach it, they'll do that. Some DZs will even go above and betyond, and do more, but the min that the USPA provides will get done.

I thought we did exactly that. The syllabus is section 6-10 and 6-11. We asked the S&TA to pick their best candidate to teach it, and we hope that DZ take it to the next step providing any feedback regarding the syllabus and proposed additions or subtractions.

Quote

What's the objection to having the air skills demonstrated on the honor system and skipping the signature all together

I guess it can be done that way. But the purpose of the syllaus is to actually offer a canopy course at your dropzone being taught by a qualified canopy person. Any course worth its weight will video landings, debrief patterns, our course does proximity flying with an instructor to visually see control input compared to your flight pattern... This all requires the instructor to be knowledgeable, experienced, good at teaching theory and skills, and most of all PRESENT.
I dont think having some oversight of the program and how it is taught is a bad thing Dave. the honor system just makes me shrug a bit. I know many would actually do it but those are the ones who are generally safe. we need to think about those that will just try to bullshit their way through to get the license. If A actual appointed instructor at a DZ teaches the course and is present to witness and evaluate the jumps, how do they get around it.

Quote

come up with what people need to know, print it up, and have DZs conduct the courses for the benfit of their local jumpers

How is this different then what we did? Okay minus the S&TA giving the ok for a local person to teach the course and signing it.

[skybytch 259]

Quote

I jump at different DZs, now. Is a different S&TA to merely take my word for it? Also, what about the classroom component?

Pretty sure that the USPA BOD members understand that not every jumper can get to a canopy course right now. I'm hoping that these new requirements will change that.

There are many things in skydiving where the person "in charge" is going to have to take your word for things. Your instructor had to take your word that you did at least some of the canopy drills during student status. Show up for an instructional rating course and the course director will be taking your word that you have done whatever number of jumps, hours of freefall and/or time in sport are required. It is that way for a reason - so that jumpers like you who don't do the majority of their skydives at one dz can still become instructors.

Regarding getting the things you've already done signed off, talking to the S&TA at whatever dz you are currently jumping at might be a good first step. I'd bet a quarter that s/he will be glad to help you out.

Quote

Some people have issues. Issues that can get in the way of teaching. If someone openly proclaims themself as a SkyBeeyatch? Whose stated hobby is stirring the pot (AKA:Trolling)? Whose sig-line reads: Just another anonymous troll. I'm a lot less inclined to hear their message. In fact, I'm more inclined to block it out, entirely. That's not a slam. It's purely an observation. A lot more people would benefit from your knowledge if you dropped the 'Tude.

There was a time when I cared what others think of me and my opinions. That time is long past. But what the hell, I have a few minutes this morning....

The screenname I use is as old as these forums and it does fit me quite well. When I think something is unsafe or non ethical or just plain wrong, I'm not likely to keep my mouth (or keyboard) quiet. Which, to some makes me a bitch. Might as well claim it.

I like cooking and I enjoy a good beating of a dead horse. Pot stirring seems to cover both of those quite well.

The current sigline is an inside joke. Anybody who has been around here for more than few years knows who I am.

Quote

I'm a lot less inclined to hear their message. In fact, I'm more inclined to block it out, entirely.

And that's just fine with me. There are lots of people out there who can give the same messages that I am in a way that is more palatable to you. There are also lots of people out there who have thanked me for not only the messages I've delivered but also the way I have delivered them. what you call Tude, others might call being honest.

Quote

"And if you stay in the sport, you'll see more."

Sadly, I'm afraid that's a given.

Doesn't have to be. As I see it, what USPA is doing right now will reduce the number of funerals and hospitals we have to go to. I just wish it would have happened before Cliff and Tommy and all those other super nice people went and died under perfectly good parachutes...

[tdog 0]

Quote

BINGO!! That is why the BOD is trying their hardest to come up with something to get started on this problem.

I witnessed one of my best friends die under a perfectly good canopy, and I have witnessed a few others that were "just friends". I can tell you what it looks like to see the impact... So I honestly want a change for the better.

It seems the BOD, or at least you, have officially said instructors are not qualified to teach canopy control skills...

What I am curious about... Has the BOD put together a matrix of the incidents - how they occurred, etc? Before you claim the majority of the instructors are not qualified, do you have any proof that instructor's lack of skills are a cause of the problem at hand?

Swooping accidents are killing people, but these are people with 1000+ jumps, and the coaching that might save a life is not going to be "fixed" by any USPA syllabus, in the same way the USPA could not write a syllabus that would teach a 4 way team to turn points like Airspeed - it takes highly personalized coaching, hundreds of jumps with coaching - and even then - it is the coaches that seem to die too, or people under the mentoring of world class coaches. (if you ignore the occasional guy with mad skillz that everyone tells to stop, and he ignores everyone).

Canopy collisions are an issue, but then again, the last one that killed someone I knew, was my 4way coach years ago from Perris, someone who would have been qualified to teach basic canopy flight by any one's standards. Someone with all the ratings and world champion trophies. The other canopy collision that killed a friend - both parties in the collision had many jumps, decades of experience, and it occurred right after deployment.

But, I witnessed someone die at Skydive AZ, with less than 500 jumps, due to a collision, so I think this is something we can work on collectively.

So, I am thinking here - how can I be part of the solution... And the sad part is, I honestly don't think this program is going to make a big dent in the funeral count as it is currently written - because it is the D licence jumpers that die the most.

Should it be thrown away... No... I can see injury count going down as the long spot drills and braked turn drills will help people with reasonably loaded canopies, not break their leg avoiding a powerline. And maybe it will save a funeral here and there, so it is worth it...

But - I would like to see a matrix that breaks down all the canopy related injury/fatality statistics - that identifies how (if) the USPA training can address each category. Until this is done (and maybe it already has) - the training program is not focused on the proclaimed goal of saving lives.

[DSE 5]

Quote

traveling the country and teaching this class will take forever to reach all instructors out there. I take back my suggestion. Instructors wont want to take it, they wont want to pay for it, they wont want to do anything to make themself a better instructor. No not everyone but many. I spoke to instructors about this already and I got a resounding get the F*&k out of here, im not taking another class.

The webinar on the other hand can be made madatory for renewal of all instructor ratings. The cost of a 45 min to one hour training video with canopy landings, evaluations, and even a demonstration of each of the five jumps would not cost that much in the grand schemem of things. Webinars can log who signs in and what score they receive on a test. Now dont ask me how we know who actually was sitting at the computer and taking the test. I see so many minor issues with this idea even as I type. Screw the test if they at least watch the video we are getting somewhere.

Just thinking aloud. Anyone want to produce a canopy instructors basic canopy teaching syllabus, course, and webinar? lol

The USPA was offered Chris Gay's canopy control video for next to nothing, to distribute online or otherwise. There was no interest.
It's not just the instructors saying that...look inward.
Flight One has a great teaching syllabus, course, and turning it into a webinar would be crazy easy.
Brian Germain has one too.
So do a few others.
Rather than re-inventing the wheel, how about supporting and taking advantage of what's already available?

[nigel99 364]

I think the change in culture takes time. Starting at B level seems appropriate. I completely support the fact that the BOD have tried to minimise the chance of pencil whipping or treating the canopy progression as a simple tick box. It reflects the reality in our sport that we don't treat canopies with the respect they deserve.

I would like to see swooping reserved as the sport of the elite. Much like aircraft display teams. Too many of us think we are elite sportsmen, the sad fact is we aren't. The USPA leadership are complicit in this. Look at the emphasis on canopy flight at nationals - it is all about swooping. They need to broaden the CP to include and show case sport accuracy, tradtional accuracy and CRW.

[jimjumper 25]

As far as gettng the profiecency card signed off it shouldn't be to hard in my area even if I won't be. I just checked the USPA website for S&TA's and in my area there are 14 at 3 different DZ's, 5 at large in the local area, and 1 specialty S&TA for Demo's only. I had no idea there was that many S&TA's around. Of course a couple of them haven't jumped in years so maybe they wouldn't be the best to teach canopy flight. Seems to me there won't be much need for an "I" to sign the card at all.

[Para5-0 0]

Quote

It seems the BOD, or at least you, have officially said instructors are not qualified to teach canopy control skills...

If I said that somewhere I am very sorry, I do not hav ethat stance at all. I believe that many many instructors are more than capable and very very good at what they do. Please dont take me the wrong way, I am just trying to convey the thought process that went on when discussing the issue in the committee. I am sorry if anything I said inferred that. All I was trying to say is that continueing education for instructors in the area of canopy instruction is a good thing and cant hurt at all. Especially the new instructor who has had limited experience teaching canopy skills or a class.

Everything else you said is spot on. The statistics are there and I have gone over them. They are not the student, they are the person with 1000 + jumps. I mentioned this is a start to eventually get to those people. I would love to see a C license card, D license Card, or maybe even some sort of wingloading prodiciency card. I know as well as you do this is not going to stop the problem, I dont know if anything will but it shows a genuine attempt to reduce the incidents.
I know i dont have to tell you this but I think we have all seen someone we care about get hurt under a canopy.

[DaVinciflies 0]

Quote

I would like to see swooping reserved as the sport of the elite.

How are you going to define "elite"?

How do you police this?

You don't just start "elite" at something, there has to be a progression. That's the whole point of this thread, after all. What's the progression?

[ozzy13 0]

I looked trough this thread. It never seems to amaze me how people can sit in front of there computer and pick things apart.

Now with that said come get me :)

Bottom line something had to be done . in the ISP progression they go over basic canopy flight and before this year that's all you had to do. With everyone wanting to go fast and down size things needed to change. I understand that not everyone wants this but most do. I had a guy wanting to freefly with 10 jumps. Actually did freefly until I noticed that's what they were doing. I think this requirement is awesome. Helping everyone that comes threw this sport understand whats over their head and how it actually works. Not just teaching them to get down safe.
The whole S&Ta thing I think is a good start so we have some control on who teaches. Is it right? Im not sure. Time will tell. There are so many variables from dz to dz that its really hard to make one standard across the board. This is uspa's way of trying to control this. At least I think it is. 2012 will be the first year this is in effect. Im sure there will be adjustments along the way.
The only thing I can say to the unhappy people is if you don't like something go to a board meeting and do something about it. Being that canopy was the number one killer this year something has to be done. Two thumbs up to USPA for seeing this.
As far as the eyes close while flaring. Every canopy course I took had me do this. I never heard of a indecent from this type of a maneuver in a course. There has been 100s if not 1000s of these courses given. So whats the problem?
Just my thoughts.

Never give the gates up and always trust your rears!

[nigel99 364]

Quote

Quote

I would like to see swooping reserved as the sport of the elite.

How are you going to define "elite"?

How do you police this?

You don't just start "elite" at something, there has to be a progression. That's the whole point of this thread, after all. What's the progression?

I don't know how civilian aircraft display teams filter their applicants. But if you look at the Red Arrows and similar US display teams. It is only the cream of the crop that are selected and then undergo intensive training.

I just think that to many of us skydivers believe we are good enough when to be blunt we are not and never will be. It is not so much a matter of progression and I think the statistics back this up. It is just that to really swoop, you need to be talented. I don't have the knowledge to propose how the selection is done.

[DiverMike 5]

Quote

I don't know how civilian aircraft display teams filter their applicants. But if you look at the Red Arrows and similar US display teams. It is only the cream of the crop that are selected and then undergo intensive training.

Pilots have limited access to high performance aircraft and most insurance policies dictate who may intentionally fly in formation. Neither restriction exists in skydiving.

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

[wolfriverjoe 1,485]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I would like to see swooping reserved as the sport of the elite.

How are you going to define "elite"?

How do you police this?

You don't just start "elite" at something, there has to be a progression. That's the whole point of this thread, after all. What's the progression?

I don't know how civilian aircraft display teams filter their applicants. But if you look at the Red Arrows and similar US display teams. It is only the cream of the crop that are selected and then undergo intensive training.

I just think that to many of us skydivers believe we are good enough when to be blunt we are not and never will be. It is not so much a matter of progression and I think the statistics back this up. It is just that to really swoop, you need to be talented. I don't have the knowledge to propose how the selection is done.

Right. And the PD Factory Team does the same thing. But just like the airplane demo teams, the canopy pilots are already highly skilled. They don't take the "best" pilots that are just off student status and teach them.

And there are thousands of aircraft out there that are aerobatic-capable.
Spin training is mandatory for a Flight Instructor rating (at least it used to be).
Basic aerobatic training is available to just about any pilot who is willing to make the effort and pay the expense. A quick search found THIS

Clearly aerobatic flight isn't reserved for the "elite". It is considered advanced, but is also considered helpful. The ability to recover from really unusual attitudes that aerobatic training teaches would have saved a lot of pilots over the years.

And you are also going to have to define "Swoop." Competition? Multiple turn setups? Turns above a certain rotation (say more than 180)? Any turn? Any speed inducing manuver?

I agree that too many of us think we can swoop when we really can't. But with the right attitude, proper training, dedication and the willingness to progress at a reasonable rate (all back to attitude) many of us could.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[DaVinciflies 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I would like to see swooping reserved as the sport of the elite.

How are you going to define "elite"?

How do you police this?

You don't just start "elite" at something, there has to be a progression. That's the whole point of this thread, after all. What's the progression?

I am not sure that swooping requires raw, innate talent. I think it is a trainable skill. The problem comes when people (and as you say, far too many people) try to short cut that training. The hundreds of jumps learning smaller turns on bigger canopies, the dedicated canopy jumps, the coaching all have to be there for safe progression.

It may be that likes of Tagle, Drennan, Moledzki, Batsch do have some innate ability above the rest of us, but I believe swooping can be safe enough to be acceptable for the rest if us if approached correctly and I think the correct approach is through managed progression rather than marginalization to a small elite group.

I don't know how civilian aircraft display teams filter their applicants. But if you look at the Red Arrows and similar US display teams. It is only the cream of the crop that are selected and then undergo intensive training.

I just think that to many of us skydivers believe we are good enough when to be blunt we are not and never will be. It is not so much a matter of progression and I think the statistics back this up. It is just that to really swoop, you need to be talented. I don't have the knowledge to propose how the selection is done.

[nigel99 364]

Quote

And you are also going to have to define "Swoop." Competition? Multiple turn setups? Turns above a certain rotation (say more than 180)? Any turn? Any speed inducing manuver?

I agree that too many of us think we can swoop when we really can't. But with the right attitude, proper training, dedication and the willingness to progress at a reasonable rate (all back to attitude) many of us could.

I was going to let the topic die, as it is a hijack of the OP's thread. However, yesterday another fatality from a highly experienced jumper swooping.

I want to define 'elite' and why I don't believe the average skydiver should be swooping.

Swooping it would seem requires excellent eyesight, lightning reflexes for when things go wrong, excellent depth perception and judgement. Someone who is not in peak physical condition will almost certainly not be in this category. I also believe that somewhere around 40 years of age most of us start to lose the physical 'peak' conditioning required.

Time and again we are seeing 'safe' skydivers die swooping despite having thousands of jumps. As you pointed out there is no clear definition. I am sure that most jumpers who have 1000+ jumps can quite safely swoop a Sabre 2 loaded at 1.4 or so. But the number who can safely swoop a Velo at 2+ wingloading has got to be smaller. Where I disagree with popular consensus is, I don't believe that training can make all of us capable of safely flying a Velo - regardless of jumps. I am lucky, I already know that I have the motor skills of a brick.

I don't support banning swooping. I also don't have an answer on how you fix stupid.

[Para5-0 0]

Quote

I also believe that somewhere around 40 years of age most of us start to lose the physical 'peak' conditioning required.

Speak for yourself, 43 and still swooping like a 21 year old. lol

[ozzy13 0]

Quote

Quote

I also believe that somewhere around 40 years of age most of us start to lose the physical 'peak' conditioning required.

Speak for yourself, 43 and still swooping like a 21 year old. lol

I think you should listen to him old man I don't want to see you get hurt. Plus you suck at swooping anyways

Never give the gates up and always trust your rears!

[DaVinciflies 0]

Quote

I am sure that most jumpers who have 1000+ jumps can quite safely swoop a Sabre 2 loaded at 1.4 or so. But the number who can safely swoop a Velo at 2+ wingloading has got to be smaller.

This may be true, but is not the same as only letting "elite" jumpers swoop, in fact it could be seen as supporting the opposite as the Sabre2 guy is safe but not jumping an elite canopy.

What you're saying here is that there should be some restriction on the canopy type and/or WL people are allowed to jump, which is a different discussion.

I am in favour of some form of type-rating system for canopies where you have to qualify to jump a certain WL or planform. I believe it should be related to demonstrated skills though, not jump numbers.

[craigbey 0]

One of your posts from the Elsinore incident thread may have been removed, but I want to respond here if possible.

You can probably do something that many others cannot ... land on a predetermined target after flying a pattern with distinct downwind, base and final legs and 90 deg (+/- 10 deg) turns, straight in with no sashaying or s-turns. I believe this because you dedicate some of your jumps to structured canopy flight.

It sucks to hear about anyone pounding in. The recent incidents are a bad sign and should serve as warnings that more training and oversight is needed.

But my beef is with experienced jumpers who can't fly a consistent pattern or who choose to spiral down into the pattern or need to sashay and s-turn in the pattern to land at a desired location. I have never been in a situation where I felt my safety was jeopardized by someone under a HP canopy or someone setting up for or executing a HP landing.

I have been in several situations, however, where my safety was jeopardized by someone spiraling down in or near the pattern or flying their canopy in an unpredictable manner while in traffic. In one case, the jumper was already at a safe horizontal distance, but spiraled down and into the pattern almost directly below me. Why?

Downwind, base and final. It's that fucking simple.

Part of the CC proficiency requirements for advanced USPA licenses should include landing on a predetermined target after flying a pattern with distinct downwind, base and final legs and 90 deg (+/- 10 deg) turns ... straight in with no sashaying or s-turns.

If someone wants to call themselves expert, master or whatever the most advanced license from USPA says, you must be able to do this. I've seen too many people who can't.

[DaVinciflies 0]

Absolutely agree.

I (and I imagine you from your post) take pride in flying a well-executed, pre-planned pattern, whether it results in a HP turn to final or not, and regardless of whether I am the only one in the air.

It's another sign of our dysfunctional culture (there's that word again) that such self-controlled flight is not held in higher esteem by many jumpers, and that same lack of self-control appears to be involved in at least some of the incidents where people have hooked themselves in.

The self-control to say "I'm not sure about this, I won't hook it this time", rather than "I think I can make it".

[ozzy13 0]

Quote

One of your posts from the Elsinore incident thread may have been removed, but I want to respond here if possible.

you should keep responses to that thread there

You can probably do something that many others cannot ... land on a predetermined target after flying a pattern with distinct downwind, base and final legs and 90 deg (+/- 10 deg) turns, straight in with no sashaying or s-turns. I believe this because you dedicate some of your jumps to structured canopy flight.

It sucks to hear about anyone pounding in. The recent incidents are a bad sign and should serve as warnings that more training and oversight is needed.

It has been noticed hens the new requirement

But my beef is with experienced jumpers who can't fly a consistent pattern or who choose to spiral down into the pattern or need to sashay and s-turn in the pattern to land at a desired location. I have never been in a situation where I felt my safety was jeopardized by someone under a HP canopy or someone setting up for or executing a HP landing.

you cant point out just experienced jumpers doing this. For the most part its newer jumpers wanting to get on the next load

I have been in several situations, however, where my safety was jeopardized by someone spiraling down in or near the pattern or flying their canopy in an unpredictable manner while in traffic. In one case, the jumper was already at a safe horizontal distance, but spiraled down and into the pattern almost directly below me. Why?

I hate when people do this to me, with that said. Its your responsibility ultimately. You are in charge of getting yourself down safely. What I do is look at who's on the load and adjust what im going to do for that. If I know i guys always buries their toggle to the ground and they are getting out after me. I go into breaks until they pass. Of course I have already said something to them on the side away from anyone not to in embarrass them. Some people dont listen,care so there is only so much you can do. Head on swivel and protect yourself.

Downwind, base and final. It's that fucking simple.

Part of the CC proficiency requirements for advanced USPA licenses should include landing on a predetermined target after flying a pattern with distinct downwind, base and final legs and 90 deg (+/- 10 deg) turns ... straight in with no sashaying or s-turns.

You already need to do accuracy jumps for B and C nothing new there

If someone wants to call themselves expert, master or whatever the most advanced license from USPA says, you must be able to do this. I've seen too many people who can't.

Again some people dont care. some people come to the dz every other month to do a skydive or two have a beer and go home. From day one you were told that you are responsible for your self. With that said always protect yourself by looking at who's on the load and adjusting to that. Most importantly keep your head on a swivel. hope this helps. stay safe

Never give the gates up and always trust your rears!