BMAC615

If that’s your logic, then there’s always speed flying.

Have you ever been at terminal <1.5k?

You can’t see that and honestly believe “We are making progress.” That is a giant leap backward. USPA can’t promote canopy piloting competitions in its current format and simultaneously promote a goal of zero deaths because the two are mutually exclusive.

What evidence are you basing this assertion on?

That is a great double-click down into the problem - and a great explanation of why it won’t get solved anytime, soon. When DZs restrict turns to 90º, people just do stall surges. Why? Because a sick swoop is a good indicator of the pecking order. Remember, the skydiving culture is “the person who can do the most bad ass swoop is the most bad ass person on the DZ. If a DZ’s swoop pond was out behind a bunch a trees beyond eyesight of the packing mat and spectator viewing area, *almost no one would use it.

Nah, pulling low would get you grounded and you’d get a lecture about how dumb it is to pull low before CYPRES’ were the norm - at least that was the case at the FL DZs I was jumping at during the early 90s. So, USPA and DZs collectively had enough of people bouncing from low pulls and began cracking down on low openings before then. Now, 30 years later, most skydivers talk about pulling at 3k as low, LOL. That’s the result of a culture change. (As a side note, I believe Tom Piras’ death in Dec of ‘92 was very influential the wide-spread adoption of the CYPRES throughout the mid/late 90s. Ironically, Piras was also highly responsible for popularizing hook turn landings.) As for @gowlerk’s questions, as long as high performance landings and “Canopy Piloting” are promoted as “This is what the best in the world do, these ‘athletes’ are demonstrating the pinnacle of skydiving” it will be viewed downstream as something to mimic and strive for. If the culture of the skydiving community is one that admires high performance landings with small canopies, the skydiving community will continue to lose people to high performance landings. USPA can’t promote canopy piloting competitions in its current format and simultaneously promote a goal of zero deaths because the two are mutually exclusive.

Before considering downsizing, you should be working with a canopy coach, have a competent mentor, have worked your way through The Downsizing Checklist, and have discussed your progression plan with an S&TA. There is no way I’d ever recommend anyone with only 150 jumps to fly a WL of 1.45.

FedEx is taking delivery of their first Skycourier, soon. If I’m reading it right, FedEx will be retiring 12 Caravans a year as these come online. Maybe those Caravans will end up at DZs.

Looks like a bug caused mismatch in your score and the analysis.

The higher your score, the more in common you have with people who have been injured or killed. This discussion is about A, B & C License holders. Go back and manipulate it as if you are someone with between 25 and 500 jumps within <1 year - five year timeframe.

No doubt close mentorship works. That’s what we’ve been doing for more than 30 years. It’s not consistent or scalable across 400 affiliates and hasn’t addressed the deeply ingrained culture of new jumpers being encouraged to buy and fly canopies that the Canopy Risk Quotient Profile would consider high risk. Here’s how some jumpers reacted to the tool in the Reddit Skydiving forum. Here’s my favorite response, “Lol, This is utter garbage. The ones making this type of trash are old belly flyers. You can tell it was made by someone that can’t fly a small wing.”

Let me rephrase that: How does the UPSA Safety & Training Committee plan to change the deeply ingrained culture and scale the program to the 400 Affiliate DZs?

So, other than implementing a USPA restriction, what are some ways to change the culture?

I understand and appreciate all the responses you and everyone else have given. It has been enlightening. Like I said, this was a way for me to understand if this had already been voted on, why other, similar, rules had been established and if I believed it could get implemented. Based on the information I’ve gathered in this and other threads, I do not believe my recommendation would ever be seriously considered by my Regional Director or the Safety & Training Committee.

Post #s 2 & 3 are pretty clear about the USPA Safety and Training Committee’s current position on the matter. I have been very clear about my recommendation of max WL of 1.1 for A & B, 1.5 for C and unlimited for D. I outlined why I think USPA should in post #28. The whole point of this discussion was to understand if USPA had ever seriously considered something similar (they haven’t) and if they would (they won’t). As a result, it has become clear that suggesting this recommendation to a USPA Regional Director to try to get it implemented is futile as it would never be seriously considered by the Safety & Training Committee.