BMAC615

Showing up to a hometown football game and watching some guy without a PRO rating drill himself into the ground was not something the crowd agreed to. Further, friends and family showing up to a DZ to watch a loved one make their first tandem skydive and witnessing an instructor do a 180 toggle turn at 100 ft, killing the passenger is not something anyone agreed to.

Sure, high performance landings can be done without injury or death if done properly, but it will never be safe. The level of risk involved is equal to pulling <1.5k and BASE jumping. Your suggestion that those of us who are voicing concern simply don’t understand swooping - is ignorant at best. The injuries and deaths happen when high performance landings aren’t done properly (duh). People are flying themselves into the ground because they couldn’t do it properly every time. If you haven’t already, read the 2022 Fatality Report. Eight people died from intentional low turns. Three of them were tandem passengers. This should have sent shock waves throughout the skydiving community. Instead, we got the same ol’, “Whelp, that’s a shame, but we’re making progress!”

Worse - USPA DZs had 3 tandem fatalities from intentional turns.

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.

Here’s Scott Miller landing an “under loaded” student canopy.

The point is you still haven’t provided any data or objective evidence of your claim that you have direct knowledge of “plenty of friends who broke themselves underloading a canopy.” Either provide evidence or admit you made it up to support your flawed belief.

Again, that’s not how this works. Either provide evidence of incidents and details of your “plenty of friends” that were injured as a result of “under loading a canopy” or admit you are just perpetuating a myth that has no basis in fact.

That’s not how this works. You claim to have direct knowledge of incidents resulting in people being injured for “under loading a canopy.” You either provide evidence or admit you do not have any direct knowledge of such incidents.

Can you please elaborate on your claim of increased risk by “under loading a canopy?”

@chuckakers I word it that way because I believe USPA should - based on USPA’s data. I recognize this has been a hot topic of debate going back to and before I started jumping and instructing in the early 90s. I’m familiar with the arguments against and it’s clear they are flawed. The data shows that local leadership has often failed to evaluate, educate and enforce - as evidenced by the number of canopy landing problems - which continues to be USPA’s reported number one cause of injury and death each year. I don’t mention D License holders because, I believe, by the time someone has 500 jumps on low WL canopies, they should have a firm foundation of knowledge, skills and abilities. They will be better prepared to make decisions and fly a canopy with a WL >1, compared to those who do not. The trend of multiple canopy changes and increasing WL beyond 1 within the first 200 jumps and beyond 1.5 by 500 increases risk, injury and death. USPA’s Canopy Risk Quotient tool, data from USPA’s incident reports and multiple USPA documents confirm my belief. Skydivers who exceed a WL of 1 within their first 200 jumps are assuming a high level of risk that should be considered unacceptable. Further, it is unclear as to the number of incidents these high risk jumpers have contributed to over the years. Could have incidents, involving those with more than 500 jumps, been avoided if this rule had been in place? As discussed, A, B & C license holders have other restrictions that skydivers just accept. For example, flying a wingsuit. We can all agree that the 200 jump minimum is arbitrary and there are many who could manage to fly a wingsuit before 200 jumps and there are those with 2000 who would struggle. Nevertheless, people accept that rule because that’s the rule. USPA does not accept the argument, “I should be able to fly a wingsuit before 200 jumps because I’m an adult and I’m able to take responsibility for my decisions.” Everyone accepts the fact that flying a wingsuit before 200 jumps increases risk beyond an acceptable level. There are no special snow flakes. There are no exceptions. That’s the rule. And everyone accepts it. Same with minimum opening altitudes. There are many who could use specialized equipment and training and could consistently open below 1,500 ft without incident. USPA does not accept the argument, “I should be able to open below 1,500 ft because I’m an adult and I’m able to take responsibility for my decisions.” No, opening below 1,500 ft increases risk beyond an acceptable level. Flying a canopy with a WL >1.1 before 200 jumps and >1.5 before 500 is no different. It increases risk beyond - what should be - an acceptable level.

Then what is the reason USPA refuses to implement a WL restriction for A, B & C License holders?