BMAC615

Appreciate the response, @chuckakers. I’m still not convinced the implementation of a WL restriction for A, B & C License holders is any different. Based on @riggerbob’s response, I can see why USPA refuses to implement such a policy.

Do we know if that was a factor in this incident?

I never saw a full write up of Carl or Roger’s collisions. Can anyone point to details?

I think just putting a pin in it temporarily takes the thought of it off the table. After six months or even a couple years, new skydivers are better prepared to make decisions about their journey. For example, when I was 18, during my skydiving FJC at a little FL DZ in ‘93, my instructor mentioned he jumps off an antenna not that far from the drop zone. I was floored and instantly wanted to do whatever it was he was doing. I asked, “When can I do that?” He responded, “I’ll take you when you have 1,000 skydives.” I got focused on other skydiving goals because it seemed like it would take FOREVER to get to 1,000. I got to 1,000 and beyond before he went in at a different antenna in ‘98 (BFL 43). Who knows what different path I would have taken had he not been looking out for me.

The most recent episode of Exit Point interviews Jay Moledzki and discusses parachute flying progression. It’s a BASE focused discussion, but has relevance in the skydiving world as that is the typical avenue toward BASE.

This is a really important note. I steer new jumpers who have a goal of BASE or WS toward <1 WL 7-cell canopies like a Storm, Triathlon or WinX as their first canopy.

Many USPA DZs have a culture of an expectation of quickly downsizing beyond a WL of 1.2 before 500 jumps that is resulting in injury and death. Why is this the culture? Because too many skydivers are telling new jumpers that they should expect to downsize multiple times during their first 500 jumps. It’s not the pro canopy coaches pushing this narrative. It’s often the people who have no business giving canopy size advice. S&TAs and pro canopy coaches don’t have an incentive or the energy to argue with customers who have made up their minds that they want to quickly downsize, so they don’t. USPA giving AFFIs, S&TAs and Pro Canopy Coaches a BSR to point to - the same way they do for minimum opening altitudes and WS FFCs - sets a safety culture of when it’s appropriate to downsize. I recognize this is a hot button issue as the first time I had this discussion as an AFFI was more than 25 years ago. I’m also familiar with the Work Brian Germain has done in this area. I think the canopy downsizing chart is great but it’s still confusing and has too many steps. I think we’ve all agreed that people with fewer than 200 jumps don’t know what they don’t know and even 500 is still barely understanding the basics of canopy flight. We also know USPA is Very aware and even has a canopy risk quotient quiz that shows the incident and fatality risk is much higher for jumpers with fewer than 200 jumps flying a WL >1 and jumpers with 201-500 flying a WL >1.2. We also know there is general consensus around this 200 jump number being a minimum for just getting the hang of things. We also know it usually takes most skydivers several years to reach 500 jumps. Putting hard and fast numbers down in the same way USPA does for minimum opening altitudes and minimum jumps for wingsuit FFC takes the “YoUr’Re gOnNa bE CoNsTaNtLy dOwN SiZiNg” culture off the table. New skydivers often make poor safety decisions based on financial considerations and bad judgement. They often choose to buy a container with main tray that is one or two sizes smaller than what they should be buying because they are afraid of the cost of selling and buying new gear. So they fly wings that are too small, too soon. Further, because of this trend, the 2nd hand market consists mostly of rigs that have reserves and mains that are one or two sizes too small for new jumpers in relation to the harness size - perpetuating the problem. Getting some consistency with a WL of 1 for several hundred jumps and then bumping it up a little to a WL of 1.2 for another 300 jumps gives new jumpers the ability to really learn to fly a canopy while also giving them time to attend canopy courses and make their way through @billvon’s downsizing checklist before downsizing. After 500 jumps, you have been around long enough to sort of know what you’re getting yourself into when downsizing beyond 1.2. Further, these jumpers will be better prepared to fly higher performance platforms at higher WLs, resulting in fewer overall injuries and deaths.

Who would leave USPA if a max WL restriction was implemented for A, B, & C license holders?

Based on what you are saying, USPA knows there’s a problem. USPA has tried to resolve it and the problem persists. USPA Safety & Training Committee can’t agree on a remedy, so they do nothing. Got it.

Here’s what I’ve learned: BSR for minimum opening altitude? Yep, some people died and USPA responded. BSR for wingsuit jumps? Yep, some people died and USPA responded. BSR for water training? Yep. ONE person died and USPA responded. Written recommendation for camera flying? Yep, some people died and USPA responded. BSR or written recommendation for maximum WL for A, B & C-license holders? Nope - even though it has been the cause of more injuries and deaths than all those mentioned above combined. USPA’s stance on WL regulation is “we’re all adults and can make our own decisions. USPA prefers education over regulation.“

So then why did USPA need to make a BSR for it?

Thanks!

It’s not a consensus number, it is a BSR outlined in 2-1, L-6. It has been written several times that “BSRs are written in blood.” @skypilotA1 or @chuckakers: How many people died during wingsuit skydives before the BSR was voted on and passed by USPA Safety & Training Committee?

No one has answered this question. Does anyone have an answer?

I believe those topics are very relevant to the discussion.

How many people with under 200 jumps died flying wingsuits before the BSR was put in place?

Is that considered a Nanny State rule?

@gowlerk, Do you support minimum 200 jumps for wingsuit flights?

DZs are sky families the way strippers are your girlfriend.

This is a bad idea.

Appreciate the comprehensive summary @fcajump. Regarding the low openings w/ a BASE canopy, TSO’d dual parachute systems exist that would allow a BASE canopy to be used. I made the statement because there are some who have equipment, training and experience of doing so who are also willing to accept the risk of opening <2.5k feet but USPA won’t allow it except on a case by case basis. What I’ve gathered is this and other BSRs have been put in place when a fatality causing safety problem is identified and there is a simple solution that most everyone is willing to go along with. Do I have that about right?

The current recommended WL chart is confusing and encourages people to sacrifice safety for financial considerations. (You’re gonna downsize a lot in your first 200 jumps - Why is this the culture?) It seems to me a blunt tool for WL could have a similar resulting improvement in safety as minimum opening altitudes. Maximum WL of 1.01 for A & B, 1.21 for C and unlimited for D. No waivers, no exceptions. If you want faster landings, learn how to land faster with what you have. OR, if that’s too difficult to implement, maybe a rule in the IRM that no AFF or TI are to recommend anything beyond 1.01 for A & B or 1.21 for C. Licensed revoked if found to give contrary recommendations. @gowlerk, if this really is an activity of personal responsibility, BSRs for minimum opening altitudes and minimum number of jumps for flying a wingsuit wouldn’t be necessary. We could just say we’re all adults and can choose when to open or when we’re ready to fly a wingsuit. But that’s not the case. The USPA Safety & Training Committee has a responsibility to respond to trends. When nine people died over a ten year period, that was enough to push for a creation of a new BSR. When ONE person died from drowning, that was enough for USPA to implement water training and floatation devices. How many people need to die before everyone recognizes that the attitude of “we’re all adults and can make adult decisions and accept the consequences for our decisions” is a convenient narrative to dismiss the elephant in the room.

It is not my intention to be combative or to persuade anyone to take the position that the minimum opening altitude of 2.5k isn’t reasonable. I’m trying to solve a problem, not create one. I’m honestly trying to understand why the USPA Safety & Training Committee finds it reasonable to implement a BSR for minimum opening altitudes and a wingsuit first flight course, but finds implementing a maximum WL for A, B & C License holders unreasonable. If what @gowlerk says is true, that the reason is because there would be widespread backlash from A, B & C license holders and none of the S&TAs would enforce a maximum WL limit, well then that’s a data point.

So the USPA Safety & Training Committee isn’t willing to implement BSRs that are best for the population as whole, but only those that the majority of the population are willing to accept without protest?

I was responding to Paul’s comment regarding, “The USPA Safety & Training Committee is fully aware of the statistics and trying every way possible to encourage safe landings.” I was objecting to Paul’s assertion that USPA is trying EVERY WAY POSSIBLE to encourage safe landings. By promoting canopy piloting completions, they aren’t encouraging safe landings - they are doing the opposite. They are showcasing the most unsafe landing approaches possible and encouraging some skydivers to aspire to do the same very unsafe landings. I’m not suggesting we eliminate CP competitions, I’m just suggesting we recognize the impact CP competitions have on the general skydiving population and it’s contribution to low turn fatalities.