crotalus01

"All you can do is educate people enough so that if they _do_ decide to kill themselves, it's not due to lack of knowledge of the risks they are taking." I agree. However, I sincerely doubt that there are many jumpers that have seriously injured or killed themselves by flying inappropriate canopies that were NOT warned that what they were doing was dangerous - you can say "they don't know what they don't know" all day long, but what they likely DID know was their canopy choice was not recommended for their numbers/experience, or that they were pushing it at least. Seems like we are trying to find a one size fits all solution for a very fluid problem that defies being pigeonholed.... As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD...

Thats all pretty basic lifesaving stuff with the exception of the double fronts.... As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD...

So 28 sub-500 jump fatalities and 41 greater than 500 jump fatalities, and another 19 with no reported numbers. Do you know how that breaks down as far as how many of each category (sub-500 and >500) died in collisions vs swoops? Of the non-collisions it would be interesting to know how many were swoops gone wrong vs other canopy incidents (fixation, panic turn etc). Also curious if those sub-500 jump fatalities are disproportionately centered around a particular number of jumps (0-100, 200 -300, 300-400, 400-499)....I guess it may not have any real bearing on this conversation, but I am curious. As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD...

I have thought a lot about this, and asked the relevant questions but didn't really get an answer to a few of them, so at this point I would say I would not support it until I know a lot more about it. One issue I see is that as far as fatalities go, it is very rarely people with less than a D license or the equivalent number of jumps that are killing themselves. Another (admittedly selfish) issue is that those most in favor of it are those who would not be affected by it (although that may be a moot point if all current jumpers are grandfathered in as Dave suggested may be the case). Yet another issue I see has already been breached by Pops - tying the canopy skills to the license type may not be the best way to go - I could be a competent canopy pilot capable of flying a Stiletto at a 1.8 wingloading but have no interest in swooping per se - would I have to demonstrate swooping skills to get my D license - even if I never intend to swoop? Another potential issue - the waiver idea I think is excellent, however - would that not open up the USPA and the S&TA who waivered a person to a lawsuit if this is made into aBSR? I would think any attorney would be able to make a compelling argument that the person who dies in a canopy accident after receiving a waiver should never have been waivered in the first place, and use the BSR as proof that they had no business flying X canopy at Y wingload with Z number of jumps. Of course all of my point of reference is from jumping at a DZ where the culture is a little more progressive, and new jumpers are allowed to jump a higher than "normal" wingload (I was at 1.3 at about 38 jumps at my instructors suggestion). I might end up supporting a wingload BSR in the long run, but I would have to know all the details of it beforehand. Just too many unanswered questions at this point... Edit to ask - has there been any thoughts along the lines of a Swooper rating perhaps like the PRO rating? As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD...

Thanks Dave. As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD...

Thanks Dave. I am not totally against a w/l BSR, but I am not totally for one either - thats why I am asking questions to better understand the impact of one should it pass. Also, would it be strictly a w/l BSR or would it also include minimum jump numbers for semi-elliptical, fully elliptical and x-braced canopies? As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD...

Okay, so I and others would be grandfathered in - but would it be only for the current wingloading? Would it be only for a canopy that I currently own, or say I had been jumping a friends Stiletto loaded at 1.8 - would I be able to continue to jump that? This is all figurative of course, I am just trying to see how exactly the grandfather clause would work in this case. And, do you think we would see a spike in people buying/borrowing small canopies to insure they would be able to jump a higher wingload than the BSR would allow before it went into effect? Did anything like that happen in the Netherlands when they instituted their canopy rules? Edit to add the question, in regards to the B, C, and D licenses and proposed canopy skills requirements, would those have to include high performance flights/landings? For example, if I wanted to get my D, and I had 500+ jumps but cared nothing for swooping, but I wanted to fly a Cobalt loaded at 1.8 - what kind of proficiency would I have to show to get a D license? I understand that any landing under a high performance canopy is technically a high performance landing, just curious as to how it would break down in the skills between those who want to fly a high performance wing vs those who want to swoop... As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD...

So how exactly would a wingload BSR work for current jumpers? If I am jumping a canopy that would be restricted to me under this new proposed BSR, would I be grandfathered in? Also, if that is the case, would you expect a rash of lower number jumpers scrambling to get the smallest canopy they think they might want to jump to try and be grandfathered in? Also, would you be grandfathered in on the smallest canopy you own, or the smallest canopy you have successfully jumped? As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD...

"Pretty sure you still need to prove ability, opportunity and jeopardy. " In TN at least, these are a requirement before deadly force can be used. When I got my CC a long time ago, our instructor actually told us that technically, if you pulled a gun on someone you MUST use it - if you dont shoot, a decent lawyer can successfully argue that you were not in fear of your life (proved by your inaction). Then it becomes a case of assault with a deadly weapon or reckless endangerment. Now, he did say the odds of that charge being brought against you are very slim, but it was a possibility depending on the prosecutor. We were also told that anytime a gun is pulled or used, you ARE going to jail, self defense or not - you may not be booked and processed, and you may not be charged, but a trip to the pokey is guaranteed. He suggested that in a self defense shooting the best course of action would be to ask to be taken to the hospital to be checked out by a doctor as that would be preferable to spending time in jail waiting on the outcome of the investigation. As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD...

Holy thread resurrection! Noticed how old this was when I saw a post by Tonto As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD...

"So then, if we flip the coin... Say someone wants to fly camera at 100 jumps? All they'd have to is get a coach rating. Talk about a back door!" No back door necessary - its a recommendation, not a BSR. Actually I like Ron's idea. As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD...

I call bullshit. Handicam provide some AWESOME video! I am not personally a fan of it, but I can't see how you can say it is useless... EDIT - YES it is best as an addendum to the outside video, but it can be great video in and of itself... As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD...

I have 7 years in sport and about 250 jumps. When i was a noob (I mean noob in jump #'s not noob in sport - I am still WAY noob in jump #'s), I used to disagree with a LOT of what you experienced guys thought and said - I still have my doubts about some things (like camera with less than 200 jumps), but its funny how experience makes you realize the wisdom of those you previously thought were just trying to hold you back. NOW, I think anyone should think twice about their opinions until they have seen someone they care about life flighted out of the DZ, or drowning in their own blood As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD...

I dont have the real life experience to really have an opinion on this, but I do personally know an AFF-I who chased an AFF student down (level 3 release dive and the guy flipped on his back IIRC) - he was diving hard and got to the student right as the guy managed to flip over and fire his reserve (as he was taught to do if he lost his instructor). The instructor came to under reserve from a Cypres fire - the reserve PC launched right into his face . As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD...

There is no "one size fits all" answer to that. Experience is your friend in a case like that, but even then what has worked well for one person may well kill the next. Best answer is to do everything you can to avoid that situation to begin with.... As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD...

I would not disagree with anything you, Dave or Bill has said in the above posts. All good points, especially making the camera recommendations and coach requirements at least match. However, I cannot help but think that if someone has a coach rating that they be able to fly camera without it being distracting enough to make them a danger - and by that I mean that they should be cognizant enough to pull off the jump safely, not that the video would necessarily be something that the student would want to showcase. I have seen plenty of video that pretty much sucked but a student could still tell what they were doing right or wrong, or what they could improve on. Is it truly possible to be objective I wonder? I have never flown camera - I am thinking about getting video on a couple of CRW and RW jumps, then strapping on a cam myself and doing the same dives again, and compare the results to see if my performance is affected. I am just worried that I would be hyper aware of my performance and that the data would be compromised since there would be very little chance of me allowing myself to get complacent. Any comments? As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD...

It looks like the instructor actually punched the container to get the PC to come out...that sure was a long hesitation before that PC finally launched. As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD...

So just to play Devil's Advocate here - what about coaches? If you can get a coach rating at 100 jumps, and video can be an excellent tool for teaching and debriefing, and most students are gonna want video....is it unreasonable for a student to expect a coach to video their jumps, especially at a DZ where they have to pay for the coach and or the coaches slot? Could this be some of the thought behind the counterproposal to lower the recommendation to 100 jumps? As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD...

"Let me get 'old school' on your ass - do what you want, but realize your playing a dangerous game, and stand to take yourself (or someone else) out of the game for good. I've seen 100 guys just like you come and go, some of them by choice, some of them by ambulance never to return. Maybe they're not dead, but they'll never walk again (or sleep without pain meds for a decade). You want to take your chances? Fine, keep your trap shut about it, and do your best not to take anyone down with you if you fall. I would suggest you take another path, and realize that the reason I can say these things about what I did jumping 15 years ago, and the 100s of newbies I've seen come and go is because I've made it this far, and it wasn't because I tip-toed through life. I'm a jumper, like you, but I've managed to stay just on the 'upright' side of the line, where others have spent some more time in the 'horizontal' orientation. If you can snap yourself out of your 'awesomeness' long enough to see that, and figure out what it means, you'll see that I'm only here to help, and that I might be a good dude to listen to. I'm not your dad, your boss, or your high school principal, I'm a skydiver like you. I'm on your side, so drop the defences and use your brain for making your choices, not your dick." I am not normally a fan of the delivery of a lot of the posts that experienced jumpers make, but that is one of the best posts I have read here. As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD...

No its not normal. As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD...

As of right now, the camera "restriction" of 200+ jumps is simply a recommendation, not a BSR. As such, anyone with a license can choose to jump a camera regardless of their jump numbers, assuming the DZ they are at lets them. As far as currency requirements, it has been my (limited) experience that this is largely dependent on the DZ as well. I have been to one that wanted me to jump with a coach to get current, been to one that gave me an EP refresher and told me to go do a solo, and one that asked if I wanted a refresher before making a 4 way for my first jump in 3 months. As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD...

Keep in mind it depends on the dropzone - our DZ is manifested by computer, and there are no physical jump tickets. Your name and manifest number are displayed on a monitor along with the load number you are on. As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD...

Is Atmonauti a European/African thing mainly? I usually see mostly Europeans talking about it. And just for the record, I dont know if it is a new discipline or not, but it sure seems a lot like tracking... As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD...

Propack it normally with the nose just hanging down instead of rolled at all, let alone stuffed. I bet that will solve the openings. And whats the big deal with a 200 foot opening? A 200 foot snivel was a dream come true when I was jumping my Sabre As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD...

I jump an original Safire and I had the same problem - turned out rolling the nose was causing assymetrical inflation and giving me shit openings. I quit rolling the nose, problem solved. Not sure if the Safire2 would have the same issue but you may want to ask someone at your DZ. As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD...