linnths

Okay people! I am sorry for leaving the discussion here for a while. Went to Elsinore to do some skydiving ;)

Anyways, the Norwegian board has come up with new rules. Fortunately, they made some changes from the first proposal they brought up, but I still find it poor. The new guidelines are very conservative, which for some will be a good thing, for many a bad... Lighter jumpers like myself will not be able to jump smaller canopies than a 135 until more than 1000 jumps. For a skydiver who focuses a lot on acquiring canopy-skills, this seems unfair. The new rules also misses out on the currency-question, which IMO is as important as jump numbers itself. A jumper with 600 jumps a year will be a better pilot than a 2000-jump skydiver who did only 20 jumps last year. You hopefully get my point.

Anyways, I'm attaching the link to the table. Again, it's in norwegian. Weight-classes are in kilograms, and canopy-sizes in sq.feet.

http://nlf.no/sites/default/files/fallskjerm/dokument/12.03.21_regler_for_skjermstrorrelser_endelig_versjon.pdf

Quote

The second one...yes. that's it.
And yes, it's been posted here. That's where I saw it before...somewhere on here.

Yes, it has. I bragged about it earlier when my friends and I were asking for your votes in a competition. I believe I spammed the forum for weeeeeks. ;) Didn't win it, though.

Quote

Hej Linn,

I have spent a great deal of time working on this subject, and I must break it to you, this is much to simplified. I understand the desire to make things simple, however the issue is not simple.

Here is a link to my downsizing chart. The concept is based on the Swedish chart, however the numbers are not as conservative, and there is a great deal of supplementary text that help explain how to use the chart.

http://bigairsportz.com/pdf/bas-sizingchart.pdf

Please feel free to contact me to discuss this in detail. We are discussing the possibility of a trip to Norway this July. Perhaps we can meet up!

Sincerely,
Brian Germain

Dear Brian :)

I could not agree more! As mentioned, these charts are not of my making. It's the norwegian federation that made them... And they are way too simplified!

I actually attended one of your courses when you visited us at Oppdal in Norway, do you remeber? I was still a student at that time :)

Would love to meet you if you come back. I hope you'll announce when and where so we'll get the chance to attend your fabulous courses (if you're doing them while here).

IMO; your chart is way better, and I hope our federation will look to your chart instead of inventing their own (and worse) chart.

Sincerely, Linn :)

Quote

Lynn, get the excess of your steering lines fingetrapped. As it is it doesn't look sexy

Besides that, thanks for raising the discussion, and thanks for them nice pictures

HAHA!!! That was what you noticed with that scenery?! It's like noticing the shoes on a drop-dead gorgeous lady going **** on you. Hahaha... Awesome.

FYI: I got them fixed last summer ;)

To go along with Robin's points, I want to ask:
What training does Norway do to help young jumpers acquire canopy flight skills?

Here, we have:
- an A-license progression card that requires students to do only one showing each of only a minimal number of canopy flight skills.

Quote

Pretty much the same stuff, really. In order to earn your b-license, you need to do a total of 7 canopy-jumps (pull higher), and do stuff like collapse, stall, different kind of input, precision-landings and so on. However, in practice, these jumps are often compressed into two or three jumps. In other words; not really working. However, as part of the new regulations that are coming now, they are developing a canopy course in addition to the required jumps, which is obligatory.

- an requirement at each license level for a minimum number of accuracy landings

Quote

Actually, after you've earned your b-license, there's not really any more requirements you need to do, canopy-wise, to continue to C-license. However, they are now suggestion to implement a canopy course obligatory for those who wish to downsize/go for high-performance landings in the future/touch any form of risers or do turns in the landings. They are suggesting that you have a minimum of 200 jumps before you attend the course. In other words: an advanced canopy course.

- Canopy courses that are optional and, like the A-license requirements, only ask students to do one round each of a minimal number of canopy flight skills.

Quote

Well, the canopy-exercises you need to do, have to be filmed/witness by your instructor, and thorough feedback is required. The student can be asked to do the jumps all over again if the instructor does not feel they have understood the implications of the different exercises....

Everything else that they may learn comes from other jumpers who may, or may not, be giving relevant and accurate advice.

Quote

Same here... as in the states, there are many canopy courses one can attend. Be that as it is, I've always found it weird how much attention the free-fall is given the entire period of your student status and a-license compared to actual survival-skills... When 80 percent of our fatalities occurs under good canopy, it seems backwards to focus only on the 20% that involves tumbling in the sky..

Nevertheless, a good thing we have a lot of here in this (freezing!) country, is the so-called "innhopps". Entire loads are flown off the dropzone, usually to amazing and beautiful places like steep valleys, mountains, tiny islands and such, and when the off-landing area is big enough, they allow a-licensed jumpers to attend. The only information that is given before the jump, is stuff you need to know in order to be safe, other than that it is always a brand new place, new circumstances and conditions - it is incredible what I've learned from those jumps.

Also, there's a lot of famous innhopps like the one's they do in Voss, where the requirements are higher. Those also functions as a "carrot" for the rookies; by training hard they get to experience more advanced innhopps, and this truly is motivating when practicing canopy-skills.

(For those of you who haven't done an innhopp, I'm attaching a couple of files of a jump I did this fall. I still get excited remembering the truly magnificent and sublime experience it was to have mountains on both sides of you, far above you, at 5000 ft. )

I believe this i a good thing; the jumper gets to step out of the comfort zone of landing in the same and familiar dropzone every time, but within a controlled environment. The briefing is always thorough, and the jumps have almost always been done by experienced jumpers before they allow rookies.

E.g. one innhopp I attended (had around 100 jumps) we landed at a field only 130 feet long and 65 feet wide. It was a real challenge to have to put down the canopy in that area. The river around it made any options undesirable ;) Before I was allowed to participate in the jump, instructors required that I did precision-landings at the dropzone. Even though I managed that easily, it was a big difference when one came down to land, and realized that you had to do it correctly.

I, personally, believe these kinds of jumps are an incredible tool for inexperienced jumpers. As mentioned, there's something that happens with you when you realize that the skills you're practicing at the dropzone actually is practiced for a reason. If one has jumped only at huuuge dropzones like e.g. Elsinore, you have like a million feet of landing field in front of you either direction. It makes it easier to just don't give a fuck where you put down the canopy IMO. :)

Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting: Holy shit..what a ride!

Quote

Sounds like to me now that you and Becka are on a good track. SOunds like you guys have valid oncerns. I particularly like the part about you guys taking things with a conservative approach.

As you can tell, I'm one of the conservative old fuddy-duddys. I'm probably well-known for always giving the uber-conservative answers.


So, since we haven't heard back from the OP in a few days, we can't tell if there has been any further discussion at home on modifying their tables to be more reasonable for all concerned.

Let's see how they are going to address your concerns and resolve that already-highlighted issue of wingloadings for light vs heavy jumpers.

I'm interested on how the discussion is going and what the results are going to be.

Peace,
Andy

Dear fuddy-duddy, the OP (me), can inform that the final edition of the rules will be made public tomorrow. The rumor says they have inserted a column for jumpers from 60-70 kilos as well, which should help, if that is correct Let's hope they've changed the upper end of the scale too so a 51-jump-skygod don't get to fly a 1,4 wingload ;) That could prove to be very interesting.

But, please, continue the debate! Always good to argue some ;)

Aaanyways, I will of course inform you about the new and final rules asap.

Quote

We are talking about rapid downsizing from conservative to radical loadings. We are discussing potential rules to enforce a more conservative downloading progression.

Okay, obviously we were not discussing the same thing here. My bad. I had general downsizing in mind, and Becka was far better at expressing what I felt as I really wanted to hear about the lighter wingloads with smaller canopies. I'll lean to hers more reflected points :)

Quote

It is less forgiving, yes, but still, it's not a death machine when treated conservatively.

Quote

Conservatively. This idea of more strict rules for downsizing all came about because people are NOT treating them conservatively. It's come about because people fail to realize that not every landing is going to conservative. I don't know of many people who fly hot rods because they want to be conservative with the performance capabilities.

You are correct, and I agree. Again I failed to express myself clearly. Using conservativeness as an argument is ridiculous, seeing that so many fail in this...

Quote

You can kill yourself in a navigator 260 as well, and in a 135, and in a 78. Flying a 135 does not mean that one is pushing it, automatically. In my case, It's not like I'm doing 240 hook-turns just because I downsized.

Quote

You may not realize how often that comment is used to justify rapid downsizing. We hear it all the time.

I agree. Again, see Becka's point. Here my frustration was showing: I had the question of downsizing with tiny humans in my mind. And I agree, using landings as an argument is futile.

Quote

...personally found it easier to land when I had a bit more wing load. Am I the only one? I'd like to hear others thoughts on this, that have experienced similar things...

Quote

Please define "easier". It's an ambiguous term.
Does your definition also include being able to set it down in a small area...say, somebody's backyard with trees and fences and power lines around it?

Thank you for asking, it's a valid question. Yes it does. I have practiced accuracy landings a lot, and it has been extremely helpful. The tradition of "innhopps" (planned out-landings in new areas) have also given me the opportunity to get out of the comfort zone, adapt to changes and put down my canopy wherever I want it to. I'm not saying I'm an expert, but I have practiced as many scenarios as possible, and it has given me great input. Do I find it easier with more wingloading (and again, let's remember that the one I had before, is within what the SIM advice for students), yes I do, as I have more "power" in the canopy. I'm afraid my english skills is imperfect to explain what I mean.. let me try: As I commented earlier, the slightly higher wingload gives me more to go on with the flare. I find it easier to fly on slower speeds with it, flat turns and so on, if I have to, because it does not "die" on me so easily. So when I needed to put it down in a tight area, this felt more controlled, versus before. Obviously this has to do with the amount of training I've put in in canopy skills as well :)

Quote

...can't I fly a canopy with a bit more wing load when I do straight-approach landings?

Quote

Quote

Yes, of course you can. And that's always been part of the justification for the rapid downsizing..."I just do straight-in landings." Unfortunately, they are not addressing the need to be able to do other types of landings as well...under a canopy that's going to respond more quickly having less room for error. You will, one of these days, be in a situation where that straight-in landing is not going to work out well.

Absolutely. Again it's my lack of communication skills that is hindering me in expressing myself clearly. Thank you for addressing this very important factor. One should not downsize if one it not able to put down the canopy at any type of landings and weather conditions. That should be rule one, regardless of number of jumps and wingloading.

Quote

Skilled instructors is a separate issue.
I contend, and I stand by my comment, that we, as a sport are severely lacking in quality instruction. Having a rating means almost literally nothing these days by way of instructing skills. Being dependent on an instructor could be hazardous to your health. Ask yourself a question; why does one instructor give conservative answers and this other one gives radical answers?

If you assume that the old fart instructor giving conservative answers is behind the times and an old fuddy-duddy....you may be a candidate for the Mad Skillz group. If you think the one saying you'll be just fine under that 135 after flying the 210...you may be a candidate for the incidents forum. Please don't get off on the old-fart vs young whippersnapper insanity. It's about the advice...not the age of the advisor.

I could not agree more :) If I experience a radical versus a conservative answer, I'd go with the most experienced with the conservative respond (They usually are the most experienced ones).

Quote

One should be able to question wing loading-issues without being identified as a crazy soon-to-be-statistic.

Quote

Without a doubt. Hell, if that was the case, all those swoopers flying sub-100 canopies all should have their coffins already made and waiting.
I get the impression that you are getting somewhat defensive when nobody is saying that you are a "crazy soon-to-be-statistic".

Hehe.. yup. as you said yourself; my frustration is showing. You have given me lots to think about, and I thank you for that. I was frustrated when we obviously were not on the entire same page. Now we are, to some extent at least.

Quote

Also, I believe there are more factors to be considered than the number itself, e.g. amount of focus piloting has been given, coaching, skills, attitudes and so on.

Quote

Agreed. Now, can you quantify those factors? No.
We can, however, quantify jump numbers. And yes, jump numbers are a good generalization for skill level. Is that saying it applies across the board? No. It's simply a generalization; it's a recommendation at this time, if you will. Making those recommendations into rules could very well for slowing down the Mad Skillz people, IMHO. It allows for more time and learning opportunities under conservative canopies before progressing to more radical ones. That's a good thing for the sport. YMMV.

No, probably we can't. Again, I'll let Becka do the talking here, as she is far better to address my concerns.

Quote

...except for the comments regarding myself. (As does every self-obsessed skydiver).

Quote

"Self-obsessed skydiver". Yep, those are the ones being addressed and those are the ones that are damaging our sport unnecessarily. If you are not one of those, then any comments made towards that group don't apply to you so why the defensiveness? Just askin'.

Was meant as an ironic comment on my defensiveness...

Quote

I'd like to hear some comments regarding lighter wing load versus heavier,

Quote

What you seem to be looking for is:
-Yes. Injuries and fatalities happen under low wing loadings.
-Yes. Lower wing loadings may not penetrate brisk winds as well as higher ones.
-With respect to landings, No. Lower wing loadings, flying slower and approaching the ground slower are "safer".
-Setting a low wing loading down in a small area is easier than doing it under a high wing loading.
Suggestion:
If you think that is not true, try it sometime.
(Before you do this, please be fully aware and fully skilled at avoiding or handling stalls on your canopy.)
Set out a circle in the landing area and put your canopy down in it...while visualizing trees, fences and power lines surrounding it. Find out how big that circle has to be for you to be able to sink it in safely over those obstacles.

I promise you, you will be more likely to accomplish that in a smaller circle with a lower wing loading as opposed to that hot rod needing more speed to fly without stalling. It's why accuracy competitors don't fly high wing loadings.

Thanks for your comments, eh?

Thank you for the tip, it's a great learning exercise, which I have done multiple times. I try every single landing to decide up front exactly where to land. It's helpful in learning to get to know the limits of yourself, the canopy and control in general. It also proves to be an excellent exercise when finding out what you need to work on.

Regarding you last comment, I see what your point is. I have not had a higher wingloading than what I am at now, so I can't really comment on that. Again, Becka seems to be better in expressing what I had in mind. I agree lighter wingloads are easier to handle safely in general, but several tiny people do express that they feel more in control when they have wingloading, so to speak. That's what I had in mind... :)

Thanks for the input, eh? :)

Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting: Holy shit..what a ride!

Quote

Sounds like you were put into the air when you should have been sitting on the ground.

I obviously made a mistake here, thinking that exaggerating a tiny but would be understood. Obviously it is not the case that all landings happened this way.

Quote

Better decision making would have avoided that "getting stuck".

Same goes here, "getting stuck" was perhaps poor choice of words.. but when you fly a navigator 260 and got a wingload on 0.5, it really does feel like you're stuck.

Quote

This I don't understand. What could be safer than slow and soft on landings?

Nothing, but there are other factors to consider as well. E.g.: I jump at a dropzone with a lot of turbulence and variable winds, all the time. Lighter wingload makes the canopy more likely to collapse, or have I been taught wrong?

Quote

I guess it's a matter of perspective, isn't it?

obviously, that is why I am asking you guys this question. I would love to get some constructive feedback on this...

Quote

Again...decision making

... probably. However, with a 0,5 wingload as a student, it's kinda hard to avoid, even in light winds..

Quote

Why is that? Riser control works on every canopy. It appears what you are saying is that you didn't learn a lot on canopy flight before you downsized. THAT is the reason for the rules.

it works, alright, but the effect isn't exactly big... Now you're just being difficult with me ;) Trying to fly on risers with a big canopy, is not without effort. The effort was given, believe me. However, with a bit smaller canopy (and we're not talking about a death-machine exactly, but a sabre2 with a 1,25 wingload) it was easier to use other types of input, and the learning curve was sky-high compare to before.

Quote

Too many don't bother to learn and practice at a slower pace before they throw themselves into a higher-paced canopy....injuries and fatalities are sometimes the result of that and the rules being proposed are trying to minimize that.

I agree. However, I argue I do not fall under that category though, despite the impression you might got of me from my last post. My point is that a lot of the time when wingloading is debated, it is always whether or not too much is dangerous. One rarely discuss it the other way around.

I'm gonna be bold here and also assert that a lot of the time when one argues whether light is good or bad, the ones that are in favor of lighter wingloads/or does not see the problem, are average jumpers size-wise that never really had to worry about not coming down from the sky... I am not saying this goes for you, but if you're an average guy, and flew standard-size student canopies, it's likely you had a bit more in wingload than a tiny girl did.

Quote

All too common. Fortunately YOU have survived so far. Some others don't.

That is just taken out of it's context. Again, see the entire post... Every canopy can be flown aggressively or docile. Downsizing is not equal with death. It can be, but it does not have to. At least that's what I've been taught...

Quote

Yes. Much safer than putting them into a fast-paced canopy that is less forgiving of errors.

Why is it either or? Either you are in a slow and safe canopy, or you're playing with death. The difference in speed from a 150 to a 135, is not that big. It is less forgiving, yes, but still, it's not a death machine when treated conservatively. You can kill yourself in a navigator 260 as well, and in a 135, and in a 78. Flying a 135 does not mean that one is pushing it, automatically. In my case, It's not like I'm doing 240 hook-turns just because I downsized.

Quote

There are a lot of the usual regulation/no regulation comments on this thread. However, when I first saw this thread I was hoping people with more experience (especially smaller jumpers) would respond to one of the OPs main points which is the much higher restriction on smaller jumpers.

I know there is not a linear progression because a smaller canopy will behave more aggressively at the same wing-loading as a larger canopy. However, at least based on personal experience, it does not seem to be nearly as dramatic as this chart or the SIM makes it out to be.

I was so concerned for the "big jump" from a 164 to 150. And then from a 150 to a 135. And then from a 135 to a 119. But at my size, I barely noticed a difference at all in these progressions. Yet the SIM insists that a 150 square foot canopy is high performance regardless of wing-loading.

What I did notice is that I could actually make forward progress above 1000 feet on a moderately windy day. I also noticed that landing with some forward speed on a regular basis makes it easier for me to land a little more gracefully.

While many people (including me) probably don't need something much below 109 square feet (1.25ish for me) before 1200 jumps, some talented smaller jumpers deserve to be able to make the progression the larger jumpers are allowed/encouraged to make.

But I only have 700 jumps and am not an expert. Could someone with more experience dealing with smaller jumpers and their canopy progression weigh in on this issue?

Thanks!

Yes, please. It would be great to hear your opinions on this matter. As Becka says: I too fall under the category of "smaller jumper", and I spent my entire student status landing backwards due to winds and low wing loading. When I got my A-license I did some jumps on a 170, before I downsized to a 150, which I did 250 jumps on. I never felt this was a dramatic downsizing, also because I discussed this with all my instructors before I bought the 150. Now I have 300 jumps and just started on a 135 Sabre2, which I plan to stay on for a long time.

My point is: I spent my first good 200 jumps feeling controlled by the canopy. In wind and turbulent weather, I got stuck. I could forget any input on both harness and risers - it was way to heavy.

When I got on the 135, I suddenly felt like I was the pilot. My landings improved dramatically, as in I suddenly had the speed to really fly out the canopy, with our without wind. I finally got to learn how risers can be used, how harness-input can help in turbulent days and so on. I thoroughly feel I am a safer and more skilled pilot now because the canopy gave me the opportunity to really fly with it. Not just hang under it as a helpless little toy. I have a 1,25 wingload on my 135. Does that makes me a dangerous daredevil? Am I pushing it? According to the new suggestion, I am.

Yes, my canopy is smaller, and behaves differently than a 170 loaded 1,2. However, should I have stayed on the 170 when that made me feel out of control? Where I had to learn backward accuracy-landings because I drifted backwards in my landings? Wait till I had 800 jumps before I could ever bother trying to touch the risers?

I believe an important factor in learning to master your canopy is feeling comfortable and in control. Increased wingloading and speed gave me that. That being said, I was one of those who always loved canopy-piloting, and really wanted to get good at it. And I could not wait to downsize, so it would be possible for me to fly the canopy, instead of hanging under it. I have attended canopy courses, and used my coaches and instructors when deciding what level I should go to next.

The point is: if the rules misses out on this, a smaller jumper will have the bare minimum of wingload, and in many cases IMO, feel that he or she barely controls the thing above their head. Is that safe?

I don't know with you guys, but you feel pretty helpless hanging in a canopy that barely moves forward. I do not mean that speed is everything, obviously, but it does matter. And the speed I have on my 135, isn't exactly mind-blowing. It just gives me the speed so that I can actually fly it above the ground for a while, I can use the risers, and I can lean in the harness and stuff happens. Also, the speed makes it easier to land. If I miscalculate, I only adjust. With my spectre 150, I had to hit the exact sweet spot for it to land as smoothly as my 135 does every time.

Look forward to hearing more experienced thoughts on this matter. I still consider myself a rookie, but try hard all the time to learn as much as I can.

Quote

Quote

Dear skydivers out there.

The safety committee for the Norwegian Air-sports Federation has come up with a suggestion to new rules for the norwegian jumpers,

You don't need new rules.

You need new THINKING.

Instead, you and your association are following the tired old and provably unproductive path of imposing more rules that make ever more demands not just on the jumpers who are doing this for FUN but on the association that allegedly serves to encourage said fun.

Seriously, your association is proposing to embark on a path of creating a complicated clusterfink of largely unenforcible rules that will not change anything for the better because you're targeting the parachute, not the pilot,

If you instead took all of the time, treasure and brain cells you're proposing to burn through on this many-times-proven useless exercise and invested it in helping your jumpers to learn how to fly better, this would all go a lot better.

44

He he... I just need to make something extremely clear here: I am not part of the "you" you are referring to ;) I started this discussion as a mid-experienced jumper interested in learning about your opinions on the matter.

There have been several interesting responds here, which I am grateful for. That being said, and this have also been mentioned above, I, and many other jumpers, believe the suggested new rules are way to static and misses out on a lot of important factors - one of them you mention: we should focus on the pilot too, not the canopy alone.

Just needed to get that off my chest.

I'd like to respond to all of the comments in here, some I agree with, some I totally disagree with. Especially the part where "you should be able to do whatever".

As long as our sport includes taking up air-space from commercial air traffic, that no one makes money on, we're a pain in the ass. As long as we continue to die, negative attention is given us, and it reflects badly upon the sport.

It's not a given (at least not in Norway) that we are allowed by the government to practice our activity as freely as we do. With all the focus pollution and such is given, it just takes the one asshole that figures out by himself that we practice (in society's eyes) a completely meaningless activity, and we could be shut down, or given so strict restrictions that skydiving will be close to impossible. (In Norway, this is already a huge problem, around the bigger airports, we are hardly allowed to skydive anymore. That's why our biggest dropzones are placed in god-forsaken places).

I'm just saying, and I know people will give me crap for this, that us having fun in the sky, is not a "right we have". It's a privilege that can be taken away. The more people that kill themselves and others in this sport, the harder it gets to argue that it's a good thing. That's how society's become. Risk is seen as unnecessary...

Quote

Quote

And below each weight group, you'll have the maximum size of canopy the jumper is allowed to jump.

What units are they using for canopy size and WL?



.

I'm afraid I don't understand your question completely... the numbers for canopy size are in square feet, as normal, and wing load in pounds per square feet. Was that your question or am I being blonde here? ;)

Quote

On a completely different note, will these restrictions apply only to Norwegian jumpers or will visiting jumpers find these rules imposed on them??

As far as I know, foreign jumpers will be able to jump whatever as usual. I find it unlikely that they will have to abide with the norwegian rules for norwegian licensed jumpers :) No worries!

Quote

Quote

Maybe it's just me - I hate bureaucracy. Make 'em recommendations, but not mandatory.

Because that's worked brilliantly so far. (!)


John, you let your natural bias against any sort of rules colour your thinking IMO, and it's beginning to show in all your posts which detracts from any real useful message you could get across from your experience.

Chances are if the rules are reasonably leinient they'll be no problem to 95% of normal people like you - but they'll catch the nutters out there. Unreasonable rules either don't pass inspection, or simple wipe themselves out over a short period of being implemented.

You can't assume everyone is rational and right-thinking.


To the OP; I'm not in favour of having canopy sizes simply dictated by jump numbers and wing loading. It's too complex a series of variables for that.

If you have to have that sort of hard and fast rule, it needs to be a 'at no time will anyone, ever, exceed these numbers', and then it just becomes arbitrary - why 1200 jumps for a crossbraced canopy? What happens on that magic jump after 1199 that suddenly makes someone 'ready' for a crossbraced wing?


I don't think there's a simple answer that you can apply in broad strokes to everyone. We have to change the overall skydiving culture of small canopies being cool, of people having access to buying them when they shouldn't, and a united front from the dropzone operators on each individual - no regulation works if some DZs are more lax than others.


The impetus has to come from the jumpers, not the national bodies. Coaches and instructors who refuse to jump with people who are unsafe. Regular jumpers who refuse to get on a plane with the 200 jump wonder who's just bought a 99.

Downsizing is about jump numbers and weight. It's also about aptitude, practice, time spent flying, physique, intelligence, reaction to instruction and a thousand other things.

Maybe people shouldn't be able to buy their own canopies... maybe they need to have counter signitures from instructors, coaches or Operators to say 'yup, I agree this guy is ready for this next canopy'... at the very least, it would force the jumper in question to vet their choice through at least one other individual.

(And no. I know this wouldn't work in the states because everyone would sue each other...We really need a rolling eyes smilie... )

Hehe, I could not agree more. The ideal skydiving community is one where everyone do whatever they want, and don't die. But when people hook themselves into the ground consistently, and we keep losing people in canopy collisions (which is even more of a disaster), something must be done...

Natural selection and all that have never really done it for me. As long as people are stupid it reflects on the rest of the community. And that is a bad thing. I also want to know that there won't be skygods on the same load as me that is gonna kill me along with him/her.

There's tons of good input here guys but I do have some more information that will somehow neutralize this (to an extent):

I do want to make something clear here: the suggestion is really only that. The committee put it out on the web so that everyone would have the chance to comment and suggest better changes. I believe this will be the case.

Also, something I forgot to mention, is that they are also suggesting to implement a new canopy course that everyone with a minimum of 200 jumps must undertake if they want to aim for the more demanding canopies and high-performance landings. This course is meant to teach basic/advanced canopy-techniques in practice and theory. I believe this is a very sensible suggestion, and I hope it's gonna go through.

I learnt insanely much at the canopy courses I took along the way, and I also believe these courses might be able to stop some of the skygods out there...

Some of you also mentioned the fact that the entire community should be clear about their attitudes towards those with imagined mad skillz. I could not agree more. I firmly believe that attitude and knowledge derives from those around you, not from a rule-book. An example: you don't avoid stealing from someone because it's illegal, you do it because you know it's wrong, and that people will think badly of you.

This is actually something I am doing a research on in my thesis in social anthropology, on skydivers. (That's also why I am so interested in having this discussion. Yes, I have an agenda;)

The thesis in short terms discusses how skydivers affect each other's attitudes and knowledge and I also consider the methods they use to mange the risks that are inherent in the activity. During the thousands of debates about safety in the community I witnessed during my research, never once was the rules mentioned - the result of one's idiocy on the other hand was a common debate ;)

Quote

How the heck are you going to enforce it? When a new jumper shows up, or an old jumper with a new canopy, are you going to take them over the scale and weigh them, then open up their pack and measure their canopy, and then run to the chart to see if they're in compliance? And if they're outside a range by a few feet or kilograms, will you turn them away and refuse to let them jump?

What if someone's canopy tears apart just a hundred jumps from a new downsize category, and they were planning on buying a smaller canopy. Will they now have to purchase another canopy of the same size as before, just to tide them over for 100 jumps until they get to the next downsize checkpoint, and then spend even more money to get the smaller canopy they actually want?

Maybe it's just me - I hate bureaucracy. Make 'em recommendations, but not mandatory.

As far as enforcing goes: this is a little more routinized in Norway perhaps. As a norwegian skydiver, you have to be member of a skydiving club, and the chief instructor of the club/dz is generally aware of who everyone is at his dz (we're kind of a tiny country with tiny clubs, compared to you guys).

When earning new licenses these things will be checked. Every year you also have to register all over, where the gear and information/licenses will be checked. When coming to a new dz, again - everything is checked.

The weight as such is usually not checked, but if you crash into the ground jumping something you're not allowed to, your insurance will not cover you and you will lose your license...

When it comes to the canopy e.g. ripping: yes, you're gonna have to buy a new one within the same weight class ....

Pchapman: you are correct. The chart is for body weight, without gear.

And as the PD-guidelines goes: we could, but no, not gonna happen it seems.

The system in Norway is way stricter than in the states. Where you have the SIM, we have the "handbook", where there are rules, instead of guidelines.

When it comes to the comment about downloading in general: absolutely. Unfortunately, there seems to be a trend where people are unable to do this. We have experienced a distressing increase in serious incidents, and the safety committee feels something has to be done...

Thanks for all the comments. Please keep 'em coming!

Dear skydivers out there.

The safety committee for the Norwegian Air-sports Federation has come up with a suggestion to new rules for the norwegian jumpers, and I'd love to hear what you guys think of them. There's already a huge debate about this, and to put it bluntly; not all are happy with them.

I am attaching a link to the table, where you can see the suggestion. Unfortunately, it is in norwegian, but I'll explain it to you:

On the left side of the table, vertically: number of jumps.

The first two columns regards students, where the first are for very inexperienced, and the second for more experienced students. The following columns downwards are e.g. 51-200 "hopp", which means "jumps".

In other words; column number one, vertically, are number of jumps.

The rest of the columns on the table, horizontally, are the weight-class of the jumper, without gear, in kilograms. And below each weight group, you'll have the maximum size of canopy the jumper is allowed to jump.

Is this making sense? Please say so if it's not, and I'll try again.

The committee also suggest to prohibit high performance crossbraced canopies for all, until they have reached 1200 jumps, regardless of weight.

An example: According to these rules; a light weight jumper on 60 kilograms (132 pounds) can only have 1,4 in wingload till (s)he has reached 1200 jumps.

On the other hand, a 99 kilogram heavy jumper (218 pounds) can have the same wingload with only 51 jumps.

Some of the debate topics have obviously considered the fact that this is very strict for light jumpers (read: most women) and the opposite for heavier jumpers.

This suggestion came as a response to the increased incidents under canopy in Norway. The Safety Committee wants to implement absolute limits on canopy-sizes to stop radical downsizing. I believe the intention is good, but the result of this will be everything but (for some of the weight-classes at least).

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this issue. The suggestions are out on a hearing till the 6th of march, and the committee wishes to hear the community's response before they agree on anything. I thought it'd be a good idea to put it out here, to bring a certain international vibe to it ;)

Love and kisses and so on,

Linn
(which will have to be on a 1,4 wingload for another 900 jumps if the rules are approved)


The link:

http://www.nlf.no/sites/default/files/fallskjerm/dokument/12.02.28_tillatte_skjermstorrelser_-_basert_pa_egenvekt.pdf

Hi everyone!

Unfortunately, we did not win the competition. However, we are truly grateful for the support you gave us.

<3

Thank you!
And happy thanksgiving :)

It is over :) Now we just have to wait for approx. a week to find out who won :) Thanks again everyone, you're amazing :)

Hi everyone.

We're getting very close. Just one day left of voting. We just wanted to say to you that we are so very grateful for all your help. Had it not been for you, we would've been fuc***. Thanks to all you guys we're still at place number 6, and therefore have the chance to win shitload of money to fly in the sky and the tunnels, and maybe even become ninjas. We have this dream of flying without the limitations of unskilled bodies, so it would mean the world to us to win this.

We're very anxious to find out who won. There's a lot of good competition, and we don't have a clue what kind of people the jury is looking for. We hope it's us.

Once more, thank you so much. You are our heroes.

Loads of love.

We'll keep you updated, of course :)

Linn and Inga.

It's my birthday! My birthday wish is a vote per day for 4 more days ;)

<3

People are voting like crazy! It is insane! Please help us keep up with them. Every single vote is helpful, and greatly appreciated <3

[url]http://konkurranse.straksklar.no/suggestions/895[url]

Thankyou darlings! <3

Uploading some pictures from mountainflying as well :)

I know!! Number 7 is getting too close! *Angst*

Just 6 days left people. Please help as much as you can!

(Not that I really believe in horoscopes, but a friend told me mine said I would get a huge and pleasant surprise around the 15th of november [when the competition ends] and that it would provide great opportunities in the near future ;) Haha, let's hope the stars tell the truth!)

http://konkurranse.straksklar.no/suggestions/895

Press the button that says "STEM PÅ LINN...."

For those of you who read this post without knowing the deal, my friend Inga and I (from Norway) can win around 30.000 usd to train for competitions and stuff in skydiving! Please help :)

Loads of love from Norway..

(It is frickin' cold today! Around 34 fahrenheit)

Thanks for helping out!!! :D

<3