craddock 0
Recommended Posts
Ron 10
QuoteSo you are saying that the group with the most jumps should have the most injuries?
In a purely numbers game yes. But I know it is not the case.
QuoteYou do not think that less experienced jumpers are at a higher risk? Really? You
want to change the system because inexperienced jumpers should not be getting hurt as much as
experienced jumpers who do more jumps(making them much more current) making them a greater risk.
This was a reply to Zen...he likes number games. I think that the fact the the number of accidents are growing in only one section of the experience range tells me that since newer jumpers can get these wings..and without the knowledge/experience that is needed, they are getting hurt/killed more than a group with more experience that in theory gets exposed to more riskes due to more events.
QuoteAmazingly
enough if you look at it from your perspective; while there were injuries in all skill levels, a much higher
percentage was among those with less experience whom made up most of the group. (and also practiced
less making them less experienced!)
And this is the point that to me is very clear. However some think we need to have the number of success stories to formulate a better plan. I don't think so.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
kallend 2,026
QuoteH
Quotepeople are making the claim that the current educational/peer preasure enviroment isnt working..how can you say
that with any reliability when you can tell me how many people are successfully flying "ahead of the curve"?
___________________________________________________
How about the simple fact that the number of fatalities of a certain type in an experience group is
growing, while the number of the same type of fatalities is much less in other experience groups?
And I would be willing to bet (WAG estimate) that the number of jumps made by people with more than 500 jumps is greater than the number of people below 500 jumps.
So it would think that more JUMPS are made by people with more than 500 jumps, even though there are more jumpers with under 500 jumps. This would make me think that the number of possible Accidents *should* be higher for people with more than 500 jumps.
Ron
I do not think it appropriate to make rules on the basis of wild ass guesses or inconclusive statistics (and they are inconclusive).
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Ron 10
QuoteI do not think it appropriate to make rules on the basis of wild ass guesses or inconclusive statistics (and they
are inconclusive).
OK DR Kallend,
We will take this one small step at a time.
Do you not see how over the last few years that the number of accidents under open canopies flying into the ground have transfered from the people with 1,000's of jumps since 1995 (who are the first ones to get the hot new canopies) to people with under 500 jumps last year?
Ron
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
billvon 2,989
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>I know many S&TA that would have a hard time moraly signing
> people off. Present them a large number of people and they are
> going to pick and choose.
And this is exactly why this will help with fatalities. Right now, an S+TA isn't going to ground someone unless they are sure they are going to die - and you can rarely be sure. Why not change it such that S+TA's only allow really exceptional people to jump the exceptional loadings? (And they can always take a canopy control course and then jump whatever they want no matter what he says.)
>I very much doubt as far ahead of the learning curve as I was, I
>could have found an S&TA to put his name behind me.
Nor could I. In fact, it wasn't until I had 1000 jumps or so that I realized I was not as far ahead of the curve as I thought I was - so that's a good thing.
> people off. Present them a large number of people and they are
> going to pick and choose.
And this is exactly why this will help with fatalities. Right now, an S+TA isn't going to ground someone unless they are sure they are going to die - and you can rarely be sure. Why not change it such that S+TA's only allow really exceptional people to jump the exceptional loadings? (And they can always take a canopy control course and then jump whatever they want no matter what he says.)
>I very much doubt as far ahead of the learning curve as I was, I
>could have found an S&TA to put his name behind me.
Nor could I. In fact, it wasn't until I had 1000 jumps or so that I realized I was not as far ahead of the curve as I thought I was - so that's a good thing.
kallend 2,026
QuoteQuoteI do not think it appropriate to make rules on the basis of wild ass guesses or inconclusive statistics (and they
are inconclusive).
OK DR Kallend,
We will take this one small step at a time.
Do you not see how over the last few years that the number of accidents under open canopies flying into the ground have transfered from the people with 1,000's of jumps since 1995 (who are the first ones to get the hot new canopies) to people with under 500 jumps last year?
Ron
One year does not constitute a trend. If I toss a fair coin 100 times there is a good chance that it will come up heads five times in a row at some point.
Given such small numbers, statistical noise is just as likely to be responsible for the trend you think you perceive.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Ron 10
You really cant see an issue?
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
Quote>how many people would now be required to prove that they can land
> the canopies they have been (and did) all along, inorder to possibly
> save the brain trusts who couldnt or didnt learn without it being a
> requirement.
Not very many; the people already jumping small canopies are grandfathered for some amount of time (a year, say.) After that it would only be the people who _still_ haven't taken a CC course, proven to their S+TA that they can fly their current canopy, AND haven't gotten to 500 jumps yet. I would guess that would be a very small number.
Wouldn't that encourage people to hurry up and downsize before the grandfather period expires? Similar to those who are hurrying to get their D before September?
billvon 2,989
>Wouldn't that encourage people to hurry up and downsize before the
> grandfather period expires? Similar to those who are hurrying to get
> their D before September?
Hmm, I could see a similarity there, but someone on DZ.com took a poll as to who was really going to try to do it (D-license thing) and not many people said they were.
> grandfather period expires? Similar to those who are hurrying to get
> their D before September?
Hmm, I could see a similarity there, but someone on DZ.com took a poll as to who was really going to try to do it (D-license thing) and not many people said they were.
craddock 0
QuoteAnd this is exactly why this will help with fatalities. Right now, an S+TA isn't going to ground someone unless they are sure they are going to die - and you can rarely be sure. Why not change it such that S+TA's only allow really exceptional people to jump the exceptional loadings? (And they can always take a canopy control course and then jump whatever they want no matter what he says.)
I think his point was- why should everyone have to suffer so that we MIGHT possibly save a few people with poor judgement.(we do not know that this would save anyone) I was just stating a point to back him up as far as difficulty in getting a waiver. I do think my S&TA believed I had the talent; I just do not believe he would have signed me off to do the progression I went through
As far as these proposed BSR's or whatever. I really don't know what you all have came up with. Everyone had there own idea. If I could have simply took a canopy control course that was available to me; and then been allowed to progress as I had, I would have no problem with that.
However under some of the proposals that I have read, I very much doubt that I would have continued skydiving.
Josh
That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.
Ron 10
QuoteI
very much doubt as far ahead of the learning curve as I was, I could have found an S&TA to put his name
behind me.
Then maybe you were not as far ahead of the learning curve as you thought?
Ron
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
billvon 2,989
>why should everyone have to suffer . . .
Everyone does not have to suffer. The only time you will suffer is:
1. you have under 500 jumps AND
2. you refuse to take a canopy control course AND
3. you are not good enough to be signed off by an S+TA AND
4. you want to jump a heavily loaded parachute.
This will be a fairly small number of people. They are also, for the most part, the people with poor judgement. Regulating the people who need it? Not too unfair in my mind.
>If I could have simply took a canopy control course that was
> available to me; and then been allowed to progress as I had, I
> would have no problem with that.
That's all you need to do. Once you take the CC course you can jump whatever you want.
Everyone does not have to suffer. The only time you will suffer is:
1. you have under 500 jumps AND
2. you refuse to take a canopy control course AND
3. you are not good enough to be signed off by an S+TA AND
4. you want to jump a heavily loaded parachute.
This will be a fairly small number of people. They are also, for the most part, the people with poor judgement. Regulating the people who need it? Not too unfair in my mind.
>If I could have simply took a canopy control course that was
> available to me; and then been allowed to progress as I had, I
> would have no problem with that.
That's all you need to do. Once you take the CC course you can jump whatever you want.
Quote>Wouldn't that encourage people to hurry up and downsize before the
> grandfather period expires? Similar to those who are hurrying to get
> their D before September?
Hmm, I could see a similarity there, but someone on DZ.com took a poll as to who was really going to try to do it (D-license thing) and not many people said they were.
But a lot of those responses were because people didn't want to do night jumps, or didn't have a need for a D to do any of the things they want to do. In this case, you're telling people that if they want to change canopies without going through extra procedures, they'd better do it now rather than later.
billvon 2,989
>So the problem isn't the pilots who cut off inexperienced poorly
> trained pilots, it's that the inexperienced poorly trained pilots on
> wingloading X can't 'handle' it?
Yes. If you can't turn low you are at risk for killing yourself. It might be the other guy's FAULT, but the fatality could still be avoided by knowing how to save your own life under canopy. We're not talking about blame here, we're talking about saving people's lives.
>Come on. We all know the low man has the right of way.
Yep. And what about, say, a 4000 jump expert who does a 360 hook in front of someone on a Spectre 135 that he can't fly? The expert leaves plenty of room so there's no chance of collision. The Spectre pilot sees the expert, panics, and buries a toggle. He dies. He had right of way - and there wasn't even a risk of collision - but he is now dead. Canopy training could have saved his life.
>I think the solution to the problem requires the manufacturers to
> take more responsibility for their product and not the USPA writing
> new rules.
And how does PD take responsibility for a canopy that can be sold or given to anyone?
> trained pilots, it's that the inexperienced poorly trained pilots on
> wingloading X can't 'handle' it?
Yes. If you can't turn low you are at risk for killing yourself. It might be the other guy's FAULT, but the fatality could still be avoided by knowing how to save your own life under canopy. We're not talking about blame here, we're talking about saving people's lives.
>Come on. We all know the low man has the right of way.
Yep. And what about, say, a 4000 jump expert who does a 360 hook in front of someone on a Spectre 135 that he can't fly? The expert leaves plenty of room so there's no chance of collision. The Spectre pilot sees the expert, panics, and buries a toggle. He dies. He had right of way - and there wasn't even a risk of collision - but he is now dead. Canopy training could have saved his life.
>I think the solution to the problem requires the manufacturers to
> take more responsibility for their product and not the USPA writing
> new rules.
And how does PD take responsibility for a canopy that can be sold or given to anyone?
jfields 0
Interesting debate....
In some ways I fall into the target group, in other ways, not so much.
At 17 jumps (2 years ago), I bought a used Sabre 190. I weigh about 200 lbs, so my exit weight is ~220 or so. That puts my wingloading at 1.15:1 to 1.2:1. By some of the rules discussed, I'd basically have to have a C license to fly that canopy (or various other routes).
When I bought that canopy, I knew it was a touch small. The guidelines you've been discussing would have had me buy a 230. That wouldn't have been the end of the world, but not my preference either. I considered my options and went ahead with the 190 purchase, knowing that I would fly gingerly for awhile, and be on it long enough to get comfortable and consistent with one canopy. At 17 jumps, I knew what kind of jumper I was. 100 jumps later, I'm still flying the same canopy. Another 100 jumps from now, I plan to still be on that Sabre 190. There will be plenty for me to learn without having to downsize. Where I said I knew what kind of jumper I was, that isn't "hotshot". I was very conservative when I first got my canopy. I generally still am. I do clear & pull jumps so I can play and learn safely. While some of my peers (jump #-wise) are trying to learn hook turns, I'm still working on consistent accuracy and doing student-style 3-leg patterns. It isn't because I'm dumb or slow, but because I'm cautious and want to master things before moving on to more difficult ones.
There isn't any really good canopy training with an established schedule where I live. I can't just go to the local canopy school and get it. I'm actually signed up for some next week, but that is because I'm making my first (beer) trip out to Perris Valley. I've been hunting for quality training for awhile. Lots of people can fly, but most of them can't accurately assess another person's flight and have the teaching ability to get the relevent points across. If you are talking about "professional" canopy training, there don't seem to be too many places to do it. Some of the pro swoopers have schools, like Evolution in Perris. It is available in Deland, or with somebody like Chuck at Raeford. To help the vast body of us that haven't (yet) had a quality canopy control course, the availability has to get better.
You can't legislate judgement or common sense. If I was kind of person to be really reckless under canopy, I could get myself in trouble under a 210 or 230. I'm not, and I decided to "grow into" my canopy gradually, rather than start on a path of downsizing from something much larger. DZOs and S&TAs can get to know jumpers enough that they could give waivers to the ones they thought had their act together, either by being cautious or by having really good canopy skills (or both). But jumpers that migrate from DZ to DZ might find that relationship hard to forge.
Finances also play a part in the gear selection decision. I found used containers sized for bigger (230) canopies harder to find, and supposedly harder to resell without too much of a beating. Same with mains. Since most experienced jumpers don't fly canopies that big, the aftermarket arena makes it harder for newbies to pick up gear like that.
All that said, I wouldn't have minded too much if I'd been forced into a bigger canopy. I understand that generalizations for the safety of the average novice jumper would save lives. But the mindset of the "experienced" jumpers also has to change. Where do incoming jumpers pickup the "downsizing is cool" attitude? They get it from people that teach them, and that they talk to around the DZ. When the folks with hundreds or thousands of jumps are breaking themselves partially due to poor canopy size selection, it send very mixed messages. The first is that small canopies are cool, otherwise people who supposedly know a lot wouldn't fly them. Second, it shows that there is no well-thought guideline for them to follow.
I think the guidelines you are looking at are in the right direction. There just needs to be a wider shift in mindset to make it really work. Regulation won't make starting jumpers safer if all the jumpers they emulate are winking and nudging them in the other direction. When the Canopy Nazis start outnumbering the fast-downsizing advocates, newbies will start getting the right advice. The right advice, coupled with BSRs suggesting light wingloading and easy availability of canopy training will all combine to make things safer.
In some ways I fall into the target group, in other ways, not so much.
At 17 jumps (2 years ago), I bought a used Sabre 190. I weigh about 200 lbs, so my exit weight is ~220 or so. That puts my wingloading at 1.15:1 to 1.2:1. By some of the rules discussed, I'd basically have to have a C license to fly that canopy (or various other routes).
When I bought that canopy, I knew it was a touch small. The guidelines you've been discussing would have had me buy a 230. That wouldn't have been the end of the world, but not my preference either. I considered my options and went ahead with the 190 purchase, knowing that I would fly gingerly for awhile, and be on it long enough to get comfortable and consistent with one canopy. At 17 jumps, I knew what kind of jumper I was. 100 jumps later, I'm still flying the same canopy. Another 100 jumps from now, I plan to still be on that Sabre 190. There will be plenty for me to learn without having to downsize. Where I said I knew what kind of jumper I was, that isn't "hotshot". I was very conservative when I first got my canopy. I generally still am. I do clear & pull jumps so I can play and learn safely. While some of my peers (jump #-wise) are trying to learn hook turns, I'm still working on consistent accuracy and doing student-style 3-leg patterns. It isn't because I'm dumb or slow, but because I'm cautious and want to master things before moving on to more difficult ones.
There isn't any really good canopy training with an established schedule where I live. I can't just go to the local canopy school and get it. I'm actually signed up for some next week, but that is because I'm making my first (beer) trip out to Perris Valley. I've been hunting for quality training for awhile. Lots of people can fly, but most of them can't accurately assess another person's flight and have the teaching ability to get the relevent points across. If you are talking about "professional" canopy training, there don't seem to be too many places to do it. Some of the pro swoopers have schools, like Evolution in Perris. It is available in Deland, or with somebody like Chuck at Raeford. To help the vast body of us that haven't (yet) had a quality canopy control course, the availability has to get better.
You can't legislate judgement or common sense. If I was kind of person to be really reckless under canopy, I could get myself in trouble under a 210 or 230. I'm not, and I decided to "grow into" my canopy gradually, rather than start on a path of downsizing from something much larger. DZOs and S&TAs can get to know jumpers enough that they could give waivers to the ones they thought had their act together, either by being cautious or by having really good canopy skills (or both). But jumpers that migrate from DZ to DZ might find that relationship hard to forge.
Finances also play a part in the gear selection decision. I found used containers sized for bigger (230) canopies harder to find, and supposedly harder to resell without too much of a beating. Same with mains. Since most experienced jumpers don't fly canopies that big, the aftermarket arena makes it harder for newbies to pick up gear like that.
All that said, I wouldn't have minded too much if I'd been forced into a bigger canopy. I understand that generalizations for the safety of the average novice jumper would save lives. But the mindset of the "experienced" jumpers also has to change. Where do incoming jumpers pickup the "downsizing is cool" attitude? They get it from people that teach them, and that they talk to around the DZ. When the folks with hundreds or thousands of jumps are breaking themselves partially due to poor canopy size selection, it send very mixed messages. The first is that small canopies are cool, otherwise people who supposedly know a lot wouldn't fly them. Second, it shows that there is no well-thought guideline for them to follow.
I think the guidelines you are looking at are in the right direction. There just needs to be a wider shift in mindset to make it really work. Regulation won't make starting jumpers safer if all the jumpers they emulate are winking and nudging them in the other direction. When the Canopy Nazis start outnumbering the fast-downsizing advocates, newbies will start getting the right advice. The right advice, coupled with BSRs suggesting light wingloading and easy availability of canopy training will all combine to make things safer.
craddock 0
Why is that Ron? Because just like our justice system every S&TA is fair and balanced. I may not sign my name behind someone in my shoes even if I though they had the ability. Mainly because of the outcry people like you would bring in the chance something happens. People who jump higher loaded canopies are at a greater risk regardless of the jump numbers. Less experienced usually means greater risk. Regardless how well it appears you fly a canopy, how well will you react in unseen circumstances. Panic? Freeze? Who knows? How many S&TAs are willing to sing the paper and wait to find out. What do they have to gain? They can only lose
Josh
Josh
That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.
jfields 0
QuoteWouldn't that encourage people to hurry up and downsize before the grandfather period expires? Similar to those who are hurrying to get their D before September?
To some degree, probably so, Kevin. Depends on the person. Like wingloading, it varies by attitude.
I am one of the people trying to hurry to get my D. I'm also realistic that it is just a piece of paper. It doesn't make me a better skydiver.
The reasons I'm trying to get it before the deadline are flexibility and future convenience.
If I go too long without jumping now (due to crummy weather), I become uncurrent and have to find a coach or instructor to jump with, which can be difficult or costly. If I get uncurrent, I know that I am, and I act accordingly. I watch my malfunction video, spend some time in a harness and review safety. My first few jumps are solos or very simple small-way dives to get back into the swing of things. That would be my plan, requirement or not. It is what I consider common sense. Seeing that I'm going to do these things anyway, it would be better for me to have the flexibility of doing it my cautious and thorough (but less expensive) way. Is a $200 "Level 4 recurrency jump" any better than a self-imposed safety refresher and a couple good safety-oriented 2-ways with a D-licensed jumper friend?
If I get my D now, that leaves me with open options. Some DZs may require a D license for beach jumps or things like that. While I don't qualify now, if I maintain my currency and improve my skills between say, jumps 200 and 400, I may want to do them at 400 jumps, rather than waiting until 500.
I want the D as a piece of paper for the future, to keep my options open. When I am manifesting or looking for jumps to get in on, I don't think about it, and I certainly don't see it as a justification to do things beyond my skills. But I'm sure some people are rushing for the D for just those things.
The realignment of licenses is a good move. After awhile, people will never notice the difference.
Ron 10
Yep, and maybe you were not as gifted as you thought.
I don't know..You may be Tommy Piras reincarnate...opps he's dead.
You may be Patrick..oh dead again.
Loftis? Damn.
Harris?...Damn.
Not trying to slam you....But even Rickster has hooked it in.
Why were you different?
And if you realy were that good, you could have found someone to sign you off.
Ron
I don't know..You may be Tommy Piras reincarnate...opps he's dead.
You may be Patrick..oh dead again.
Loftis? Damn.
Harris?...Damn.
Not trying to slam you....But even Rickster has hooked it in.
Why were you different?
And if you realy were that good, you could have found someone to sign you off.
Ron
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
craddock 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tastless comment trying to prove a point to Rhino that you can get cut off without it being your own fault. (I don't think it worked)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What makes you so sure? I have done CRW with as large as a 210 and rubbed end cells with a Tandem while holding. If you are holding trying to out float me you may be right. Are you going to hold all the way to landing Rhino. That would kind of defeat the pupose.
Very good point.
Josh
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tastless comment trying to prove a point to Rhino that you can get cut off without it being your own fault. (I don't think it worked)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QuoteJosh,
I think not. You know why? #1 I pulled at 14k. #2 I pull a few thousand feet above you and hold anyways. Your canopy can not stay up with mine. Not on your best day.
What makes you so sure? I have done CRW with as large as a 210 and rubbed end cells with a Tandem while holding. If you are holding trying to out float me you may be right. Are you going to hold all the way to landing Rhino. That would kind of defeat the pupose.
QuoteI know who the swoopers are on every load. I make it a practice to know everyones general pull altitudes and whether or not they are swooping and where. Easy to learn by asking questions and paying attention.
Very good point.
QuoteIf you and I both pulled at 5k could you catch me? Maybe Maybe not? Personally I doubt it but we can dogfight at the convention if you like.
Rhino
Josh
That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.
craddock 0
Will try and not argue with you Ron. You put words in peoples mouth. When did I say I thought I was that good? or that gifted? I said something about being way ahead of the curve. Perhaps I worded it wrong. I was thinking the curve was someones progression through the canopies. something?
Let me try this: I transitioned down faster than is normal. Is that better? Please do not answer that. I have not enjoyed the way you like to tell me what I am thinking. I have not came on here to be conceited, yet you paint me as such.
Let me try this: I transitioned down faster than is normal. Is that better? Please do not answer that. I have not enjoyed the way you like to tell me what I am thinking. I have not came on here to be conceited, yet you paint me as such.
That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.
Ok Ron, now your reaching, first Patrick didnt die from a hook turn, neither did Rob, so what point are you trying to make here. I guess i'm a little slow today and didnt get it.
If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!
skybytch 273
QuoteHowever under some of the proposals that I have read, I very much doubt that I would have continued skydiving
You love canopy flight and swooping that much but you wouldn't have been willing to spend the time and money required to take a course or prove your "mad skills" to someone qualified to judge them in exchange for the "right" to jump whatever you wanted?
Is it just me or does that make NO sense at all?? Every proposal I've read allows for the "exceptional" to get around the wingloading limitations. If you'd made your first jump on the first day Derek or Bill's proposal took effect you'd think a limit on what you can fly without further training was the norm - and if you wanted to go smaller sooner you could have... with a bit of effort on your part.
>requests?
I am not so sure it was the labor involed that he was referring to. I know many S&TA that would have a hard time moraly signing people off. Present them a large number of people and they are going to pick and choose. They may not sign off the ones that truly could go ahead of the curve.
Personally, after my first jump course I became an experienced jumper in no small ways due to my love with canopy flight.(even before I knew what it felt like I was in hooked into learning high performance landings) I very much doubt as far ahead of the learning curve as I was, I could have found an S&TA to put his name behind me.
Josh
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites