Wingload BSR take 2

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

I think this is the crux of the problem. Bad canopy habits are ingrained from jump #1 when students are put out on huge canopies and learn to bury toggles in order to turn, and learn that flaring just consists of pulling both toggles all the way down.

A few dozen jumps like this and it becomes muscle memory - which is what is recalled in that panic situation 300 jumps later when that kid BillVon is always talking about runs out in front of you, but now you have a smaller, faster sport canopy.

I agree that using huge F-111 canopies and not using 'working tandems' and stressing canopy control as at least one half of a students training is part of the problem. I have seen DZ's understand the benifits of the ISP/AFP programs, but be unwillinh to implement them because their competetors still offer '7-jump AFF'. Students are un-educated and will believe that the 7-jump program is better. I don't know a fix for this problem.

Hook

[sducoach 0]

Quote

Damn, I am glad that I would be "allowed" to be grandfathered in, and have to say that I am glad that the poll results were indicating the majority to NO.

Glad your not at my DZ...

------------------------------------------

Proud Team Bellas member since November 2002!!!

That probably makes two of us!
Tell you what, just ask DJan (I'm sure you know her) what an A-- I am. She'll let you know.

However, picture this, court room setting.

"Well Mr. S&TA can you tell the court why in the world you signed Mr. konradpt's waiver and then watched Mr. konradptr "SLAM" ( that's Stupid Low Altitude Maneuver in case you don't know) into the ground and kill himself? How many times did you witness Mr. konradptr's landings prior to signing the waiver? Why in the world would you believe that Mr. konradptr's skill level was so high that he no longer was required to comply with the rules and regulations of the USPA even though he was not qualified as stated in the rules and regulations?

Get the idea?

As an S&TA we are supposed to verify that we all follow the BSR's and industry standards. I don't care to hang my rear out for a 400 jump hot dog that believes he's bullet proof. I've watched to many over the years "slam" and then blame something other than poor judgement.

I'm glad (make that proud) you would be grandfathered too. Be safe.

"Altitude not attitude".

Blues,

J.E.

James 4:8

[sducoach 0]

Hook,
It's kind of like the coach rating where JM's had to actually fly with an evaluator. Judgement, skill level, ability, and doubts about if they can walk the walk or just talk the talk. Many people fear that exposure.

No biggie........

Blues,

J.E.

James 4:8

[JeffD 0]

Heh were in the same boat with Motorcycles. Too many Squids buying bikes that are wayyy to big. For example going from an excort to an indy car. Anyway after reading through alot of this I like the British system for motorcycles, and think it could be adapted for wingloadings. The way they do it for MC's is a restricted license for I think 2 years then an unrestricted license. So I was thinking maybe like a Restricted A license to where you coulden't go above a 1:1 loading (or whatever is deemed appropriate by some testing) for say 250 jumps or whatever a standard could be found (with some field testing) and then after that they are free to choose. It woulden't be too restrictive and many jumpers already over 250 should be smart enough not to go to a 2:1 loading unless they are ready.

Also by making people stick with larger mains then the market for larger mains would be attractive because say Johnny gets a large main and container until he hits 250 then he is going to sell it to someone (another student) who is then going to use it till he gets to 250 and sell it to another student. So this will make the sport a little more affordable for those just starting out and not wanting to spend $2000 on a canopy, could just get it used for $1500 or $1000 or cheaper. Also this woulden't make the people that are already flying High loadings upset because I am assuming they would be over 250 jumps.

Anyway that it is done is going to require some testing with students to see how long the average person takes to get up to using a high loading (assuming they want to) and then just let it go. Yes there will be those people who buy a 1.75:1 loading right after they get it but at least they will have a better chance/more knowledge, and hopefully friends that will point them in a better direction.

[sducoach 0]

Just when I thought this was getting good................

Guess you don't want to be at my "posts" either?????

Blues,

J.E.

James 4:8

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

As a good friend of konradptr (who's a 500 jump skydiver and a 2200+ hour pilot) I must defend him when it comes to replying to DZ.COM posts. In other words, he's not always on his computer wasting his day away on DZ.COM (unlike myself).

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[mustard 0]

Quote

As a good friend of konradptr (who's a 500 jump skydiver and a 2200+ hour pilot) I must defend him when it comes to replying to DZ.COM posts. In other words, he's not always on his computer wasting his day away on DZ.COM (unlike myself).

Yes, and even though he may not be posting, he may be reading (make that double for me, since I am totally overwhelmed by the sheer volume of posts). When I can shove some work around and go over to DZ.com, I have to figure out where in the world to start. Then after sampling here and there, I have to go back to the "real" world.

But I do enjoy watching people I know well, like konradptr, and those I don't know as well but enjoy listening to, post and respond to what I consider to be some very important threads. I have been following as much of the wingload BSRs as I can, and it seems that the same people have the same ideas, with an occasional changing of viewpoint (Canuck comes to mind). That's what I think is intended here.

The main problem with the implementation of any new BSR is figuring out how to do it. It's just not straightforward. As I look at the numbers and ideas being put forward, here in the Mountain region I usually hear myself saying, "yeah, but what about these numbers at altitude?" How do we bring everything into a BSR that makes sense and can be implemented without massive negative feedback?

I am still of the opinion that *guidelines* and *recommendations* are a much better idea that *BSRs* -- we haven't even gotten that far yet.

***
DJan

[sducoach 0]

DJan,
And I thought you would defend me................

Broke my heart lady.


Just kidding....... still love ya.
Agreed DJan, however you have to start somewhere. At least these posts are causing some brain waves to stir up.

Blues,

J.E.

James 4:8

[sducoach 0]

Quote

As a good friend of konradptr (who's a 500 jump skydiver and a 2200+ hour pilot) I must defend him when it comes to replying to DZ.COM posts. In other words, he's not always on his computer wasting his day away on DZ.COM (unlike myself).

Canuck,

That's cool, as an ATP CFIMEI with 4500 hours and 3200+ jumps, the only thing that impresses me about konradptr, is that DJan likes him. So in my book he must be okay, even if as he's stated, he's glad I'm not at his DZ.

I have a great deal of respect for DJan and that "old guy" she hangs out with so, if she vouches for him, then I'll even buy him a Gatoraid.

Blues,

J.E.

P.S.

I think she just gigged ya.........

James 4:8

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

if she vouches for him, then I'll even buy him a Gatoraid.

I never see Peter with Gatoraid. But while we're jumping the boy has been known to down his fair share of Mountain Dew. And then once it's beer'30 he likes Bud Lite. Of course I'm much more of a Fat Tire kind of beer drinker (hence my faster fall rate).

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[RevJim 0]

Quote

And we also incorporate my original thing about being able to get out of these requirements completely by taking a canopy control course. What the requirements are for that are still up in the air, but Derek took a good swipe at it before. A reasonable progression would be:

-at first can be run by any I, and students must demonstrate a list of canopy skills. It will be like AFF; there will be a set of TLO's, and if you can complete them all in one jump, great. If not, it might take more.

-once there is a CI rating in place, they can hold the courses and/or sign off people for higher loadings.

And where does this leave the people, like me, who worked outside the cash cow system? I recieved a great deal of canopy control training, on a canopy much smaller than I currently jump as a matter of fact.

Sure, some will say cool! You took a canopy control course! Um, no, I didn't. I recieved one on one training from a jumper with thousands of jumps, who has been in the sport for as long as I have been alive (almost). The kicker is he did (and still does)this one on one stuff for NOTHING.

The wingloading BSR, to many people, is just another way to soak more cash from the low time jumpers. You think our turnover rate is bad now (what, 200-300 jumps in sport), add a new reg.

It's your life, live it!
Karma
RB#684 "Corcho", ASK#60, Muff#3520, NCB#398, NHDZ#4, C-33989, DG#1

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

And where does this leave the people, like me, who worked outside the cash cow system? I recieved a great deal of canopy control training, on a canopy much smaller than I currently jump as a matter of fact.

Sure, some will say cool! You took a canopy control course! Um, no, I didn't. I recieved one on one training from a jumper with thousands of jumps, who has been in the sport for as long as I have been alive (almost). The kicker is he did (and still does)this one on one stuff for NOTHING.

The wingloading BSR, to many people, is just another way to soak more cash from the low time jumpers. You think our turnover rate is bad now (what, 200-300 jumps in sport), add a new reg.
_

A CI would not have to charge for their services for it to satisfy the requirement. I would think one-on-one training would satisfy the requirements. The requirements to be a CI haven't been laid out, but I would like to see something that takes into account someone like you received training from. Maybe send people interested and with the experience, a syllabus and a written test they complete and send in. In the past I have charged a small fee for my canopy control course and kept the class to a maximum of 5 people.

Also, the ISP could be seen as a way to "soak more cash from the low time jumper", but it isn't. Why, because it is obvious to everyone that they get better training and it is worth the extra money.

Skydiving is going the way of main stream and with this change, things that used to be free will carry a fee now. The BOD is going to discuss the appropriateness S & TA's charging for their services, something that traditionally was done for free. I would prefer to see this training done for free or only a small fee.

Hook

[wmw999 2,452]

I think the basis for anything is an identified canopy control skill set which has to be reviewed and (to some degree or another) signed off. In increments, because it's something you learn over time. With such a skill set, one-on-one informal training could definitely qualify.

Canopy flight is almost as dangerous as freefall now, but we don't have the same supervision of it that we have of freefall.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[billvon 2,995]

>And where does this leave the people, like me, who worked outside the
> cash cow system? I recieved a great deal of canopy control training, on
> a canopy much smaller than I currently jump as a matter of fact.

Then just tell your local S+TA that (might even have to demonstrate it) and he'll waive the requirement.

[RevJim 0]

Bill, I'm all for the continuing education aspect here. I would love to see more training, especially with canopy control. I just can't see it happening in the form of a new regulation.

I will be the first to admit I was in way over my head. Why is that? Education is part of the answer. The other part is self regulation. The same people who trained me under high performance wings are the ones that suggested them to me.

They suggested, I bought (or was buying, in the case of a Stiletto 120), and I brought to the DZ, and jumped. Then I trained. I didn't buy new. I found it very easy to obtain a wing that was far and above my skill set at that time. If anything, it's easier now than it was then.

I would like to see more training instituted into the A, B, C, and D requirements, but without the wingload limits. You have a wonderful text that you post from time to time, to help people answer their own questions about "Am I ready to downsize?".

A, B, C, and D pretty much already are a downsizing guideline themselves. Each represents a step forward in the sport. A wingloading does not need to be added to this, but I feel your downsizing text, broken up over the B and C requirements would be an excellent addition. It would make people not only think about landing their mains in all conditions, but would require it to advance to the next level. Not the next level in wingloading, the next level in the sport, which is a much greater determining factor in peer acceptance.

Now, if you really want to add a regulation, leave the main size alone, and add a regualtion limiting reserve wingloading by A, B, C, and D. It will make people think about the last chance they have, and hopefully a little more about the first option to boot.

It's your life, live it!
Karma
RB#684 "Corcho", ASK#60, Muff#3520, NCB#398, NHDZ#4, C-33989, DG#1

[rogue108 0]

This exactly what we need more regulations. So poilitcal people can decide what canopies I can buy or jump. Skydiving is a risky sport and there is a possibility of getting yourself killed. You can do lots of things in skydiving to increase you risk of dying. If its too risky take up knitting or chess.

Its apprent that even with the new ISP that students don't get enough canopy control time or education. Like static line/IAD students used to get. Maybe a separate class on canopy flight would be helpful. A class that taught what the risers do when to use them. How toggle input can steer you to safety. These are things that should be incorporated into student progression.

I was surprised this weekend by how many people didn't know that front risers could help you get back from a bad upwind spot. They just thought that front risers would put you in dive and that it was dangerous or they were only used by "experienced" canopy pilots for high performance landings. These were the same people making a landing decision at 300 feet into trees instead of picking a good off landing at 1500 feet. All these were all people under 200 sq foot plus canopies loading at 1:1 to maybe 1:2. My point of this entire diatribe is that its not necessarily a wingloading issue. Its an education issue. One person choose to ask more questions about canopy control another just chalked his landing to being "lucky". Maybe if all these people were talked to correctly or taught correctly then we would have less problem with canopy flight and people would make better decisions about what canopy to fly. Regulations don't teach a damn thing.

Stupid people will be stupid people. Its apparent (from what I saw this weekend) that people loaded light or heavy were nearly hurting or killing themselves from being stupid. Bottom line people need to be educated. If they choose not listen after its be taught and re-explained then let Darwin take them out of the gene-pool. This is the end of my $0.02.

Well I am do some skydiving instead sitting hear typing about skydiving.

[Shark 0]

Quote

A class that taught what the risers do when to use them. How toggle input can steer you to safety. These are things that should be incorporated into student progression.

That depends on the DZ and the instructor. We put a lot of emphasis on canopy control throughout the student training. I start it at the FJC. There are also times when I watch students under canopy and debrief them if it was a solo jump. If they jumped with another instructor I will consult with that instuctor before they debrief the student.

You are correct, regulations don't teach; instuctors do. Do you own a SIM? Check Section 2, paragraph A. Having one in place may reduce the risk factors and prompt one to acquire the knowledge.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

I will be the first to admit I was in way over my head. Why is that?

There isn't any regulation preventing it?

Quote

The other part is self regulation. The same people who trained me under high performance wings are the ones that suggested them to me.

Obviously, that isn't working, as you yourself was let down by that system.

Quote

I didn't buy new. I found it very easy to obtain a wing that was far and above my skill set at that time. If anything, it's easier now than it was then.

Another reason why the BSR would be a good idea.

Quote

Now, if you really want to add a regulation, leave the main size alone, and add a regualtion limiting reserve wingloading by A, B, C, and D. It will make people think about the last chance they have, and hopefully a little more about the first option to boot.

If people need a reserve wingloading BSR, why do they not need a main wing loading BSR?

Please excuse the selective quoting.

Hook

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

This exactly what we need more regulations. So poilitcal people can decide what canopies I can buy or jump. Skydiving is a risky sport and there is a possibility of getting yourself killed. You can do lots of things in skydiving to increase you risk of dying. If its too risky take up knitting or chess.

The problem is not the amount of risk available, but people's inability to accurately guage their risk level.

Quote

Its apprent that even with the new ISP that students don't get enough canopy control time or education. Like static line/IAD students used to get. Maybe a separate class on canopy flight would be helpful. A class that taught what the risers do when to use them. How toggle input can steer you to safety. These are things that should be incorporated into student progression.

The new "A" license card requires riser turns in order to get the "A" license. How can we get people into a class once they have their "A" license?

Quote

I was surprised this weekend by how many people didn't know that front risers could help you get back from a bad upwind spot.

I would recommend leaving the brakes stowed, or releasing the brakes and pulling down the rear risers for a long upwind spot, not front risers.

Quote

They just thought that front risers would put you in dive and that it was dangerous or they were only used by "experienced" canopy pilots for high performance landings. These were the same people making a landing decision at 300 feet into trees instead of picking a good off landing at 1500 feet. All these were all people under 200 sq foot plus canopies loading at 1:1 to maybe 1:2. My point of this entire diatribe is that its not necessarily a wingloading issue. Its an education issue.

And the BSR is designed to educate, not regulate.

Quote

One person choose to ask more questions about canopy control another just chalked his landing to being "lucky". Maybe if all these people were talked to correctly or taught correctly then we would have less problem with canopy flight and people would make better decisions about what canopy to fly. Regulations don't teach a damn thing.

How else, besides this BSR, do we get these people into a canopy control class?

Quote

Stupid people will be stupid people. Its apparent (from what I saw this weekend) that people loaded light or heavy were nearly hurting or killing themselves from being stupid. Bottom line people need to be educated.

Arming people with education will help prevent landing incidents. I agree people need to be educated, how else can we do that besides the BSR?

Quote

If they choose not listen after its be taught and re-explained then let Darwin take them out of the gene-pool.

Not a solution and bad for the sport.

Hook

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

I was surprised this weekend by how many people didn't know that front risers could help you get back from a bad upwind spot.

I would recommend leaving the brakes stowed, or releasing the brakes and pulling down the rear risers for a long upwind spot, not front risers.

Off topic, but there was an extensive discussion about this a year or so back. The headwind needs to be pretty strong before front risers give you more range than full flight when coming from a downwind spot.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rhino 0]

Quote

The problem is not the amount of risk available, but people's inability to accurately guage their risk level.

DING DING DING!! We have a winner Johnny!!! What does he get!!>!>!>!> A NEW CARRRRRR!!!!

LOL

Rhino

[billvon 2,995]

You said you didn't want more regulations, but then you said:

>Its apprent that even with the new ISP that students don't get
>enough canopy control time or education. . . . These are things that
> should be incorporated into student progression.

So you do want REQUIRED training? Am I reading that right?

>Stupid people will be stupid people. Its apparent (from what I saw
> this weekend) that people loaded light or heavy were nearly hurting
> or killing themselves from being stupid. Bottom line people need to
> be educated.

This is pretty much what I'm proposing. Canopy loading limits based on licenses to keep the people with 39 jumps off Stiletto 97's until they get training. If you want to jump small canopies with low experience levels you have to take a course; once you take the course you can jump whatever you want.

[konradptr 0]

Ok, if everyone wants me to get worked up and then start typing, here I go...

Some people are better canopy pilots than others. Some have experience in flying aircraft, some people have graduate degrees in aerospace, some are just non-agressive, and some just aren't smart.

I have never had a friend go in or break a femur because of a small canopy they "shouldn't" be under.

But the thing that drives me crazy is the desire to impliment more legislation, (read as sign away liberty for security) to take responsibility and accountablity away from senior jumpfriends and DZO/STAs. When I had 150 jumps, I wanted to jump a larger Crossfire. Icarus sent it to me, I was ready to go, but the DZO put an end to that. He knew me, knew my ability, but was a dick, so told me that I can't jump it at his DZ. Do I think I could have done it? Absolutely! Had the DZO ever watched a landing of mine with my Sabre2? No. Who was on every canopy landing, and who wants Peter to not femur in and/or die, most of all? PETER!!!

There are jumpers at my DZ that have incredible canopy skills far before average, and those that have no canopy skills way after the average. I am not taking anything away from the jumpers with thousands of jumps. You have had friends on small canopies before they should have, and some might have been hurt or killed. And I respect your opinion. This is, however, mine.

However, when you legislate something like wingloading, and blindly apply that to skydivers in general, it seems foolish to me. And would I be able to jump the same wingloading in Florida during the winter, as in Denver (5500') during the hottest part of summer? Or do you have some complicated formula to determine what I would or wouldn't be able to jump?

I understand that it isn't good PR, in the very least, to have low-timers going to the hospital weekly, and have a first name relaationship with the paramedics and fire crews. But do we need any more rules to blindly dictate what senior jumpfriends and/or DZO/STAs should be on the lookout for?

BTW, at my DZ, who are the people that were femuring in last summer? I can't remember for sure, but seems like all 4 were staff members, and all had 1000+ jumps...

Bring it on...

Peter

------------------------------------------
Getting banned isn't that bad......

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Ok, if everyone wants me to get worked up and then start typing, here I go...

I don't want you to get all worked up. I don't know who does either.

Quote

Some people are better canopy pilots than others. Some have experience in flying aircraft, some people have graduate degrees in aerospace, some are just non-agressive, and some just aren't smart.

And the proposed BSR takes this into account. If someone doesn't need the training and wants to exceed to wing loading limits, they should have no problem testing out.

Quote

I have never had a friend go in or break a femur because of a small canopy they "shouldn't" be under.

So of all your friends that have femured, they should have been under the canopy they were under? Isn't that illogical? If it wasn't the canopy or lack of training/education, what was it?

Quote

But the thing that drives me crazy is the desire to impliment more legislation, (read as sign away liberty for security) to take responsibility and accountablity away from senior jumpfriends and DZO/STAs. When I had 150 jumps, I wanted to jump a larger Crossfire. Icarus sent it to me, I was ready to go, but the DZO put an end to that. He knew me, knew my ability, but was a dick, so told me that I can't jump it at his DZ. Do I think I could have done it? Absolutely! Had the DZO ever watched a landing of mine with my Sabre2? No. Who was on every canopy landing, and who wants Peter to not femur in and/or die, most of all? PETER!!!

The "senior jump friends and DZO's and S & TA's" system doesn't work. That is how wwe got to where we are.

Quote

There are jumpers at my DZ that have incredible canopy skills far before average, and those that have no canopy skills way after the average. I am not taking anything away from the jumpers with thousands of jumps. You have had friends on small canopies before they should have, and some might have been hurt or killed. And I respect your opinion. This is, however, mine.

The ones w/ above average skill shouldn't have a problem testing out and a bit of training and education never hurt anyone. The ones with below average skills shouldn't be on small canopies and should receive canopy training and education.

Quote

However, when you legislate something like wingloading, and blindly apply that to skydivers in general, it seems foolish to me. And would I be able to jump the same wingloading in Florida during the winter, as in Denver (5500') during the hottest part of summer? Or do you have some complicated formula to determine what I would or wouldn't be able to jump?

We legislate pull altitudes, "blindly applying that to skydivers in general". Is that foolish? Where was your outrage when "A" license pull altitude was raised? No, the wing loading limits wouldn't change by region, same as pull altitudes don't change by region. You are falling faster at pull time here in CO during the summer, should we change the BSR's to to include a complicated formula to accommodate DA into minimum pull altitudes?

Quote

I understand that it isn't good PR, in the very least, to have low-timers going to the hospital weekly, and have a first name relaationship with the paramedics and fire crews. But do we need any more rules to blindly dictate what senior jumpfriends and/or DZO/STAs should be on the lookout for?

Yes, because they are not, for the most part, doing it now. If the system wasn't broken, this BSR would never have been proposed. You yourself were a victim of the broken system when the DZO wouldn't allow you to jump the smaller canopy. I think in the future more DZ's will institute wing loading caps for everyone, such as a DZ in KS did and I do not want to see that happen.

Quote

BTW, at my DZ, who are the people that were femuring in last summer? I can't remember for sure, but seems like all 4 were staff members, and all had 1000+ jumps...

And if they had had better canopy training and education when they had 1-500 jumps they would have been much less likely to femur with 1000+ jumps.

Quote

Bring it on...

What's your solution?

Hook

[Rooster 0]

I see more lawmakers in front of me.
While I see the issues of parachutists getting killed or injured under canopy due to low turns, I don't see that it justifies creating a bsr at this time. Drop Zones must be responsible, Instructors must be responsible, and ultimately the Parachutist must be responsible. Most of the low turn deaths I have seen in parachutist magazine have been skydivers with more than enough jumps for a D license. People will constantly find new and innovative ways to kill themselves. This is a dangerous sport. Yes I said dangerous, not hazardous, or 'safer than driving in your car', if you choose to fly a high performance canopy you increase the risks of injury or death quite noticeably. Restricting people to a wingloading just creates a bsr that is inconvenient, a waste of money and time to put into place, and not very useful. It isn't a person with 45 jumps that is turning themself into the ground under a 75 xaos. For goodness sakes people use your noodles here. I'm not saying that there is no danger of an inexperienced skydiver finding themself under a canopy that is too small for them, there is of course, but those around them need to be responsible skydivers.
I will say just this. Be careful of what you wish for it may just come back and bite you in your *&&.
More useless rules pave way to more still...