Wingload BSR take 2

[craddock 0]

Quote

Or just get canopy training, or prove to an S+TA that you are competent under that canopy. Then the restrictions don't apply to you

Can you remind me and please exuce my ignorance.... How will it be determined that the jumper has took a class? Stamp in log book? A certificate that needs to be carried around?

As I and many others have pointed out, it may be very tough to get an S+TA to waiver a jumper even if he feels comfortable with the wingloading. They may feel it could open the door for a lawsuit. Or they just do not want the responsibility. I really do not feel this is going to be as easy as some of you think( to get waivered without the class) Of course you may be counting on this?

Josh

That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Can you remind me and please exuce my ignorance.... How will it be determined that the jumper has took a class? Stamp in log book? A certificate that needs to be carried around?

TBD. A card, similar to the USPA membership card that is already carried, wouldn't put any undue inconvenience on a jumper. A logbook endorsement won't work, as the jumper may get a new logbook and the endorsement is in the old one. A DZ can already access the jumper's information on the USPA's web site and adding any waivers shouldn't be too difficult.

Quote

As I and many others have pointed out, it may be very tough to get an S+TA to waiver a jumper even if he feels comfortable with the wingloading. They may feel it could open the door for a lawsuit.

And letting you jump a canopy that you shouldn't means they are not doing their job.

Quote

Or they just do not want the responsibility.

If they don't want the responsibility, they shouldn't be S & TA's. That is part of the job of a Safety and Training Advisor.

Quote

I really do not feel this is going to be as easy as some of you think( to get waivered without the class) Of course you may be counting on this?

If it is, then there is a problem w/ the S &TA and it should be brought to the attention of the RD. I am not counting on this. I am an I/E, I'll sign off on the waiver, just show me you can handle it.

Hook

[billvon 2,990]

>Stamp in log book?

Or just a signature in a logbook, similar to how water training is handled.

>As I and many others have pointed out, it may be very tough to get
> an S+TA to waiver a jumper even if he feels comfortable with the
> wingloading.

It's up to the S+TA. He's seen the jumper land his parachute; he knows better than anyone else if he can really handle it. And if, through what he sees of the jumper's handling of the parachute, he's not confident he can handle it - then not getting the waiver is a good thing, in my book. He then has to get that training or more experience before he can jump a canopy that he appears to be unprepared for.

>They may feel it could open the door for a lawsuit. Or they just do
>not want the responsibility.

The alternative may be for DZO's to come up with inflexible rules to prevent the same lawsuits, as they are doing now.

[craddock 0]

Quote

If they don't want the responsibility, they shouldn't be S & TA's. That is part of the job of a Safety and Training Advisor

Depends how you define responsibility (although I should look up the actual respnsibility of the S+TA by definition) Legal responsibility? Many people fear civil lawsuits these days.

I also know some S+TA's that are completely against small canopies and I doubt they would sign anyone off regardless of their ability. Having to fly out to have someone like you sign the waiver would only prove my point. It may be difficult even for the talanted and skilled jumper.

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]

Quote

It's up to the S+TA. He's seen the jumper land his parachute; he knows better than anyone else if he can really handle it. And if, through what he sees of the jumper's handling of the parachute, he's not confident he can handle it - then not getting the waiver is a good thing, in my book. He then has to get that training or more experience before he can jump a canopy that he appears to be unprepared for.

You missed the point Bill. I was not talking about the S+TA that " through what he sees of the jumper's handling of the parachute, he's not confident he can handle it ". Not a bit ,in fact quite the opposite. Nevermind.

Quote

The alternative may be for DZO's to come up with inflexible rules to prevent the same lawsuits, as they are doing now.

It may be possible that this is a better option than putting the (assumed legal) responsibility on the S+TA. I don't know. I don't
Who has "come up with inflexible rules to prevent the same lawsuits"? I was not aware that fear of lawsuits had prompted this. I am interested to find out more however.
Are there many DZ's that have wingloading restrictions? I am only aware of one that would have affected me at anytime. I know of two total, but I never would have been allowed to jump at the other regardless of wingloading. There are several DZ's that I can not jump at because I do not wear an AAD.

Josh

That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

[billvon 2,990]

>It may be possible that this is a better option than putting the
>(assumed legal) responsibility on the S+TA.

As someone else stated, they have no official legal responsibility. The BSR's are not legally enforceable. They only have unofficial authority, and only to the extent that they are backed up by the DZO. An S+TA who 'allows' a jumper to jump something (or jump with a tandem, or land in a smaller than normal landing area, or jump without flotation gear) is not doing anything with any legal force. He's just saying "the DZO will allow you to do this." That's where his authority comes from.

>Are there many DZ's that have wingloading restrictions?

Two so far. I've heard of another three that were considering them.

[tbostick 0]

Your numbers look good, they really do (for the general masses anyway). But why would you ever want to do this? It's like helmet laws, and seatbelt laws. My only motivation to agree with you is that I think too many people are allured by the awe-factor, the rush, and false information. Month after month I keep reading about broken femurs, pelvis's, back's, death... from "perfectly good parachutes". I agree with your numbers, but I don't want to see them hit the BSR's.

-shane

[oosskis 0]

With the licensing revisions, this plan is a little too conservative. We in Canada have a licensing system similar to the one you will soon be implementing and I have 1200 jumps and am working on my D-License...
This BSR is a great idea, but I would recommend waiting until the licensing system has been updated in the US.
9-iron

"Bodygolfing" isn't as much fun as it sounds. People get pissed when you don't replace your divets.

[Designer 0]

Humm,not sure what Bri,s plan is all about.I could support this if it,s not "DZ POLICE".Open your rig so we can inspect your main kind of crap!

[jarrv4 0]

Just to remind everyone, this is directly out of the SIMS:

"Regardless of any statements made in any USPA publications, USPA has neither been given nor has it assumed any duty to anyone. USPA has no obligation to anyone concerning his or her skydiving activities."

J.

Go Team BELLAS!!!

[Ron 10]

Quote

Just to remind everyone, this is directly out of the SIMS:

"Regardless of any statements made in any USPA publications, USPA has neither been given nor has it
assumed any duty to anyone. USPA has no obligation to anyone concerning his or her skydiving
activities."

Please tell me where it says this...I mean they act that way, but I would like to see it in print.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[jarrv4 0]

The quote:

Quote

"Regardless of any statements made in any USPA publications, USPA has neither been given nor has it
assumed any duty to anyone. USPA has no obligation to anyone concerning his or her skydiving
activities."

Is from page 2 of the SIMS I downloaded from the USPA website.

J.

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

OK, after a few go arounds, let me present my idea for take 2:

First off, John Kallend had an objection to using arbitrary numbers that have no canopy skills tied to them. So the first change is to base it on license levels that DO have canopy skills (accuracy, primarily) associated with them. So we go from the Brian Germain plan to:

A license - 1 psf max
B license - 1.1 psf max
C license - 1.3 psf max
D license - no limit

This doesn't allow as much of a progression as the Brian Germain plan but does link the loadings to demonstrated skills.

Zenister had an objection that it should really be under the control of the S+TA, and should not be mandatory for absolutely everyone. So we make it the most waiverable of BSR's (type S) such that it can be waived by any S+TA or I/E. This still keeps the 30 jump wonders off Stiletto 97's, but gives newer jumpers TWO options to get out of the restriction - take a canopy control course or get the S+TA to waiver them. Since the S+TA is required to maintain a record that he waivered them, he will likely want to make sure that the jumper can actually land the canopy before putting his name on the waiver.

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.

Finally, we grandfather everyone with a small canopy for a year, so no one will be forced to sell their Stiletto and buy a PD230.

BUMP

Some good discussion in this thread.

...

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

[virgin-burner 1]

Quote

This is a move in the right direction. It would be even better if the license requirements involved more than just accuracy.

we got accuracy already in our student-progression..

but hey, not everyone is american that can be let in the air (and airspace) with others, uhm, licensed skydivers..

“Some may never live, but the crazy never die.”
-Hunter S. Thompson
"No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try."
-Yoda