Wingload BSR take 2

[billvon 3,058]

>I don't see that it justifies creating a bsr at this time.

How about just an addition to the SIM, not a BSR? List it in the "classification of skydivers" section instead of the BSR section. That way, DZ's can choose whether or not to enforce it.

>Most of the low turn deaths I have seen in parachutist magazine
>have been skydivers with more than enough jumps for a D license.

In 2001, there were 3 'intentional' low turns that resulted in fatalities; they all had over 500 jumps. (I am excluding equipment failures.) There were 5 unintentional low turn fatalities. Of them, 4 had under 500 jumps. So in 2001, it was 4 and 4 (below and above the new D license level.)

In 2002, there were 7 intentional, 2 unintentional. Of all of those, 2 had over 500 and 7 had under 500. So in 2000, there were 7 under-D-license fatalities and 2 over-D-license fatalities.

So in the past 2 years there have been 6 low turn fatalities over the D license level and 11 under the D license level. (Note that I'm using the new D license level because that's what's in the proposal.)

>It isn't a person with 45 jumps that is turning themself into the
> ground under a 75 xaos.

People with 39 jumps are trying to buy Stiletto 97's today. So that's where it's headed. Right now it's people with 200 jumps or so jumping 1.6 to 1 loadings who are getting killed.

>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.

Well, it could have saved the lives of 13 people over the past two years. A small part of that is that jumpers might be restricted from jumping small canopies, but that's not the point of the rule. The real objective is that since they can "opt out" of any rules by simply taking a canopy control class, they will be better trained when they get the smaller canopy. And only good training will allow tomorrow's 100 jump wonders to jump 1.8 to 1 Velocities.

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

Well, it could have saved the lives of 13 people over the past two years.

It's disingenuous to make claims like this about the various WL BSRs proposed here and elsewhere. It could have cost the lives of 13 additional people too... key word being could.

nathaniel

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[mustard 0]

Quote

A small part of that is that jumpers might be restricted from jumping small canopies, but that's not the point of the rule. The real objective is that since they can "opt out" of any rules by simply taking a canopy control class, they will be better trained when they get the smaller canopy.

Getting ready to go to the BOD meeting and talk with my fellow S&T members about this issue -- there are two things that bother me about a Wingloading BSR:

(1) Culture! The current culture of swooping has taken a huge turn for (in my opinion) the worse: look at the cover of the July Parachutist. What does a young 20-year-old guy who can't make his Sabre2 150 do what that guy is doing want? A smaller canopy! The culture of skydiving is changing rapidly, and young testosterone-driven males are not going to take any kind of regulation lightly. They are going to resist and see USPA taking something away from them because *they* can handle it.

(2) What is the "opt out" option, really? It's coming up with something that can be implemented at every DZ that has skydivers wanting to downsize. That's every one of the abovemention males. Who is going to do this "testing" and what criteria are they going to use? If every DZ had a billvon or a Skratch or a hooknswoop, this issue would not be so huge. But it is. I don't know how we would get around the buddy S&TA who signs off his friend to jump whatever he wants becauses he doesn't want to see him go to the DZ down the road.

These two issues are paramount in my mind right now, because I'm willing to bet these are the ones we will be discussing for most of the three days we're together. And what will be decided? Some kind of field testing, some kind of compromise, I'm betting...

***
DJan

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

(1) Culture! The current culture of swooping has taken a huge turn for (in my opinion) the worse: look at the cover of the July Parachutist. What does a young 20-year-old guy who can't make his Sabre2 150 do what that guy is doing want? A smaller canopy! The culture of skydiving is changing rapidly, and young testosterone-driven males are not going to take any kind of regulation lightly. They are going to resist and see USPA taking something away from them because *they* can handle it.

Exactly the reason the BSR should be put in place.

Quote

(2) What is the "opt out" option, really? It's coming up with something that can be implemented at every DZ that has skydivers wanting to downsize. That's every one of the abovemention males. Who is going to do this "testing" and what criteria are they going to use? If every DZ had a billvon or a Skratch or a hooknswoop, this issue would not be so huge. But it is. I don't know how we would get around the buddy S&TA who signs off his friend to jump whatever he wants becauses he doesn't want to see him go to the DZ down the road.

A set of skills that can be demonstrated to the S & TA or I/E. Same idea as the PRO rating requirements, but different skills. The S & TA system is broken, which is partially the reason low experience jumpers are jumping too small of canopies.

There is no perfect solution. I have heard the BSR/education/training/test-out proposal criticized from every corner. What I haven't heard is a better idea.

Hook

[mikkey 0]

Quote

There is no perfect solution. I have heard the BSR/education/training/test-out proposal criticized from every corner. What I haven't heard is a better idea.

I live outside the US, but I am following this discussion with great interest as the WL issue is a problem around the world.

I know most Yanks think that nothing of interest exists outside Gods own country - but while you guys are discussing this so passionately and are looking for ideas - why are you not looking outside your own backyard and use some of the experience gathered in other countries? To my knowledge rules and regulations in regard to canopy sizes and WL's exist in most European countries. I sit at the other end of the world and have no idea about the detail and how well it works. It may be of use for the discussion in the US to make a list that shows:

Country, Regulation, time since implementation, implementation issues, effect on injury / fatality rate, general feed back.
Dz.com has users in most countries and they may be able to compile some of the data.

I fully understand that European style regulations would never be acceptable in the US, but I think some of the experience with the regulations could help you in your search for a workable solution for the US.

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[billvon 3,058]

> The culture of skydiving is changing rapidly, and young
>testosterone-driven males are not going to take any kind of
>regulation lightly. They are going to resist and see USPA taking
> something away from them because *they* can handle it.

While I think the perceived danger of many activities is going down (and thus changing the risks we, as skydivers, take) I think that the testosterone-driven males have been with us for a long time, and always will be here. It was once low pull contests, then it was 4-way, then it was freeflying. Now the new way to push the envelope is with a small canopy. USPA "took away" the low pull contests; I think that was a good decision. I would hope that whatever path we take with the canopy control training issue is determined by what keeps the most people alive and uncrippled with the minimum of invasive rules, rather than what will placate the aforementioned 20 year olds. I know it's politically incorrect to say this, but I think people like you (and Jan, and Scott Smith etc) know more about keeping this sport both safe and relatively unregulated than a 20 year old guy with 200 jumps.

>Who is going to do this "testing" and what criteria are they going to use?

USPA criteria, as observed by an I, an S+TA or a canopy control coach. Turn X degrees during the flare. Initiate a flare with rear risers. Land crosswind without turning. Land in an X meter circle Y times; we already have a similar requirement for licensing already. The details will have to be hammered out, but essentially demonstrating the basics of canopy control.

> I don't know how we would get around the buddy S&TA who signs off
>his friend to jump whatever he wants becauses he doesn't want to see
>him go to the DZ down the road.

I would suggest that these are the same issues we face with water training now - but by and large water training works. Also, I think S+TA's realize that canopy safety is a very big issue nowadays, and will be very reluctant to sign someone off who is clearly a hazard.

[wiz 0]

I am a newbie to the sport...I only have 19 jumps and still have 2 or 3 jumps before I meet all the "A" requirements. I know that this all is a bunch of stuff that I really don't know a lot about yet, but I have an opinion. I hope someone replies to let me know if I am an idiot or if they agree. I'm 220 and my buddy that has been jumping with me (also 19 times) is 180. He started at 280 and downsized to a 235 and couldn't handle his landing. I started jumping a 300+ and have been consistently downsizing. Last weekend (when my buddy flopped) I used a 245 at a DZ I'd never been to before and had no problem sticking my upwind leg. (Even threw in a baby hook turn, mad props to me.)

I believe that some people (as far as I know...larger) can handle larger ratios better. I watch skinny B and C guys unable to handle 1:1 canopies and I don't think a canopy like that would bother me.

maybe I'm crazy

Waving off,
jeff.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

I only have 19 jumps

Quote

((Even threw in a baby hook turn, mad props to me.)

Quote

I don't think a canopy like that would bother me.

Wiz, I don't think you are an idiot at all. In fact, you remind me of me when I had 19 jumps. But you did make a point for me. You don't know what you don't know, yet.

A 100 sq. ft. canopy loaded at 1:1 out-performs a 200 sq. ft. canopy loaded at 1:1.

Hook

[skr 1]

Hi Derek - I'm responding to your post because it is
at the end of the thread, this isn't aimed at you.

I've been following these threads, but I can't sort
out what I think, it seems like a very complex issue.

For one thing ignorant downsizing for swooping and/or
fashion is a separate issue from the canopy skills
needed by all jumpers, and both areas need a lot
of attention.

The good news is that maybe the number of people
thinking about this is reaching some kind of critical mass.


I hope USPA takes what you guys have been saying
and comes up with some possible guidelines and puts
them in Parachutist for field testing and feedback.

Something this complicated needs testing and feedback
before it even becomes a recommendation.

DJan tells me that she has gotten 6 or 7 emails on this.
I guess that's about average.

I remember when the first version of the ISP came out
for comment a few years ago. It was about 35 lbs of
SIM Sludge and it was a terrible experience plowing
through it, but after putting it off for a couple months,
I bit the bullet and sent a long reply back to the S & T
committee.

They used quite a bit of it. I found out later that 11 other
people had sent something in. I know that there were
a hell of a lot more than 12 people pissing and moaning
about it after it came out.

So if you guys want to make a difference send your stuff
in before it gets to the SIM Sludge stage :-) :-)


One thing I agree with John on is that I'm not sure we
have delved deeply enough into root causes. All the
death and injury is a symptom, and ignorant downsizing
is a link in the chain, but why are people doing this?


What's the cool image the skydiving world is presenting
to the young and restless mostly male skydiver?

Is it the unbearably cool guy on the cover of the last
Parachutist, swooping across the lily covered pond,
hands casually draped in the toggles, headed toward
the crowd of bikini clad Victoria's Secret models
eagerly awaiting his arrival on the far shore?


One of my early reactions was the old Sport Death
model. Jumpers at the Gulch got tired of people
persistantly doing stupid stuff and getting killed and
they started calling them on it.

So it would be a campaign something like: "Hey, kid,
swooping is cool, but if you go out and downsize
before you're ready, and splatter your ass across
my landscape, we won't be shedding any tears.
We'll piss on your grave and laugh at your memory."


But really, we all know that reward works better than
punishment, so we need to create the image that the
people who are looked up to are the ones who went
about downsizing and swooping in this step by step,
training course after training course manner that will
eventually emerge.

Other activities have the concept of starting at the
beginner level and working your way toward the
higher levels.


In my ideal universe it would be the most accomplished
swoopers creating this mental framework, but it's probably
up to USPA to start the ball rolling.

Skr

[sducoach 0]

DJan,
You sure married a smart guy..............
Carry on Skratch, I'm with ya.

Blues,

J.E.

Hook,

Please explain how a 100SF canopy at 1:1 out performs any other canopy of the same planform at 1:1.

Wing loading equals speed, Performance is relative to the planform and your perception.

Blues,

J.E.

James 4:8

[Hooknswoop 19]

The smaller the canopy, the shorter the lines, so it will turn faster. Also, the smaller canopy has less drag than the larger canopy.

Check out:

http://www.performancedesigns.com/docs/wingload.pdf

III C

Hook

[Ron 10]

Quote

The smaller the canopy, the shorter the lines, so it will turn faster. Also, the smaller canopy has less drag than
the larger canopy.

Yes, but I always thought the larger canopy at the same wingload would fly faster due to the lines, and the pilot not being "scaled" as well.

But I do know that a smaller canopy will turn faster.

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

[Hooknswoop 19]

The larger canopy creates a lot more drag, from the area of the canopy, frontal area and surface drag, and the longer lines are a source of drag.

Hook

[craddock 0]

***A 100 sq. ft. canopy loaded at 1:1 out-performs a 200 sq. ft. canopy loaded at 1:1[/quote

This appears to be a statement of fact. How do you define "outperforms"? A faster turn rate? I will agree with that due to the shorter lines of the smaller canopy. As far as swoop distance is concerned, a larger canopy at an equal loading will some times outswoop(outperform) a smaller one. It may also be easier to carve due to the larger wing.

Some jumpers wear weights rather than jump a smaller canopy in competition.


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

This appears to be a statement of fact. How do you define "outperforms"? A faster turn rate? I will agree with that due to the shorter lines of the smaller canopy. As far as swoop distance is concerned, a larger canopy at an equal loading will some times outswoop(outperform) a smaller one. It will also be easier to carve due to the larger wing. This is why some jumpers wear weights rather than jump a smaller canopy in competition.

Faster turns, quicker response in flare, longer recovery arc, faster speed.

Check out:

http://www.performancedesigns.com/docs/wingload.pdf

Hook

[Shotgun 1]

I very much agree that something needs to be done about the wingloading issue, either at the USPA level, the individual DZ level, or both. Right now it seems to be one of the most dangerous aspects of our sport...

To me the main issue is not the particular jumper's safety (who chooses to jump a smaller canopy than they are ready for), but the safety of the other jumpers - and spectators - around them. It seems that a lot of these jumpers don't even realize that they are putting everyone else in danger. I myself have almost been hit in the landing area by someone who was out of control on a canopy that they never should have been on in the first place, and I know of at least one tragic canopy collision that was directly caused by an out-of-control jumper on too small of a canopy for his experience level.

It has always been surprising to me that the DZ does not take action to stop this kind of behavior, especially here at Perris where they are so safety-conscious in most regards (and I am at fault for not having brought this up to the management, but I guess I should). There should definitely be some sort of system for determining who is capable of flying a canopy at a high wingloading and who is not. And here at Perris there is plenty of room for having another landing area (far away from the main landing area) for potential high-wingloaders to "prove themselves".

I realize this is a very complicated issue and the more "rules" you make the more you may become liable... But I am very glad to see it is being discussed, and I would definitely support more regulation - not because I believe in forcing people to look out for their own safety, but because I believe that I and everyone else on the DZ should not have our safety compromised by jumpers on dangerously fast canopies beyond their skill level.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

The smaller the canopy, the shorter the lines, so it will turn faster. Also, the smaller canopy has less drag than the larger canopy.

Check out:

http://www.performancedesigns.com/docs/wingload.pdf

This is an excellent point that a lot of people don't seem to know about... especially when it comes to larger guys recommending canopies for small girls. PD has some excellent educational articles that every skydiver should read. (one of those articles is where my signature line came from)
Edited to say: I guess this subject is off-topic (sorry), but would make for a good separate topic...

[Shark 0]

Quote

PD has some excellent educational articles that every skydiver should read.

Anyone who is in SoCal should plan to attend the canopy seminars during
"Bridge the Gap." It has already been held this year, but if you get a chance, you should plan on attending the seminars by John LeBlanc next year. Look for the article in an upcoming issue of Parachutist.

[Zenister 0]

just wondering if you'd looked at the numbers to get a rough idea of how small the chance you or another spectator has of being injured by another skydiver is??

canopy education is certainly something everyone could benefit from and should have, but using arguments such as this, and "but what about the children" (which isnt far off from your current one) dont do much to portray the fact that far more people are in control of thier canopies and flying safely than the unfortunate injuries that have happened.

does anyone really go to the DZ and look around thinking "that guy could kill me, or that guy, or that guy??"

without clear evidence of an impending danger to the majority of participants regulation requiring education is unwarranted. That in no way means we should not develop classes, teach students better from the start and promote further education as you progress in a manner that is less draconian.

again without clear evidence of impending doom to the majority....

Freedom is more important than safety.

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Freedom is more important than safety

I think this is the "root cause" of why we disagree.

If this is what you believe, I again ask you, where was the uproar when the "A" license pull altitude BSR was changed?

I find it interesting that no one is willing to answer that question.

Hook

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

just wondering if you'd looked at the numbers to get a rough idea of how small the chance you or another spectator has of being injured by another skydiver is??

Just from my own experience I would say that the chances are higher than they should be. While USPA has fatality statistics, I don't believe they keep *injury* statistics (anyone, please correct me if I'm wrong) - since injury reports are not required to be reported to them from the individual DZ's. (Therefore I don't know any "numbers" to look at it.)

I do think this would be better left up to the individual DZ's than to have a BSR (although I think BSR's are only recommendations anyway???). That way, those of us who choose can go to the DZ's that are known for higher safety standards, and those who want more "freedom" can go elsewhere...

Quote

far more people are in control of thier canopies and flying safely than the unfortunate injuries that have happened.

I do agree that the large majority of jumpers are in control of their canopies, but in my experience there are enough jumpers who are not in control (almost always those who are trying to downsize too fast), that it is a situation that needs to be addressed.

Quote

does anyone really go to the DZ and look around thinking "that guy could kill me, or that guy, or that guy??"

Well unfortunately, since I was very nearly injured by an "out of control" jumper on a canopy too small for his skill, I do now find myself taking stock of who is on the plane with me and if there are any "questionable" jumpers on the load then I intentionally stay as far away from them as I can, sometimes landing far away from the main landing area and making the long walk back - I guess you could call it "defensive skydiving", which to a degree is certainly a good thing, but it shouldn't be necessary for me to have to be that concerned about who is being allowed to land in the main landing area.

Quote

regulation requiring education is unwarranted

If we didn't have regulations requiring education then anyone could walk on to any DZ and jump out of a plane with absolutely NO experience. Some education needs to be required, and canopy skills have been a long overlooked aspect of required education.

Quote

Freedom is more important than safety.

Well I can't say I agree with that... But I am in no way suggesting that DZ's become Nazi's about it... I just think it needs a little more attention than it has been getting.

[Shark 0]

Quote

does anyone really go to the DZ and look around thinking "that guy could kill me, or that guy, or that guy??"

Being on staff and part of the landing police, yes. It's not like we seek them out, but they make themselves highly visible and noticable. The jumper-in-question is more of a danger to himself, rather than to others. He's already been approached by the S&TA and was a little defensive. I'm taking a different approach with said jumper and making suggestions based on what I've witnessed. Sort of a debrief to this <60 jump skydiver.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

One thing I agree with John on is that I'm not sure we
have delved deeply enough into root causes. All the
death and injury is a symptom, and ignorant downsizing
is a link in the chain, but why are people doing this?


What's the cool image the skydiving world is presenting
to the young and restless mostly male skydiver?

Is it the unbearably cool guy on the cover of the last
Parachutist, swooping across the lily covered pond,
hands casually draped in the toggles, headed toward
the crowd of bikini clad Victoria's Secret models
eagerly awaiting his arrival on the far shore?


One of my early reactions was the old Sport Death
model. Jumpers at the Gulch got tired of people
persistantly doing stupid stuff and getting killed and
they started calling them on it.

So it would be a campaign something like: "Hey, kid,
swooping is cool, but if you go out and downsize
before you're ready, and splatter your ass across
my landscape, we won't be shedding any tears.
We'll piss on your grave and laugh at your memory."


But really, we all know that reward works better than
punishment, so we need to create the image that the
people who are looked up to are the ones who went
about downsizing and swooping in this step by step,
training course after training course manner that will
eventually emerge.

Other activities have the concept of starting at the
beginner level and working your way toward the
higher levels.


In my ideal universe it would be the most accomplished
swoopers creating this mental framework, but it's probably
up to USPA to start the ball rolling.

I just had to repeat this because I agree with it SO much :-)

It would be a great idea to get some of the world's best swoopers to write some safety articles or give lectures about downsizing responsibly. We have some of the world's best swoopers at Perris, and I believe all of them downsized in a slow manner... so these are the folks who could have the most influence on those who want to fly small canopies.

Being a chick at the DZ, there is nothing more of a turn-off than some arrogant jumper trying to jump the smallest canopy in the shortest amount of time. Intelligence is much more attractive.

And, while the "out of control" jumpers make me concerned for my own saftey too, I do hate to see other people hurting themselves when it could be so easily avoided.

[rhino 0]

While freedom is important safety is definitely #1. It is a double edged sword.

I enjoy my freedom. I like the fact that I could get a vx60 if I wanted to. Will I? No. Because I have a brain.

Wingloading isn't killing people. Brain farts are.

Rhino

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

ust wondering if you'd looked at the numbers to get a rough idea of how small the chance you or another spectator has of being injured by another skydiver is??

It's odd how two people can look at the exact same numbers and come to wildly different conclusions.

There have been two people killed this year because of actions done by someone else who was completely or jointly responsible for the incident.

A jumper in lake wales was taken out by someone swooping, he died. Roger Nelson died after coliding with Todd Fey, and each takes part of the blame.

This is exactly my biggest fear right now, that people who choose not to take the added risk of swooping are having that risk forced upon them by those they jump with. This situation does not describe the incident at Skydive Chicago, but it does describe the one at Lake Wales. I worry that there will be more.

I wish more DZ's would go the way of dropzones like Perris that put their swoop pond FAR from their main landing area. Every DZ should have a swoop lane reserved for the swoopers. People should not be swooping in the same airspace as those who aren't. Even those people who want to swoop, but don't use the pond need to keep well away from those flying straight in approaches.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.