What do YOU think USPA should do?

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Who would determine this?
What criteria would we be using?

Those are simple: USPA would define it using some criteria most people agree on. It is the same with camera jumps: why do you suggested to have minimum 200 jumps before jumping a camera, and not 190 or 300?

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

I don't believe judgment can be taught - it is achieved through experience (often bad experiences).

According to the Princeton on-line dictionary; "Judgment is the cognitive process of reaching a decision or drawing conclusions."

IMO that can be done one of two ways. 1) as you state, "through [often bad] experience," or 2) proactive education. In either case, it is education. The question is; can one afford to learn from their own bad experience if the result of learning is fatal? What have others learned from these fatalities?

Dr. Kallend - You're the man who gave us a computer model that taught exit order to an entire industry. How many lives did you save by demonstrating the FF'ers should get out after BF'ers? Between yourself, Billvon, and Winsor, shattered the notion of a 45 degree rule and taught us it was wrong.

I know you saved my life at least once when my four way refused to get on the plane over the ff'ers protest of, "we always do it this way" and we pointed them to your model. Because you taught us, we learned and exercised judgement. Because we exercised judgement based on your educating us - they learned and are now exercising judgement.

John, sometimes I just don't get you. An educator opposed to education who's demonstrated education works and can save lives.

Princeton's dictionary can say whatever it wishes. While one can certainly teach decision making skills, I do NOT equate that with good judgment. Judgment includes not only knowing the right thing to do, but actually doing it too.

...

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

[BIGUN 1,317]

Can't argue with that one bit.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[Pulse 0]

Quote

Quote

Who would determine this?
What criteria would we be using?

Those are simple: USPA would define it using some criteria most people agree on. It is the same with camera jumps: why do you suggested to have minimum 200 jumps before jumping a camera, and not 190 or 300?

That's a good question. I don't know who or what they are basing that judgement on. I find 200 jumps for camera flying a bit low, but that's a whole other thread.

My question is the 'definition' of high performance has changed over a fairly short period. So if we were to take what may be considered 'high performance' now. People would still be getting killed. Then again, if we took the definition of 'high performance from 12 years ago, it would definitely lower the deathrate but would piss off a lot of jumpers who thought they had conservative wing loadings.

"Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Can't argue with that one bit.

Yup.

The entire advertizing industry depends on manipulating people's actions by appeal to emotion rather than logic.

...

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

[Broke 0]

TK you do bring up some very good points.

When we examine the two incidents that spurred this thread you can consider that these two people were very experiances skydivers who, "Knew what they were doing." According to many sources.

Which brings us back to the addage that new skydivers get injured because they do not know what they are doing, and experianced skydivers get injured because they think they know what they are doing.

Instead of making standards for canopy piloting perhaps more jumpers should try to get the canopy control courses hosted by their local DZ. I for one would love to take either the Scott Miller course, or the Brian Germain Course. Unfortunatly I would need to go away to a DZ that is hosting the event.

Divot your source for all things Hillbilly.
Anvil Brother 84
SCR 14192

[polarbear 1]

Quote

When we examine the two incidents that spurred this thread you can consider that these two people were very experiances skydivers who, "Knew what they were doing."

This is something that really needs to be hammered home. Whatever education, recommendations, guidelines, or rules USPA might decide to implement, the jumpers in these situations surely would have met those standards. They simply made a bad choice at a critical time.

I'm really in favor of the grass roots idea. Let's face it, not all DZ's are the same. In some cases, segregating the landing areas works, but not all DZs have the real estate to do that. In some cases, having the HP guys doing hop n' pops is the hot ticket, but again, not all DZs will do that...if they are running multiple planes, for instance. What has to happen here is each DZ has to find something that works for them, AND THEN MAKE SURE THAT ALL JUMPERS ARE THOROUGHLY BRIEFED ON THAT PLAN. I emphasized the last line becasue most of my dropzone went to Eloy for the holiday boogie and NONE of us received any kind of breifing whatsoever regarding high performance landing procedures. To me, that means there was no plan - it was just a free-for all.

That last stement was not meant to imply that the DZ is at fault...they're not. All I am trying to say is that in order for traffic to flow smoothly there has to be a plan that everybody knows, recognizes, and follows. In the abseb\nce of a plan, you have Chaos, and Chaos will eventually produce collisions.

These accidents have been picked too death in other threads, but one factor I'd like to point out is that they ocurred at a boogie...i.e., when there were a bunch of people in the sky who didn't usually jump together. Most swoopers are predictable in their patterns, but if you don't jump with them regularly, it's hard to recognize that predictability.

One fairly simple thing that can be done at any DZ is for each load to take the time to discuss amongst themselves what kind of canopies people are flying, what types of approaches they are doing, and then plan the dive to accomodate everybody. As a swooper who makes big turns, the safest environments I have flown in when there is traffic have occured when someone took the time on the ground to find out what everybody was doing after opening. "Who's landing in such-and-such landing area?" "What kind of canopy are you flying?" "What colors are that canopy?" What type of approach are you doing?" After asking those questions, you then go around and say "Well, maybe I'll pull a little high and let you land first" or "Maybe I'll plan on landing in a different landing area" or whatever else is necessary. It's especially important to do this when you have people jumping together that aren't used to jumping together, and thus can't recognize what everybody else is doing.

We already take the time on the ground to ask each other what we plan to do in freefall. We do that so we can form a plan as to how to not collide with each other in freefall. Why not do the same thing for canopy work? Of course, it isn't a complete fix, but it at least alows for the formulation of a plan. At least each jumper would know ahead of time what's coming.

"Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

[tspillers 0]

Q, I will discuss my opinions wiht you more in Reno. There are many good ideas here.

Canopy education:
There are many excellent sources out there like Scott Miller, Flight 1, etc. I think many DZ's are eductating their jumpers more. Low turn fatalities are ony 1/3 of the total (down from 1/2). This needs to continue to improve. The coaches and instructors in many cases need to learn more about teaching canopy skills. Scott does an Instructor course for DZ's and I imagine others do as well.

Manufacturers:
I think many of them do care. PD's new dealer agreement hold dealer's accountable for verifying some skill level of their customer to insure proper canopy sale. I know there could be many holes here, but it is a start and a great stand.

Ultimately, the grass roots has to come into play. How many "rules" and "recommendations" are ignored at some DZ's now. USPA needs to coninue to work to provide the tools, but the individual (DZ, S&TA, Instructor, Jumper, etc) has to implement them.

Todd

I am not totally useless, I can be used as a bad example.

[dharma1976 0]

I think what has happened a lot is that peoples peers are taking an interest in their fellows...

I have grabbed a few guys and talked with them not at them, it seems to help somewhat...some have even thanked me for it.

the other aspect is to give people things that they need to work on like pattern work when they need it...

I myself have a huge problem with right hand turns in left hand patterns and left hand turns in right hand patterns...

I hate them with such a passion that I do a right hand pattern to left hand turn

instead of turning blind back into the pattern

Cheers

Dave

http://www.skyjunky.com

CSpenceFLY - I can't believe the number of people willing to bet their life on someone else doing the right thing.

[PWScottIV 0]

Having just completed AFF and obtaining my A-License this weekend, I am amazed at how little canopy training I received. So, just to start, I think canopy skills should be emphasized from the beginning. Then, and I know I'm probably gonna get flamed for saying it, but I think there should be REQUIRED Training and/or Tests to prove one's abilities for particular wing loading thresholds. So, for example, when someone wants to downsize to say 1.5, they would either have to pass a proficiency test or take training courses that would prepare them to the test. The test/training could focus on skills that would help keep them and other jumpers safe while exploring the limits of the canopy's performance range.

I think it would also be a good idea to have currency standards that are directly related to the performance characteristics of ones canopy... If someone was very current and at a wing loading of say 2.4, and then took a year off, they wouldn't be able to jump that canopy without passing some sort of proficiency tests, or receive re-training if required...

I know my experience is pretty damn limited, but it just seems weird how there's no regulation at all for one of the things that's killing the most. Motorcycle riders have to wear helmets now because riding without one was a big killer, and I doubt many people think that's a bad idea... Why does it seem like such a bad idea to regulate canopy performance based on demonstrated proficiency???

Gravity Waits for No One.

[billvon 2,995]

>So, just to start, I think canopy skills should be emphasized
>from the beginning. Then, and I know I'm probably gonna get flamed
>for saying it, but I think there should be REQUIRED Training and/or Tests
>to prove one's abilities for particular wing loading thresholds.

Many of us have been saying this for years. Personally, I think every license level should have demonstration of HP canopy skills required. If a jumper doesn't want to do them, they can get a restricted license, just like they can now. But errors under canopy are the #1 killer of skydivers today; more training might help reduce those numbers.

[mnskydiver688 0]

Although I am very new to the sport I have developed some opinions. A major thing I have noticed with skydiving that I haven't with my other sports is the lack of skills awareness. Being aware of ones limits is crucial. Skydiving can appear to have a very steep learning curve. This translates into internal pressures within a skydiver to get to an "acceptable" or "trendy" skill level. This can cause one to over-estimate their ability or take undo risks. While training I believe is incredibly crucial self awareness of ability is almost more important. As in any sport training can only do so much. Making someone feel comfortable with their present skill level and instill the value of practice and reasonable increases in risk. The part the USPA could play is to include this idea and really promote it in current training programs. Start pushing this very early in the training of a new skydiver. Have a training structure that re-enforces these ideals over and over again. Know yourself, know your ability, know your limits, and know how to safely become a better skydiver.

Sky Canyon Wingsuiters