WL of 1 for <C-License?

[BMAC615 209]

@chuckakers Has the USPA Safety committee or board ever voted on an initiative to require all jumpers below a C-License to jump a maximum WL of 1? 

Edited September 23, 2022 by BMAC615

[skypilotA1 67]

The answer is no. And I believe that will never happen. There may be recommendations, but never any rules or requirements telling a licensed skydiver what size canopy may be jumped.  In fact, if you look at the latest actions of the Safety & Training Committee, they developed & published a canopy sizing chart much like you described, very detailed and color coded. But it is a recommendation.  Skydivers are grown-ups and capable of making adult decisions, and taking responsibility for those decisions. The S&TA and DZOs certainly will suggest, recommend, and push a jumper toward appropriate canopies, but I don’t ever see the USPA Safety & Training committee deciding what canopy a skydiver must have. I should know, as I serve on the committee.

Paul Gholson, USPA Southern Regional Director 

[RolandForbes 44]

Doubtful, the USPA has no place telling non students what to wing load at. That falls under the pervue of the S&TA at your local DZ.

Edited September 23, 2022 by RolandForbes

[chuckakers 425]

15 hours ago, skypilotA1 said:

The answer is no. And I believe that will never happen. There may be recommendations, but never any rules or requirements telling a licensed skydiver what size canopy may be jumped.  In fact, if you look at the latest actions of the Safety & Training Committee, they developed & published a canopy sizing chart much like you described, very detailed and color coded. But it is a recommendation.  Skydivers are grown-ups and capable of making adult decisions, and taking responsibility for those decisions. The S&TA and DZOs certainly will suggest, recommend, and push a jumper toward appropriate canopies, but I don’t ever see the USPA Safety & Training committee deciding what canopy a skydiver must have. I should know, as I serve on the committee.

Paul Gholson, USPA Southern Regional Director 

As Paul said, USPA's position on wing loadings for licensed jumpers is to lend guidance through recommendations rather than dictate through ruling making.

[BMAC615 209]

Thanks for the clarification! @skypilotA1 & @chuckakers, what is the history and reasoning of raising minimum opening altitudes? I’ve been away for a while but thought it used to be 2k. Why is a waiver possible for C & D licenses?

Edited September 24, 2022 by BMAC615

[riggerrob 643]

The key word is "guidance."

In a country with too many ambulance-chasing lawyers, if USPA "orders" - but does not rigidly enforce - wing-loading limits, then they leave USPA open to lawsuits launched by wounded skydivers who exceeded USPA's orders. Those frivolous lawsuits can cost tens of thousands of dollars to defend or result in multi-million dollar judgements against a well-meaning USPA.

It is awkward the way that ambulance-chasing lawyers make policies so vague that they increase risks for junior jumpers.

[chuckakers 425]

On 9/23/2022 at 10:04 PM, BMAC615 said:

...what is the history and reasoning of raising minimum opening altitudes? I’ve been away for a while but thought it used to be 2k. Why is a waiver possible for C & D licenses?

The raising of the deployment altitude BSR took a while and was approached with much debate and consideration. Several factors contributed to the change:

Longer deployments have become the norm. The old altitude BSR's date back to the days of 7-cell F-111 canopies when 400 to 500 foot deployments were the norm and primarily only higher deploying students used AAD's. Many canopies today routinely take 900 to 1,000 feet to open and most experienced jumpers are AAD equipped. A simple math check shows that a 2,000 foot deployment on a canopy that takes 1,000 feet to open puts a jumper dangerously close to the AAD activation altitude, and puts the jumper AT the AAD activation altitude if anything delays the deployment (late p/c toss, burble hesitation, longer than normal opening, etc.)

Next, there has been an issue of long reserve deployments after AAD activations. The reason isn't completely clear - possibly p/c in the burble, long deployments after slow speed mal cutaways, p/c temporarily snagged on the jumper, etc. For this reason, some jumpers have adjusted their AAD's to fire higher than the factory setting. This in turn creates the above mentioned deployment altitude conflicts.

Less important but still part of the debate was exit altitude. On average, exit altitudes have gotten higher - much higher in many cases - over the years, and that has minimized - in the perception of many, anyway - the importance of humming it to minimums. I know a lot of skydivers and only know a few that routinely take it to the bottom unless they have to for traffic, big-way protocols, etc. In conversations I have personally had, almost no one was against raising deployment altitudes.

As for waivers, there are times when jumpers have to deploy lower than the BSR minimums. Demo's are an obvious example. There are many times when a cloud base is below minimums but still high enough to allow a safe jump by qualified jumpers, so a waiver makes sense.

There are probably nuances I have forgotten and anyone with a better memory than me are welcome to contribute.

Hope that answered your questions.

[BMAC615 209]

Appreciate the response, @chuckakers. I’m still not convinced the implementation of a WL restriction for A, B & C License holders is any different. Based on @riggerbob’s response, I can see why USPA refuses to implement such a policy.

[nwt 131]

2 hours ago, BMAC615 said:

Appreciate the response, @chuckakers. I’m still not convinced the implementation of a WL restriction for A, B & C License holders is any different. Based on @riggerbob’s response, I can see why USPA refuses to implement such a policy.

 

4 hours ago, chuckakers said:

In conversations I have personally had, almost no one was against raising deployment altitudes.

In the US it's popular to blame lawyers for just about anything and it may even be true much of the time, but even if what @riggerbob said is true, the above quote is plenty of a reason--it could easily be the difference between an unhappy @BMAC615 and the downfall of the organization. To so stubbornly refuse to acknowledge that is getting to be absurd.

[sfzombie13 324]

4 hours ago, nwt said:

 

 To so stubbornly refuse to acknowledge that is getting to be absurd.

if that is truly the case, and the reason the uspa isn't implementing wingloading recommendations is due to fear of being sued, then they very much need to stop pretending they care about safety. 

[wmw999 2,443]

59 minutes ago, sfzombie13 said:

if that is truly the case, and the reason the uspa isn't implementing wingloading recommendations is due to fear of being sued, then they very much need to stop pretending they care about safety. 

I disagree. If they care about safety and get sued enough to go out of existence, or even be severely curtailed, then their ongoing ability is diminished. The best result you can get is the one with the resources you actually have, not the ones you wish you had. 

We see fewer wingloading fatalities these days. Too many still, but fewer.

Wendy P. 

[chuckakers 425]

10 hours ago, nwt said:

 

In the US it's popular to blame lawyers for just about anything and it may even be true much of the time, but even if what @riggerbob said is true, the above quote is plenty of a reason--it could easily be the difference between an unhappy @BMAC615 and the downfall of the organization. To so stubbornly refuse to acknowledge that is getting to be absurd.

You quoted me, saying "In conversations I have personally had, almost no one was against raising deployment altitudes." and then replied with the above statement.

You may have misunderstood. When I said no one I spoke with was against raising the deployment altitude BSR, I meant jumpers, not USPA officials or anyone directly involved with such decisions.

 

[chuckakers 425]

6 hours ago, sfzombie13 said:

if that is truly the case, and the reason the uspa isn't implementing wingloading recommendations is due to fear of being sued, then they very much need to stop pretending they care about safety. 

Choosing not to implement a wingloading BSR has nothing to do with a fear of being sued. Potential litigation has never even been part of the conversation concerning wingloadings.

[riggerrob 643]

15 hours ago, chuckakers said:

" ... As for waivers, there are times when jumpers have to deploy lower than the BSR minimums. Demo's are an obvious example. There are many times when a cloud base is below minimums but still high enough to allow a safe jump by qualified jumpers, so a waiver makes sense. ...

There is a huge difference between a hop-and-pop at 2,000 feet versus a terminal deployment at 2,000 feet. The terminal deployment requires far more altitude before you have a fully-inflated canopy overhead.

For a BASE analogy, consider the difference in deploying 3 seconds after leaving a low object versus deploying 30 seconds after leaving a high object. Which eats up more altitude.

[chuckakers 425]

8 minutes ago, riggerrob said:

There is a huge difference between a hop-and-pop at 2,000 feet versus a terminal deployment at 2,000 feet. The terminal deployment requires far more altitude before you have a fully-inflated canopy overhead.

For a BASE analogy, consider the difference in deploying 3 seconds after leaving a low object versus deploying 30 seconds after leaving a high object. Which eats up more altitude.

Of course. No need for a BASE analogy. The concept you are referring to is equally relevant in both sports.

I mentioned demo jumps purely as an example.

[nwt 131]

16 hours ago, sfzombie13 said:

if that is truly the case, and the reason the uspa isn't implementing wingloading recommendations is due to fear of being sued, then they very much need to stop pretending they care about safety. 

I meant the opposite, that fear of being sued is not the reason they haven't done this. The reason is that if they start doing things that are unpopular enough among jumpers they will cease to exist.

15 hours ago, wmw999 said:

If they care about safety and get sued enough to go out of existence, or even be severely curtailed, then their ongoing ability is diminished. The best result you can get is the one with the resources you actually have, not the ones you wish you had. 

Exactly. It's not the thought that counts here--if USPA goes out of business, they're dead and no longer able to care about safety or anything else.

10 hours ago, chuckakers said:

You quoted me, saying "In conversations I have personally had, almost no one was against raising deployment altitudes." and then replied with the above statement.

You may have misunderstood. When I said no one I spoke with was against raising the deployment altitude BSR, I meant jumpers, not USPA officials or anyone directly involved with such decisions.

I quoted both you and BMAC and then wrote the response. I understood that you were talking about jumpers and my point was that if USPA does something really unpopular among jumpers like what BMAC wants (but for some reason refuses to acknowledge that he even has an opinion on), USPA puts themselves in jeopardy. 

[BMAC615 209]

12 hours ago, chuckakers said:

Choosing not to implement a wingloading BSR has nothing to do with a fear of being sued. Potential litigation has never even been part of the conversation concerning wingloadings.

Then what is the reason USPA refuses to implement a WL restriction for A, B & C License holders?

[sfzombie13 324]

5 hours ago, BMAC615 said:

Then what is the reason USPA refuses to implement a WL restriction for A, B & C License holders?

the real winner right here.  it was time for something to be done decades ago before it killed so many people.  with blood on their hands they need to make amends, and do it quickly. 

7 hours ago, nwt said:

I meant the opposite, that fear of being sued is not the reason they haven't done this. The reason is that if they start doing things that are unpopular enough among jumpers they will cease to exist.

Exactly. It's not the thought that counts here--if USPA goes out of business, they're dead and no longer able to care about safety or anything else.

i read the comment several times before replying as i did, and i am glad they did not let that factor into the decision.  as for the second part of the comment quoted above, i would think that they would be registered as an llc to avoid that scenario, but i also wouldn't have thought they would be registered in ny and couldn't find any articles of incorporation quickly so they may be.  there are no legal problems with mandating anything relating to parachuting by the uspa, as they are all nothing more than recommendations, or so i've been told by the resident legal expert i know.  he could be wrong though with the differing states' legal structure, and in that case, i'd say the risk was worth it. 

serious question for everyone reading this:  is the POSSIBILITY of preventing a lawsuit more important than the POSSIBILITY of preventing a fatality?  if anyone in the uspa says yes to that they need to go.  it's not like any of it would affect the meat of the sport anyway, just the minimum of folks that don't listen well in the first place.  take that to it's logical conclusion and it seems like a minuscule chance of a problem.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

On 11/29/2022 at 10:14 PM, BMAC615 said:

Appreciate the response, @chuckakers. I’m still not convinced the implementation of a WL restriction for A, B & C License holders is any different. Based on @riggerbob’s response, I can see why USPA refuses to implement such a policy.

I see a huge difference between wingloading and deployment altitudes.

Skills and experience don't make 2000 ft at terminal velocity any different.
As Chuck made clear, differences in equipment and standard protocols have made 'humming it down to the basement' far less common than it used to be. And far less safe.
I know a couple people that had 2-outs from low pulls resulting in inadvertent AAD fires. 

One ended up in a main/reserve entanglement that spun down to the ground. Everyone (including the jumper himself) thought it was going to end in a death, but there was enough fabric out and the ground was soft enough that he ended up only breaking a thumb.

OTOH, wingloading is a very subjective choice. 
Skills and experience have everything to do with it being a reasonable choice, or a really stupid idea. 
While the license level is a good baseline, it may or may not have a lot of validity. 

And it's something that would require a fair amount of attention from the DZ, DZO & S&TA. 
I know there are a lot of DZs that have and enforce canopy size vs experience rules, but I'm good with that being a "DZO decision".

[sfzombie13 324]

4 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

OTOH, wingloading is a very subjective choice. 
Skills and experience have everything to do with it being a reasonable choice, or a really stupid idea. 
While the license level is a good baseline, it may or may not have a lot of validity. 

 

this is what makes the decision to implement a wing loading bsr so easy.  all one has to do to get a waiver is to demonstrate said skills in front of someone like they do for ratings now.  not like anyone is preventing you from jumping what you want, we just don't want to see you die doing it.  if you can prove you're safer and can do it, then by all means, jump that handkerchief.  some people can.

[D11281 1]

"Guidance only" may be the current position but I remember when BSR stood for Basic Safety RECOMMENDATIONS.

Edited December 1, 2022 by D11281
typo

[chuckakers 425]

16 minutes ago, D11281 said:

"Guidance only" may be the current position but I remember when BSR stood for Basic Safety RECOMMENDATIONS.

I don't have a very good memory, but I don't recall when the R in BSR ever stood for "recommendations".

Without respect to that, there are currently two distinct categories of "R's" in the SIM - recommendations and BSR's. The discipline-specific chapters outline recommendations. The BSR's - the "requirements" that are actionable when busted - are listed separately in section 2.

[chuckakers 425]

4 hours ago, sfzombie13 said:

...all one has to do to get a waiver is to demonstrate said skills in front of someone like they do for ratings now.

I don't know of any rating that can be obtained through a waiver by demonstrating skills. Please clarify for the sake of discussion.

[chuckakers 425]

17 hours ago, BMAC615 said:

Then what is the reason USPA refuses to implement a WL restriction for A, B & C License holders?

USPA has not "refused" to implement a wingloading restriction. Wording it that way suggests the organization should implement one but won't. That would be incorrect. Wingloading restrictions have been discussed on numerous occasions and the collective opinion is that there are simply too many variables to have a one-size-fits-all rule.

I am pretty well educated on performance canopy flight and can attest to this. There are jumpers who begin formal performance flight training early in their careers and others who have thousands of jumps before testing the CP waters. Some jumpers take to performance flight quite easily while others struggle with their progression. The list of variables goes on and on, and that's the point. What is safe for one jumper of a given license or jump numbers may not be safe for another.

Local leadership is in the best position to evaluate, educate, and enforce.

While we're at it, why do you not mention D license holders in your suggestion to make a restriction? I know some D folks that I would never want to see playing with higher wingloadings. License levels do not verify skills beyond those required to achieve the license.

[sfzombie13 324]

some sort of skills assessment, like when they do the coach course or affi course.  they have to demonstrate they can do what they need to do.  we could have a checklist the examiner could check off.  we need to actually do this with everything as an endorsement system to be honest but i'd settle for starting with the one that kills folks more often.

 

after reading your last comment again, i can tell you right now the collective opinion is wrong.  there are not too many variables for a wingloading restriction, ask the uk.  and you are correct in that some are more capable than others and that is why we need endorsements.  get a waiver if you want one and can earn it, then get the endorsement.  one time everyone just KNEW the sun revolved around the earth...

Edited December 2, 2022 by sfzombie13