BrianSGermain 1 #1 January 30, 2006 In case you are interested, here is the link to the newest version of the Downsizing Recommendations that is being examined by the USPA as "Issue Number One" at the next Board Meeting in Phoenix. http://www.bigairsportz.com/pdf/bas-sizingchart.pdf +Instructional Videos:www.AdventureWisdom.com Keynote Speaking:www.TranscendingFEAR.com Canopies and Courses:www.BIGAIRSPORTZ.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks 0 #2 January 31, 2006 I would also like to see this extended a little further, lets say to 750 jumps. 750 is the danger area, from my experience. extend it, with it going a seize or so below the current 120 sq ft. say to something like 107-110 being the minimum. but nice work, we have posted at manifest already, it makes it easy to just point. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gemini 0 #3 January 31, 2006 Thanks Brian. Glad to see I was following similar guidelines with guidance from Steve Boyd, Chris Miller and Derrick V. Although my first canopy was the minimum for my jumps and weight, I put 600 jumps on it before making the first downsize. This is a step in the right direction. Arguments against mandated downsizing are very similar to the arguments when licensed jumper requirement was implemented at dzs. Blue skies, Jim Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
grue 1 #4 January 31, 2006 Yow. Looks like according to that, I started on my current canopy about 120 jumps early at best (going by the grey 'minimum').cavete terrae. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dzjohn 0 #5 January 31, 2006 Man I knew the guy that told me to get a 150 in my first rig was way off the mark, Glad I listened to my instructor and others round the dz Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mdrejhon 8 #6 January 31, 2006 Brian, I think I notice an error in your chart. Look in the square for Jump 1 for a 110lbs Exit Weight. Why do you recommend a bigger minimum parachute for a 110lbs jumper than for a 121lbs jumper, for Jump 1? Other than that, this chart makes a lot of sense. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites BrianSGermain 1 #7 January 31, 2006 Nice Snag!!! Yes, that was an error. All those numbers start to get blurry after a while... I will change it right away. Thank you!!! BrianInstructional Videos:www.AdventureWisdom.com Keynote Speaking:www.TranscendingFEAR.com Canopies and Courses:www.BIGAIRSPORTZ.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites chachi 0 #8 January 31, 2006 although i support smart canopy choices for jumpers i think this is far to "safe" to ever make itself standard in real life. for instance, do you really think an average weighted jumper (200lbs with gear) is going to be jumping a 190 @ 200 jumps? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites speedy 0 #9 January 31, 2006 QuoteI would also like to see this extended a little further, lets say to 750 jumps. 750 is the danger area, from my experience. Did you biff in at 750 then? Seriously though, I would agree with you. A guy at our DZ is recovering in hospital after hooking a crossfire in at 720 jumps. However, I don't know who is going to be responsible for enforcing this stuff. Dave Fallschirmsport Marl Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites marks 0 #10 January 31, 2006 knock on wood, I havent biffed in. well, I had a slightly hard landing at 750 jumps that scared me, but thats it. I just see it happen around that many jump numbers all too often. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites bob.dino 1 #11 January 31, 2006 Quotefor instance, do you really think an average weighted jumper (200lbs with gear) is going to be jumping a 190 @ 200 jumps? I was. Most of the folk my size on my DZ - probably the largest in the Southern Hemisphere - stay on 180-200sq ft parachutes well past 200 jumps. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites bob.dino 1 #12 January 31, 2006 QuoteHowever, I don't know who is going to be responsible for enforcing this stuff. Us. You, me, & everyone else on the DZ. If it becomes socially unacceptable to downsize faster than the chart recommends, very few will do it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites chachi 0 #13 February 1, 2006 QuoteMost of the folk my size on my DZ - probably the largest in the Southern Hemisphere - stay on 180-200sq ft parachutes well past 200 jumps. i think your learning is being impeded. properly coached skydivers should be able to progress faster than that safely. i think the emphasis should be moved to students and novices getting proper canopy training and pushing continuing jumpers to also have canopy training as part of further licenses. keeping someone on a 190 till 200+ jumps and assuming they will know enough to downsize after that is ridiculous. in fact, i argue that would make someone a worse canopy pilot because they are used to what simple square footage will do to help them out in a bad situation and not the canopy piloting skills they should really be learning. having a wing loading guide without a plan that will guarantee more education is like stating the problem is there without a plan to fix it. sorry brian, i think the USPA is again missing the boat. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites bob.dino 1 #14 February 1, 2006 Really? Three of the top four canopy pilots at my DZ did 800-1000 jumps on their first canopies. Of those three, two have been to the WCCP. So I'd dispute your assertion that staying on a larger wing will hinder a person's learning. As to the fourth guy? I don't know his canopy history. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peek 21 #15 February 1, 2006 Quotesorry brian, i think the USPA is again missing the boat. Point of clarification please: Brian has included "USPA" in his document in preparation for convincing the organization to adopt it as a recommendation. Because of this, some people like yourself, will think it is a USPA document, opinion, etc. It is not. In what previous ways do you think USPA has "missed the boat"? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites YISkyDive 0 #16 February 1, 2006 Quotehaving a wing loading guide without a plan that will guarantee more education is like stating the problem is there without a plan to fix it. sorry brian, i think the USPA is again missing the boat. I agree. I've seen 2 people make mistakes under parachutes that feel with in this chart- sorry make that 3. The pilots hurt could have used help. The chart is a attempting to control the situation- but its not a preventitive method. A person needs to be so far ahead of a parachute in a bad sitution that _if_ they arnt 2 or 3 sizes larger than their current size this chart is usless. I agree there is a problem- but if USPA adopts the chart, I also think they missed the boat. We need to develop training manuls, audio CDs, books, diagrams, and tests. Force the new jumpers to learn, read, and go to 'school' on their own to understand how canopy piloting works... or they should rethink the sport they partake in. As many people are much better teachers, instructors, coaches, planners, developers, and executers of action than I am- Im sure the ideas that I have posted in other threads could be executed in under a years time and save many lives. No need for me to repeat them again... They have been ignored before, they will be again. But if we restrict people to the size parachute to fly its exactly like giving a new driver a limited horsepower car, without teaching them how to drive... If you think the above is a good idea- support the wingloading restriction chart. If you think the above idea is bad, support the wingloading chart, that is changed to allow education testing and teaching. And I am not talking about adding any coached jumps.. I'm talking about people reading a manual/ book, watching a DVD or listening to an audio format and answer an indepth exam that is NOT an easy test, and will drill them on the mental side of flying. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jumper03 0 #17 February 1, 2006 QuoteQuotefor instance, do you really think an average weighted jumper (200lbs with gear) is going to be jumping a 190 @ 200 jumps? I was. Most of the folk my size on my DZ - probably the largest in the Southern Hemisphere - stay on 180-200sq ft parachutes well past 200 jumps. And I'm jumping that now too at around 200 jumps.Scars remind us that the past is real Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Liemberg 0 #18 February 1, 2006 Quotegiving a new driver a limited horsepower car, without teaching them how to drive... ... is always the preferred choice over "giving the new driver any amount of horsepower he can lay his hand on without teaching him how to drive." F.i. in the Netherlands you need a drivers license to drive a car and that involves driving lessons at registered driving schools and examination + practical proof before you get the license. You can however (when you are over 21) buy a "car" much like the little Tuk-tuk's they had such a blast with in Thailand. Speed is limited to 50km/h mass is also limited and the motorway/highway is off limits. Engine is limited to < 50cc... No lessons, no examination. With motorcycles it is even more strict. First couple of years with a new license you are limited to < 500 cc. And again: Over 21? Get one with <50cc and a max speed of 50km/h. And, with the car-license you are always limited to 2000kg - anything larger/heavier you need another license... Besides, cars have pedals. One to go, one to stop. Different animal. So for the time being, while anticipating in the long run a system with certified canopy coaches that teach an "agreed upon curriculum" and a way to measure proficiency with canopies other than "will probably not kill himself", there IS something to be said for Brian's chart being adopted by USPA. "Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci A thousand words... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites chachi 0 #19 February 1, 2006 QuoteIn what previous ways do you think USPA has "missed the boat"? as the worlds largest organization for skydivers they should be leading the way in canopy education and the truth is they aren't. we're talking about a chart taken from another organization to be adopted as guidelines? wow - i can really see the reduction of accidents from people looking at a wing loading chart. USPA has finacial resources from it's 34,000 members and has yet to develop any canopy training program that will actually be the best defence to canopy accidents. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites AndyMan 7 #20 February 1, 2006 Quote for instance, do you really think an average weighted jumper (200lbs with gear) is going to be jumping a 190 @ 200 jumps? That's about what I did. I'm a lot more aggresive now but I'm thankful that I've got the skills I built on the bigger parachutes. _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites YISkyDive 0 #21 February 1, 2006 Thats the LAST thing we need is canopy coaches. More thrown away money in the industry. We need an EDUCATION method set, that is limited- why cant we develop manuals, and personal instruction DVDs/ CDs- that will significantly improve knowledge with little to no cost to the jumpers. And driving a car- and flying a parachute are very similar skills. They are not a diffrent animal. Racing AutoX and swooping bring in A lot and A lot of similar skills. Even in everyday driving we are forced to make instant decision, but over a culmination of education and time driving we hopefully can survive the streets filled with people that sometimes make mistakes. Dont get me wrong- the WL chart isnt _bad_. But its a quick fix. Its flawed in its nature and lacks the ability to keep people that do not understand how and why they get hurt under a parachute alive. Thats what bothers me. Its a wasted effort. And at the speed our wonderful USPA moves at (that aparently hasnt missed the boat) if we vote in the WL chart than we Completly Completly will not see an proper steps in teaching(note NOT instruction.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites raw 0 #22 February 1, 2006 Does the uspa not have canopy handling qualifications like we do in the bpa? You have to have your CH1 to get your A and CH2 to get your B licence. They are quite indepth. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ntacfreefly 0 #23 February 1, 2006 QuoteAnd driving a car- and flying a parachute are very similar skills. They are not a diffrent animal. Racing AutoX and swooping bring in A lot and A lot of similar skills. Absolutely incorrect IMO. Of course I've heard many wannabee swoopers try and feed me the "I raced motorcycles so I know what I'm doing" crap. Funnily enough the WORST pilot at my home dz is an ex motorcycle racer. I am buying a bike this year. I haven't ridden in years. I'd be a fool to say "I'm a swooper so I should be riding a Gixxer 1000", and I'd expect any decent motorcyclist to agree. Quotewhy cant we develop manuals, and personal instruction DVDs/ CDs Because most people won't read or watch them. Also you may learn all the mechanics of driving a car through a manual, but without at least some sort of one on one guidence you're going to make a lot of mistakes and screw up your car along the way. QuoteEven in everyday driving we are forced to make instant decision, but over a culmination of education and time driving we hopefully can survive the streets filled with people that sometimes make mistakes. Couple of things to note. 1 vehicles have the ability to stop entirely. Unless we're on the ground that's not an option. Additionally, people wreck their cars every day however, through modern engineering, they are encased by a relatively protective chassis. As pilots we are not. Finally we do not drive in 3d. We dont have to worry about cars hitting us from above, riding into one below us, etc, etc Blues.To the mind that is still, the whole universe surrenders. ~ Lao-Tzu It's all good, they're my brothers ~ Mariann Kramer Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites chachi 0 #24 February 1, 2006 QuoteThats the LAST thing we need is canopy coaches. More thrown away money in the industry. this is a preposterous statement. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ntacfreefly 0 #25 February 1, 2006 Eh? I didn't say that.To the mind that is still, the whole universe surrenders. ~ Lao-Tzu It's all good, they're my brothers ~ Mariann Kramer Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 1 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
mdrejhon 8 #6 January 31, 2006 Brian, I think I notice an error in your chart. Look in the square for Jump 1 for a 110lbs Exit Weight. Why do you recommend a bigger minimum parachute for a 110lbs jumper than for a 121lbs jumper, for Jump 1? Other than that, this chart makes a lot of sense. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BrianSGermain 1 #7 January 31, 2006 Nice Snag!!! Yes, that was an error. All those numbers start to get blurry after a while... I will change it right away. Thank you!!! BrianInstructional Videos:www.AdventureWisdom.com Keynote Speaking:www.TranscendingFEAR.com Canopies and Courses:www.BIGAIRSPORTZ.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chachi 0 #8 January 31, 2006 although i support smart canopy choices for jumpers i think this is far to "safe" to ever make itself standard in real life. for instance, do you really think an average weighted jumper (200lbs with gear) is going to be jumping a 190 @ 200 jumps? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
speedy 0 #9 January 31, 2006 QuoteI would also like to see this extended a little further, lets say to 750 jumps. 750 is the danger area, from my experience. Did you biff in at 750 then? Seriously though, I would agree with you. A guy at our DZ is recovering in hospital after hooking a crossfire in at 720 jumps. However, I don't know who is going to be responsible for enforcing this stuff. Dave Fallschirmsport Marl Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks 0 #10 January 31, 2006 knock on wood, I havent biffed in. well, I had a slightly hard landing at 750 jumps that scared me, but thats it. I just see it happen around that many jump numbers all too often. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bob.dino 1 #11 January 31, 2006 Quotefor instance, do you really think an average weighted jumper (200lbs with gear) is going to be jumping a 190 @ 200 jumps? I was. Most of the folk my size on my DZ - probably the largest in the Southern Hemisphere - stay on 180-200sq ft parachutes well past 200 jumps. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bob.dino 1 #12 January 31, 2006 QuoteHowever, I don't know who is going to be responsible for enforcing this stuff. Us. You, me, & everyone else on the DZ. If it becomes socially unacceptable to downsize faster than the chart recommends, very few will do it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chachi 0 #13 February 1, 2006 QuoteMost of the folk my size on my DZ - probably the largest in the Southern Hemisphere - stay on 180-200sq ft parachutes well past 200 jumps. i think your learning is being impeded. properly coached skydivers should be able to progress faster than that safely. i think the emphasis should be moved to students and novices getting proper canopy training and pushing continuing jumpers to also have canopy training as part of further licenses. keeping someone on a 190 till 200+ jumps and assuming they will know enough to downsize after that is ridiculous. in fact, i argue that would make someone a worse canopy pilot because they are used to what simple square footage will do to help them out in a bad situation and not the canopy piloting skills they should really be learning. having a wing loading guide without a plan that will guarantee more education is like stating the problem is there without a plan to fix it. sorry brian, i think the USPA is again missing the boat. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bob.dino 1 #14 February 1, 2006 Really? Three of the top four canopy pilots at my DZ did 800-1000 jumps on their first canopies. Of those three, two have been to the WCCP. So I'd dispute your assertion that staying on a larger wing will hinder a person's learning. As to the fourth guy? I don't know his canopy history. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peek 21 #15 February 1, 2006 Quotesorry brian, i think the USPA is again missing the boat. Point of clarification please: Brian has included "USPA" in his document in preparation for convincing the organization to adopt it as a recommendation. Because of this, some people like yourself, will think it is a USPA document, opinion, etc. It is not. In what previous ways do you think USPA has "missed the boat"? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
YISkyDive 0 #16 February 1, 2006 Quotehaving a wing loading guide without a plan that will guarantee more education is like stating the problem is there without a plan to fix it. sorry brian, i think the USPA is again missing the boat. I agree. I've seen 2 people make mistakes under parachutes that feel with in this chart- sorry make that 3. The pilots hurt could have used help. The chart is a attempting to control the situation- but its not a preventitive method. A person needs to be so far ahead of a parachute in a bad sitution that _if_ they arnt 2 or 3 sizes larger than their current size this chart is usless. I agree there is a problem- but if USPA adopts the chart, I also think they missed the boat. We need to develop training manuls, audio CDs, books, diagrams, and tests. Force the new jumpers to learn, read, and go to 'school' on their own to understand how canopy piloting works... or they should rethink the sport they partake in. As many people are much better teachers, instructors, coaches, planners, developers, and executers of action than I am- Im sure the ideas that I have posted in other threads could be executed in under a years time and save many lives. No need for me to repeat them again... They have been ignored before, they will be again. But if we restrict people to the size parachute to fly its exactly like giving a new driver a limited horsepower car, without teaching them how to drive... If you think the above is a good idea- support the wingloading restriction chart. If you think the above idea is bad, support the wingloading chart, that is changed to allow education testing and teaching. And I am not talking about adding any coached jumps.. I'm talking about people reading a manual/ book, watching a DVD or listening to an audio format and answer an indepth exam that is NOT an easy test, and will drill them on the mental side of flying. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jumper03 0 #17 February 1, 2006 QuoteQuotefor instance, do you really think an average weighted jumper (200lbs with gear) is going to be jumping a 190 @ 200 jumps? I was. Most of the folk my size on my DZ - probably the largest in the Southern Hemisphere - stay on 180-200sq ft parachutes well past 200 jumps. And I'm jumping that now too at around 200 jumps.Scars remind us that the past is real Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Liemberg 0 #18 February 1, 2006 Quotegiving a new driver a limited horsepower car, without teaching them how to drive... ... is always the preferred choice over "giving the new driver any amount of horsepower he can lay his hand on without teaching him how to drive." F.i. in the Netherlands you need a drivers license to drive a car and that involves driving lessons at registered driving schools and examination + practical proof before you get the license. You can however (when you are over 21) buy a "car" much like the little Tuk-tuk's they had such a blast with in Thailand. Speed is limited to 50km/h mass is also limited and the motorway/highway is off limits. Engine is limited to < 50cc... No lessons, no examination. With motorcycles it is even more strict. First couple of years with a new license you are limited to < 500 cc. And again: Over 21? Get one with <50cc and a max speed of 50km/h. And, with the car-license you are always limited to 2000kg - anything larger/heavier you need another license... Besides, cars have pedals. One to go, one to stop. Different animal. So for the time being, while anticipating in the long run a system with certified canopy coaches that teach an "agreed upon curriculum" and a way to measure proficiency with canopies other than "will probably not kill himself", there IS something to be said for Brian's chart being adopted by USPA. "Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci A thousand words... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chachi 0 #19 February 1, 2006 QuoteIn what previous ways do you think USPA has "missed the boat"? as the worlds largest organization for skydivers they should be leading the way in canopy education and the truth is they aren't. we're talking about a chart taken from another organization to be adopted as guidelines? wow - i can really see the reduction of accidents from people looking at a wing loading chart. USPA has finacial resources from it's 34,000 members and has yet to develop any canopy training program that will actually be the best defence to canopy accidents. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyMan 7 #20 February 1, 2006 Quote for instance, do you really think an average weighted jumper (200lbs with gear) is going to be jumping a 190 @ 200 jumps? That's about what I did. I'm a lot more aggresive now but I'm thankful that I've got the skills I built on the bigger parachutes. _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
YISkyDive 0 #21 February 1, 2006 Thats the LAST thing we need is canopy coaches. More thrown away money in the industry. We need an EDUCATION method set, that is limited- why cant we develop manuals, and personal instruction DVDs/ CDs- that will significantly improve knowledge with little to no cost to the jumpers. And driving a car- and flying a parachute are very similar skills. They are not a diffrent animal. Racing AutoX and swooping bring in A lot and A lot of similar skills. Even in everyday driving we are forced to make instant decision, but over a culmination of education and time driving we hopefully can survive the streets filled with people that sometimes make mistakes. Dont get me wrong- the WL chart isnt _bad_. But its a quick fix. Its flawed in its nature and lacks the ability to keep people that do not understand how and why they get hurt under a parachute alive. Thats what bothers me. Its a wasted effort. And at the speed our wonderful USPA moves at (that aparently hasnt missed the boat) if we vote in the WL chart than we Completly Completly will not see an proper steps in teaching(note NOT instruction.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
raw 0 #22 February 1, 2006 Does the uspa not have canopy handling qualifications like we do in the bpa? You have to have your CH1 to get your A and CH2 to get your B licence. They are quite indepth. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ntacfreefly 0 #23 February 1, 2006 QuoteAnd driving a car- and flying a parachute are very similar skills. They are not a diffrent animal. Racing AutoX and swooping bring in A lot and A lot of similar skills. Absolutely incorrect IMO. Of course I've heard many wannabee swoopers try and feed me the "I raced motorcycles so I know what I'm doing" crap. Funnily enough the WORST pilot at my home dz is an ex motorcycle racer. I am buying a bike this year. I haven't ridden in years. I'd be a fool to say "I'm a swooper so I should be riding a Gixxer 1000", and I'd expect any decent motorcyclist to agree. Quotewhy cant we develop manuals, and personal instruction DVDs/ CDs Because most people won't read or watch them. Also you may learn all the mechanics of driving a car through a manual, but without at least some sort of one on one guidence you're going to make a lot of mistakes and screw up your car along the way. QuoteEven in everyday driving we are forced to make instant decision, but over a culmination of education and time driving we hopefully can survive the streets filled with people that sometimes make mistakes. Couple of things to note. 1 vehicles have the ability to stop entirely. Unless we're on the ground that's not an option. Additionally, people wreck their cars every day however, through modern engineering, they are encased by a relatively protective chassis. As pilots we are not. Finally we do not drive in 3d. We dont have to worry about cars hitting us from above, riding into one below us, etc, etc Blues.To the mind that is still, the whole universe surrenders. ~ Lao-Tzu It's all good, they're my brothers ~ Mariann Kramer Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chachi 0 #24 February 1, 2006 QuoteThats the LAST thing we need is canopy coaches. More thrown away money in the industry. this is a preposterous statement. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ntacfreefly 0 #25 February 1, 2006 Eh? I didn't say that.To the mind that is still, the whole universe surrenders. ~ Lao-Tzu It's all good, they're my brothers ~ Mariann Kramer Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
