Updated Downsizing Recommendations

[Liemberg 0]

Quote

I do not at this time support a mandatory "wing loading" requirement.

I'm fairly ignorant about USPA rules and regulations (for I'm not a member) but do know that you are on the USPA-board.(?)
So: ($64000 Question...)

What is your position and for that matter the boards position on "recommendations"?

Even if what Brian Germain wrote down isn't the Alpha and Omega of smart canopy selection and flavors may vary, it IS clear IMO that "some wingloads are more forgiving than others".

'For instance, I don't think there is one large canopy manufacturer who doesn't say with all different types he wants to sell to his different customers things like "Student / Intermediate / Advanced / Expert"

Now in Holland, before they suddenly saw the light ( ) it used to be that there was a sentence in our BSR's that said the equipment used had to be "suited for the jump intended". That can (and did) work as a "one size fits all"-regulation because it would give DZO's / Instructors / S & TA's the possibility to say to the young afficionado "look here boy, this parachute you want to jump is not suited for the jump intended..."

So if I felt the need to "hit a dog", I already had a big stick to do it with...
And anybody that survived parachuting until he got a C-license IMO proved himself not to be completely braindead, so all things considered it was a system that I personally could live with very well...
I have always opposed the fact that the dutch canopy regulations were mandatory. But then again, things being mandatory comes as second nature in my country, so it is probably a cultural thing... (We're not allowed to carry fire-arms either...)

I think it is smart, therefore if USPA doesn't go as far as to mandate wingload regulations but AFAIK there isn't a recommendation on that subject either.

I wonder why.

(No, seriously - am I missing some finer legal point which is obvious for U.S. citizens but unclear to me? Like hidden somewhere in BSR's and SIM's and what you have, maybe worded like "follow manufacturers recommendations"...)

"Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci
A thousand words...

[davelepka 4]

There is no reason why the USPA hasn't created a WL limitation, aside from 'just because'.

I'm of the opinion that it's a leftover from the days when this wasn't an issue. Not too long ago, canopies were bigger, and slower, and the idea of going fast wasn't really on the radar.

Things have changed quite a bit since then, and I think the reason the USPA hasn't changed accordingly is maybe because it's easier not to change, and maybe because America is supposed to be the 'land of the free'. Both stupid reasons.

Leaglly speaking, the BSR's are not law in the US. They are called the Basic Safety Requirements, and are required by the USPA to A) ensure that things are done to a certain standard, and that B) they have some sort of hard line to turn to in the event that an insurance claim needs to be paid, they can show that things were done the way they should have been.

The BSR's do not represnt a contract with the jumping public that ensures your safety should you follow them.

[peek 21]

Thank you for your well put questions and comments.

2006 SIM Section 5-3, Equipment, B, Main Parachute,
(and group, let us not forget C, Reserve Parachute)

Some of it is recent, so perhaps you have not yet seen it. The SIM can be found at the USPA web site if you don't have one handy.

It is well worded, to include the things other than just wingloading that can affect safety, but the exact wingloading numbers will please no one.

You mention various people like S&TA's, DZOs, Instructors, "enforcing" recommendations so to speak, but that is the main problem (at least around here).

Few of these individuals are willing to be the "bad guy" and enforce anything, whether it is a recommendation or "rule".

[bob.dino 1]

Quote

You mention various people like S&TA's, DZOs, Instructors, "enforcing" recommendations so to speak, but that is the main problem (at least around here).

Few of these individuals are willing to be the "bad guy" and enforce anything, whether it is a recommendation or "rule".

Do you believe that much of this stems from the fact that USPA has no statutory authority to regulate skydiving, or do you think that it's a cultural thing peculiar to skydiving in the USA? Or is there another potential cause I'm missing?

[peek 21]

Quote

Do you believe that much of this stems from the fact that USPA has no statutory authority to regulate skydiving, or do you think that it's a cultural thing peculiar to skydiving in the USA?

Perhaps it is cultural. People aften want "governent" to "level the playing field" because they cannot compete.

People want the "government" to get involved when it benefits them, but complain when "government" regulations negatively affect them.

[70sdiver 0]

so what if you weigh over 265 im about 290 with all my gear.

[Schoenauer 0]

USPA Canopy Downsizing Chart
(Proposed)

Quote

Jumpers with less than 500 skydives must downsize according to this chart.

The chart looks good.

Sorry to say it but the rest is junk, the proposal reads like a requirement that makes it a BSR proposal in which the USPA would be foolish of adopted it as written. BSR’s do not happen over night, and I think we all know this, but with some rewriting, changes in wording and some additional verbiage added, we could easily see it added to Section-6 Advanced Progression.

I will not be surprised while in Section-6 it is further reworked and joined with the canopy skill recommendation that exist now then added to the BSR’s with a system of verification in place.

Memento Mori

[marks 0]

Quote

Jumpers with less than 500 skydives must downsize according to this chart.

that should probably be reworded also.

[mdrejhon 8]

Good one! Downsizing isn't mandatory...

"Sorry. You're banned from making a jump here anymore. The new USPA downsizing rules require you to downsize to a 150 before you can continue jumping."

[BrianSGermain 1]

Quote

Quote

Jumpers with less than 500 skydives must downsize according to this chart.

that should probably be reworded also.

A little strong for you? The problem is, if this is not a regulation, many people will disregard the chart and do their own thing. The trouble with that approach is, many people don't know what's good for them. The only reason I survived the learning process was because they simply didn't build parachutes small enough to kill you back then... at least for the resonable, the unresaonable will find a way to eat it no matter what they are flying...

I flew a 190 until I had over 500 jumps. The big canopy didn't hold me back as far as I can tell...
+

Instructional Videos:www.AdventureWisdom.com
Keynote Speaking:www.TranscendingFEAR.com
Canopies and Courses:www.BIGAIRSPORTZ.com

[BrianSGermain 1]

Quote

Good one! Downsizing isn't mandatory...

"Sorry. You're banned from making a jump here anymore. The new USPA downsizing rules require you to downsize to a 150 before you can continue jumping."

No no no. That's not what this is for at all. Jumpers are more than welcome to jump a larger canopy than the Chart suggests. The point is to provide a general guide for what is appropriate at any given stage of development.

Without guidelines, there is chaos...and that is bad for everyone...
+

Instructional Videos:www.AdventureWisdom.com
Keynote Speaking:www.TranscendingFEAR.com
Canopies and Courses:www.BIGAIRSPORTZ.com

[BrianSGermain 1]

Quote

USPA Canopy Downsizing Chart
(Proposed)

Quote

Jumpers with less than 500 skydives must downsize according to this chart.

The chart looks good.

Sorry to say it but the rest is junk, the proposal reads like a requirement that makes it a BSR proposal in which the USPA would be foolish of adopted it as written. BSR’s do not happen over night, and I think we all know this, but with some rewriting, changes in wording and some additional verbiage added, we could easily see it added to Section-6 Advanced Progression.

I will not be surprised while in Section-6 it is further reworked and joined with the canopy skill recommendation that exist now then added to the BSR’s with a system of verification in place.

Junk, huh? Ouch...
There are many countries around the globe that require skydivers to adhere to a downsizing progression. Most of them have MUCH better safety track record than the US, by the way. That says something.

If you have ideas as to how to improve this chart and additional information section, please feel free to offer them.
+

Instructional Videos:www.AdventureWisdom.com
Keynote Speaking:www.TranscendingFEAR.com
Canopies and Courses:www.BIGAIRSPORTZ.com

[thepollster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Jumpers with less than 500 skydives must downsize according to this chart.

that should probably be reworded also.

A little strong for you? The problem is, if this is not a regulation, many people will disregard the chart and do their own thing. The trouble with that approach is, many people don't know what's good for them. The only reason I survived the learning process was because they simply didn't build parachutes small enough to kill you back then... at least for the resonable, the unresaonable will find a way to eat it no matter what they are flying...
\

How about "Must not downsize beyond this chart"?

[BrianSGermain 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Jumpers with less than 500 skydives must downsize according to this chart.

that should probably be reworded also.

A little strong for you? The problem is, if this is not a regulation, many people will disregard the chart and do their own thing. The trouble with that approach is, many people don't know what's good for them. The only reason I survived the learning process was because they simply didn't build parachutes small enough to kill you back then... at least for the resonable, the unresaonable will find a way to eat it no matter what they are flying...
\

How about "Must not downsize beyond this chart"?

I agree. That is much better.
I will present it to the Board that way...
+

Instructional Videos:www.AdventureWisdom.com
Keynote Speaking:www.TranscendingFEAR.com
Canopies and Courses:www.BIGAIRSPORTZ.com

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

There are many countries around the globe that require skydivers to adhere to a downsizing progression. Most of them have MUCH better safety track record than the US, by the way. That says something.

errr. which ones, Brian? In a statistically valid way?

I recall reading a Brit talk about how their greatly higher level of safety regulation hasn't lead to better numbers.

You must have had a great class at Hollister on Sunday. Weather looked spectacular.

[mdrejhon 8]

Quote

Quote

Good one! Downsizing isn't mandatory...

"Sorry. You're banned from making a jump here anymore. The new USPA downsizing rules require you to downsize to a 150 before you can continue jumping."

No no no. That's not what this is for at all. Jumpers are more than welcome to jump a larger canopy than the Chart suggests. The point is to provide a general guide for what is appropriate at any given stage of development.

I know - I was just kidding (wink indicated) - The problem is that there is a potential for newbies to misunderstand:

. . . . "Jumpers with less than 500 skydives must downsize according to this chart"

It almost sounds like downsizing is required. Believe it or not, newbies are sometimes dumber than you think. You already know that, Brian. It's pretty obvious to people like us but unfortunately I think you have to change the wording in order to make the wording pretty idiot-proof. We need to make the wording newbie-proof.

My point is that I suggest this wording:

. . . . "Jumpers with less than 500 skydives must not downsize beyond this chart".

Or

. . . . "Jumpers with less than 500 skydives must not downsize below the minimum parachute size according to this chart".

But I think you already got the idea - you adopted one of the suggestions. If the wording makes it into documentation that newbies might read, we have better make sure it passes the idiot test.

[Schoenauer 0]

There is nothing I see wrong with the chart it does look good.
"Junk" might have been a little harsh but I got your and others attention.

I am only pointing out that the wording, not the chart, reads like a requirement. After reading some of the posts here, you might want to consider proposing two versions, with the same chart, one that reads as a requirement and the other as recommendation and then let the board work with it.

Memento Mori

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

There is no reason why the USPA hasn't created a WL limitation, aside from 'just because'.

The only WL limitation proposals we have right now are "just because". The trick is deciding which, if any, is preferable to others or to none. We have plenty of proposals but we lack sufficient basis to judge them.

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

[brits17 0]

Quote

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.

Wrong answer. Don't mean to sound rude, but thats a very ignorant statement.
You can study and learn all you want on your own, but as of now there's no substitute for professional canopy coaching. I believe anyone who's invested time and money into a good coach will agree.
I believe the "why's" have already been stated by previous posters, but if I need to list some I will.

Here's a personal example. I started 'swooping' or trying to as a young pilot. I lived, I learned, and did all I could in absorbing knowledge on my own. Enough to the point where I was flying a very high performance wing with less than 1000 jumps.

I finally decide to go to a swoop camp. My first jump I thought I had it dialed... lovely 270, hit the rear risers in for (what I thought) a killer swoop through the gates. I was wrong. I frapped in the water hard.
I could not have told myself why except for I guess I was too low. Well yes I was as little low, but there were other factors involved. Without Slaton standing right there and telling me exactly where I went wrong, I could not have done such an in depth analysis. Now I know how and why it happened and I am much less suseptible to making the same mistake.

Now... could a manual or dvd have told me that? No. I learned more that weekend sitting on the ground at the swoop camp than I ever had reading material. Lets face it, I know the standard guidelines for many situations but only a coach who has the proper experience and knowledge can help the aspiring swooper by guiding him according to his current performance, future goals, and needs.

_______________________
aerialkinetics.com

[marks 0]

Quote

I finally decide to go to a swoop camp. My first jump I thought I had it dialed... lovely 270, hit the rear risers in for (what I thought) a killer swoop through the gates. I was wrong. I frapped in the water hard.

im glad you learned at the camp brit, thats awesome. but also remember, the reason why you hit and couldnt tell why, is because you thought you had it nailed. "object fixation"

• Quote

[brits17 0]

For the most part.

_______________________
aerialkinetics.com