New rules for canopy-downsizing in Norway. We need comments!

[virgin-burner 1]

Quote

I dont know about a madatory canopy course for renewing you licence.It seems a bit over the top. I you have a couple of mandatory canopy control courses ,then once done and achieved you already have the knowledge and skills. Im not a fan of more and more rules. Wouldnt it be better to try and make an attitude at the DZ that doing a canopy control or swooping course a cool thing to do.[/reply]

it is where i jump!
it might be a little over the top, you're right. why not tie getting your B, C, D etc. to making a course mandatory..

most people dont jump during the winter, you forget over the time, you havent picked up something the first time around, you get into more advanced maneouvres, bigger turns etc. well, if you do get into *canopy-piloting" that is, of course.

the people that scare me the most are the ones that say "the parachute's only there to bring me to the ground safely". well, if that's your way of thinking, ok; BUT.. i shit you not sherlock, if it wasnt for the parachute you'd be dead every time you jump from a plane. why not educate yourself on that part of the skydive? and why not make that education mandatory. apparently, it's the biggest killer in the sport, so it's in your best interest, isnt it!?

“Some may never live, but the crazy never die.”
-Hunter S. Thompson
"No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try."
-Yoda

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

the people that scare me the most are the ones that say "the parachute's only there to bring me to the ground safely".

Why is that? That's the whole purpose for a parachute - to bring me to the ground safely. Do you assume those people have no clue on safe canopy flight?

Quote

....and why not make that education mandatory. apparently, it's the biggest killer in the sport, so it's in your best interest, isnt it!?

Agreed, yes.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[virgin-burner 1]

Quote

Quote

the people that scare me the most are the ones that say "the parachute's only there to bring me to the ground safely".

Why is that? That's the whole purpose for a parachute - to bring me to the ground safely. Do you assume those people have no clue on safe canopy flight?

it does in fact imply they're only interested in the freefall-part of the skydive, and the parachute is their freefall-fun-vehicle, used for only that. and that is wrong.

“Some may never live, but the crazy never die.”
-Hunter S. Thompson
"No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try."
-Yoda

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

the people that scare me the most are the ones that say "the parachute's only there to bring me to the ground safely".

Why is that? That's the whole purpose for a parachute - to bring me to the ground safely. Do you assume those people have no clue on safe canopy flight?

it does in fact imply they're only interested in the freefall-part of the skydive, and the parachute is their freefall-fun-vehicle, used for only that. and that is wrong.

Nope. Not at all. You are severely mistaken.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[dragon2 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

the people that scare me the most are the ones that say "the parachute's only there to bring me to the ground safely".

Why is that? That's the whole purpose for a parachute - to bring me to the ground safely. Do you assume those people have no clue on safe canopy flight?

it does in fact imply they're only interested in the freefall-part of the skydive, and the parachute is their freefall-fun-vehicle, used for only that. and that is wrong.

I agree with you there. I see a fair number of jumpers (mostly FS girls it seems), who fly smaller stilettos and similar, but never "do" anything with them.

I've always thought it is smarter in that case to upsize a bit, say to a 135-150ish pilot/safire. Just because in the event that you really have to fly your canopy, like when you're getting cut-off or landing out or landing with a little bit of wind, these jumpers have issues.

ciel bleu,
Saskia

[craigbey 0]

Quote

I agree with you there. I see a fair number of jumpers (mostly FS girls it seems), who fly smaller stilettos and similar, but never "do" anything with them.

Add to that the number of jumpers who NEVER take the time to dedicate a jump to focus on CC. They fly their bodies, deploy, and then 'ride' the canopy down.

[cavscout73 0]

We were just discussing cc at our dz a few weeks back . Our s&TA and dzo has put more of a focus on cc for students . Not to mention its really cool to see jumpers at any given day planning their jumps not only on what 4way, track dive etc. But also hey why dont we work on canopy stuff. Flat turns ,crosswind down wind, rear riser landings and so on . We dont do it because of some rule that says you must but because we are able to make learning fun. Any aspect of canopy whether its maneuvers or wingloading etc. Putting more rules in place will not do much in the long run , it really comes down to each dzo and s&ta finding ways to build better skydivers. rules tend to piss people off and they find ways around them , but if you can make learning fun and challenging for the jumper it will go a long way.

[virgin-burner 1]

and that is WHY-I-THINK-25-JUMPS-ARE-NOT-ENOUGH-FOR-A-LICENCE-OF-ANY-KIND. you just CANNOT be a safe skydiver. it's hardly enough to learn to fly a proper pattern or so it seems.

you can bang that out in a week, EASY. how many times have you had strong, light, variable, maybe crosswind-experience during that time!?

i dont know how to make it any bolder than this.

and pops, you just like disagreeing with me for the sake of it, fine. troll someone else.

“Some may never live, but the crazy never die.”
-Hunter S. Thompson
"No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try."
-Yoda

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

I see a fair number of jumpers (mostly FS girls it seems), who fly smaller stilettos and similar, but never "do" anything with them.

I've always thought it is smarter in that case to upsize a bit, say to a 135-150ish pilot/safire. Just because in the event that you really have to fly your canopy, like when you're getting cut-off or landing out or landing with a little bit of wind, these jumpers have issues.

What is it you want them to "do"? Don't say swoop.

Evidently, you, like VB, assume that because they don't "do something" with their canopy that they don't know what they are doing.

In many cases you are right and that applies across the board to all canopy sizes. In many cases, you are not.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

and that is WHY-I-THINK-25-JUMPS-ARE-NOT-ENOUGH-FOR-A-LICENCE-OF-ANY-KIND. you just CANNOT be a safe skydiver. it's hardly enough to learn to fly a proper pattern or so it seems.

you can bang that out in a week, EASY. how many times have you had strong, light, variable, maybe crosswind-experience during that time!?

i dont know how to make it any bolder than this.

Bold. Yes, How bold? Are you saying that one must experience all those things before getting a license?

Quote

and pops, you just like disagreeing with me for the sake of it, fine. troll someone else.

Evidently you failed to comprehend the message. Evidently, those who do not agree with you are trolls. Wrong again.

It's easy to disagree with statements that are not well thought out.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[dragon2 2]

Quote

Quote

I see a fair number of jumpers (mostly FS girls it seems), who fly smaller stilettos and similar, but never "do" anything with them.

I've always thought it is smarter in that case to upsize a bit, say to a 135-150ish pilot/safire. Just because in the event that you really have to fly your canopy, like when you're getting cut-off or landing out or landing with a little bit of wind, these jumpers have issues.

What is it you want them to "do"? Don't say swoop.

Evidently, you, like VB, assume that because they don't "do something" with their canopy that they don't know what they are doing.

In many cases you are right and that applies across the board to all canopy sizes. In many cases, you are not.

I'm not talking about swooping at all. Rather about doing more than just "going along for the ride", like doing flat turns, flare turns, land cross/downwind etc.

Like I said, some of the jumpersI know get all worked up if they have to land their stiletto 120 on zero wind days in a set direction because "that's downwind" and they just won't do it.

I think a number of the low turn incidents we've had (not the swooping ones, but the into-the-wind and avoidance ones) fall into this group and could have been prevented by practicing and active flying every once in a while, instead of just using the canopy as a ride on each and every jump.

That's what I mean by "do".

ciel bleu,
Saskia

[cavscout73 0]

Quote

and that is WHY-I-THINK-25-JUMPS-ARE-NOT-ENOUGH-FOR-A-LICENCE-OF-ANY-KIND. you just CANNOT be a safe skydiver. it's hardly enough to learn to fly a proper pattern or so it seems.

you can bang that out in a week, EASY. how many times have you had strong, light, variable, maybe crosswind-experience during that time!?

i dont know how to make it any bolder than this.

If you cant fly a basic pattern by 25 jumps then to me that seems like a failure not only on the student but also on the instructors or coaches.
And 25 is the minimum jumps to get that license. Provided you meet all the criteria. Would i have wanted to do the A license in a week ? Hell no thats just way too much info crammed in a very short time.
But one thing that boggles me on this site is the experienced jumpers always saying you shouldnt get this licence or that rating at whatever the standard is at now , but think about when you were getting that license or rating did you keep yourself from getting it because you thought the standard was too low? I highly doubt that is true most times.
It seems to me that there are a ton of double standards around here.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

I'm not talking about swooping at all. Rather about doing more than just "going along for the ride", like doing flat turns, flare turns, land cross/downwind etc.

Agreed. "Doing something" involves learning flying skills...not so much as to how you fly after your freefall but more about what you know about canopy flight.

My point was simply that many of us who enjoy the freefall much more than the canopy flight DID those things to learn about canopy flight. We simply fly conservative flight paths to get us down safely for the next freefall.

Your point seems to be that many don't learn decent canopy flight....and yes, you would be right, unfortunately for all of us. And that applies regardless of what discipline one prefers over another.

We're talking at cross-purposes. I do agree wholeheartedly the everyone should learn and practice safe canopy flight...but that has nothing to do with how I view freefall vs canopy flight.

Quote

Like I said, some of the jumpers I know get all worked up if they have to land their stiletto 120 on zero wind days in a set direction because "that's downwind" and they just won't do it.

Yep...that could indicate a lack of knowledge and/or skill.

I could be that the canopy-downsizing rules will help reduce the number of those incidents.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

If you cant fly a basic pattern by 25 jumps then to me that seems like a failure not only on the student but also on the instructors or coaches.

I would agree with that. We, as instructors, coaches and mentors, could do a lot more towards helping the youngsters along.

Quote

But one thing that boggles me on this site is the experienced jumpers always saying you shouldnt get this licence or that rating at whatever the standard is at now , but think about when you were getting that license or rating did you keep yourself from getting it because you thought the standard was too low? I highly doubt that is true most times.
It seems to me that there are a ton of double standards around here.

Well, it may be that you are incorrectly applying a generalization across the board here.

Yes, there are cases, too many IMO, of people getting ratings by barely meeting the existing requirements as they stand. How many of them are posting in DZ.com I have no idea but I'm reluctant to apply that generalization to those in here although I'm sure that there are some here that do fall into the category.

On the one hand, many of us have taken a more realistic view and are capable of realistic self-evaluation to determine readiness for advanced ratings and responsibilities.

On the other hand, even those who DO fall into that generalization and are now calling for more strict rules and/or regulations aren't necessarily hypocrites. People DO come to new realizations and DO change their opinions, even men, and DO support more stringent requirements.

So, bottom line, it's tough to call "hypocrite" without knowing the mindset of the poster that calls for raising the bar. But, yes, in the big scheme of things, I'm sure you are correct in some cases.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[craigbey 0]

Quote

My point was simply that many of us who enjoy the freefall much more than the canopy flight DID those things to learn about canopy flight. We simply fly conservative flight paths to get us down safely for the next freefall.

Your point seems to be that many don't learn decent canopy flight....and yes, you would be right, unfortunately for all of us. And that applies regardless of what discipline one prefers over another.

So you did or you didn't. Which one?

When did you last dedicate a jump to focus on CC?

[cavscout73 0]

Quote

Quote

If you cant fly a basic pattern by 25 jumps then to me that seems like a failure not only on the student but also on the instructors or coaches.

I would agree with that. We, as instructors, coaches and mentors, could do a lot more towards helping the youngsters along.

Quote

But one thing that boggles me on this site is the experienced jumpers always saying you shouldnt get this licence or that rating at whatever the standard is at now , but think about when you were getting that license or rating did you keep yourself from getting it because you thought the standard was too low? I highly doubt that is true most times.
It seems to me that there are a ton of double standards around here.

Well, it may be that you are incorrectly applying a generalization across the board here.

Yes, there are cases, too many IMO, of people getting ratings by barely meeting the existing requirements as they stand. How many of them are posting in DZ.com I have no idea but I'm reluctant to apply that generalization to those in here although I'm sure that there are some here that do fall into the category.

On the one hand, many of us have taken a more realistic view and are capable of realistic self-evaluation to determine readiness for advanced ratings and responsibilities.

On the other hand, even those who DO fall into that generalization and are now calling for more strict rules and/or regulations aren't necessarily hypocrites. People DO come to new realizations and DO change their opinions, even men, and DO support more stringent requirements.

So, bottom line, it's tough to call "hypocrite" without knowing the mindset of the poster that calls for raising the bar. But, yes, in the big scheme of things, I'm sure you are correct in some cases.

***
Yes it is a big generalization and you may be right also. IMO what i see a lot of on here is at least on face value a lot of double standards. Now i very well may be wrong and really hope i am.
but i am still a firm believer in stop with adding new rules. A good start would be to better train jumpers on the standards already in place.
There are so many ways to improve what is already there without imposing new rules.
Dz's hold a short clinic during the weekend pick different topics , anything from spotting to cc and everything in between , just speaking from my experience and what i see at our dz is any time us newer guys have an opportunity to lesrn something new in any aspect of the sport , there are always quite a few that are right there ready to learn. now if that could bcome a regularly organized thing at our dz's, we would have smarter safer jumpers out there without having to put in new rules. Challenge the dropzones to make it a safer sport through knowledge not regulation.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

So you did or you didn't. Which one?

When did you last dedicate a jump to focus on CC?

I did, obviously. About 200-250 jumps practicing CC.

The last dedicated CC one? Oh, I guess 50-60 jumps ago re-drilling flat turns and rear riser flares.

The last accuracy one? 2 jumps ago for rear riser flight and landing accuracy.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[popsjumper 2]

I'll add my opinions after I respond to your other questions, OK?

Quote

...but i am still a firm believer in stop with adding new rules.

Here is one area that we disagree. Yes, we currently have rules and they are currently being ignored on a wide basis so what's the point of adding new rules?

Quote

A good start would be to better train jumpers on the standards already in place.

Agreed. So in the same light as above, we currently have training opportunities that are currently being ignored so what's the point of the creating new training?

Quote

There are so many ways to improve what is already there without imposing new rules.

And those ways have been in existence for God knows how long and you know where we are today.

Quote

Dz's hold a short clinic during the weekend pick different topics .... we would have smarter safer jumpers out there without having to put in new rules.

Yes, in an ideal world all that is wonderful. It hasn't happened that way as yet.

Quote

Challenge the dropzones to make it a safer sport through knowledge not regulation.

And here's where MY personal pessimism comes in. There are two main topics I want to touch on here.

1. DZs, as a group, are a business. History has shown that all too often business decisions pre-empt safety issues. You see it with cutting corners on plane maintenance, gear selection and maintenance, instructor selection and integrity, ad infinitum. A few selected DZs DO good things but alas, many, many do not or can not for varied reasons dealing with the business aspect of it all.

2. Jumpers themselves, even given ample opportunity to learn, all too often do not take advantage of those opportunities. The opportunities available are currently optional with the exception of the minor and I mean MINOR, A-license requirements. USPA, just this year (in how many years of existence?) added requirements for B-license.

So, given the current state of affairs that have been in place and going on for years and years, how are you going to change that mindset that has prevailed for ever so long? It's not going to happen voluntarily...history has proven that, IMO.

What's left is rules and regulations.

When you started skydiving, you had some set rules that you had to follow...those requirements. You didn't complain. You didn't whine about "freedom to do as you want". You went along with those rules and learned under that umbrella.

Initiating new rules will upset those who have grown up under the voluntary system that hasn't worked as well as we would have liked. Indeed, many of them feel as if new rules are violating some constitutional right of freedom to do as they please. So, OK. But what about the youngsters just coming up?

They like you, will grow up under the rules and regulations in place at the time they start.

IMO, initiating new rules will benefit them the most while the oldsters continue to reject the available learning opportunities. No, we can't help those who refuse to learn BUT we CAN help some of the people with new rules as they come along under them.

As far as the DZOs....what are you gonna do? History has shown that as long as there are options, they will take the option that best suits their business. Looking at it from their POV, it's hard to tell them to incorporate new procedures that my affect their bottom line.

In a nutshell, voluntary options have not worked out as well as we had hoped. Maybe set rules and regulations will slowly change things around to having more knowledgeable and safer skydivers in the future.

I think we have all grown too slack in all aspects of skydiving....it relates to the dumbing down of America. Unfortunately for us, dumb can kill.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[craigbey 0]

Quote

I did, obviously. About 200-250 jumps practicing CC.

The last dedicated CC one? Oh, I guess 50-60 jumps ago re-drilling flat turns and rear riser flares.

The last accuracy one? 2 jumps ago for rear riser flight and landing accuracy.

And there you have part of the solution to the larger problem. If more jumpers would take the time and dedicate jumps to practice basic, essential CC safety skills, there would more jumpers ready to handle the unexpected.

[cavscout73 0]

And there you have part of the solution to the larger problem. If more jumpers would take the time and dedicate jumps to practice basic, essential CC safety skills, there would more jumpers ready to handle the unexpected.

[popsjumper 2]

No, No, no cavscout...you have some great ideas! Nobody here could realistically argue against any of that.

And yes, as you indicated, some of us actually DO those things. (in my case, I tend to prefer to work one-on-one.)

And yes, more people doing those things would go a long, long way towards improving things.

Even though it would be doing good, it would only be doing good at the micro level whereas we really need something operating on the macro level too.

Personally, and I know it's a pessimistic outlook, I think it would be near impossible to get enough DZs and people doing those things to make a significant difference across the board.

No, I am NOT saying don't do those things because it won't make a big dent. Not saying that at all. We should ALL something no matter how trivial it appears in the grand plan. Every little bit counts and helps.

Anyway, your ideas are right on target and would be a great benefit to those available to take advantage of it.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[linnths 0]

Okay people! I am sorry for leaving the discussion here for a while. Went to Elsinore to do some skydiving ;)

Anyways, the Norwegian board has come up with new rules. Fortunately, they made some changes from the first proposal they brought up, but I still find it poor. The new guidelines are very conservative, which for some will be a good thing, for many a bad... Lighter jumpers like myself will not be able to jump smaller canopies than a 135 until more than 1000 jumps. For a skydiver who focuses a lot on acquiring canopy-skills, this seems unfair. The new rules also misses out on the currency-question, which IMO is as important as jump numbers itself. A jumper with 600 jumps a year will be a better pilot than a 2000-jump skydiver who did only 20 jumps last year. You hopefully get my point.

Anyways, I'm attaching the link to the table. Again, it's in norwegian. Weight-classes are in kilograms, and canopy-sizes in sq.feet.

http://nlf.no/sites/default/files/fallskjerm/dokument/12.03.21_regler_for_skjermstrorrelser_endelig_versjon.pdf

Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting: Holy shit..what a ride!

[virgin-burner 1]

what's the number in brackets?

“Some may never live, but the crazy never die.”
-Hunter S. Thompson
"No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try."
-Yoda

[SethInMI 174]

Quote

http://nlf.no/sites/default/files/fallskjerm/dokument/12.03.21_regler_for_skjermstrorrelser_endelig_versjon.pdf

Google Translated Norwegian to English:

The table is based on the maximum exit weight (jumps including all equipment) are given in kg, and the number of jumps. Each
column applies to the exit weight lower than the weight that is given.
canopy Size in bold indicate the "Recommended minimum canopy size". For many beneficial
use a larger canopy. It must be taken into account factors such as canopy design, skip's skills, the air density
(landing site altitude) and maintenance / number of hops last year.
canopy size in parentheses indicates the "minimum size".
Jumpers to jump a smaller canopy than the main "Recommended minimum canopy size" shall conduct a
Safety talk and considered by the Executive Directors, or the person authorized by the HI. Approval shall be signed
logbook.
High-quality parachutes full-elliptical (more than 20% wingtip loss), may not be used until after 400
jump. Examples of such displays is Katana, Mamba, Crossfire et al
High-quality parachutes are crossbraced, may not be used until after 1000 jumps. Examples of such
monitors are Velocity, Sensei, VX / FX, et al Xaos
HI, or whomever he authorizes, may allow jumpers showing very good skills in display flight, to
skip crossbraced canopies from 800 jumps. The size of the table in question.
For jumpers who use a smaller canopy than the "Recommended minimum canopy size" and "Crossbraced" monitors,
and made less than 40 jumps on this type of canopy last season, should carry a minimum of 3
monitor running jump (separation from other jumpers in time and space) before jumping with others.
Reserve Your monitor should not be less than the minimum canopy size for the main canopy, the rest
refer to the manufacturer's recommendations and restrictions in any case not be exceeded.

It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

[pchapman 279]

Based on that translation:

Interesting rules. They are a mix of hard limits, plus exceptions allowed with monitoring, plus recommendations.

Highly elliptical is only allowed after 400 jumps.
Crossbraced is normally 1000, but one can get an exemption at 800 jumps.

Other than those limits, one can downsize below the minimums in the table, IF one gets some approvals. IF less current, one must also demonstrate canopy skills.

Nice to see that there is some flexibility there.