livendive 8 #1 August 15, 2005 QuoteSafety & Training Newsletter A Bulletin for the training community Vol. 5, Issue 5 August 12, 2005 New Manuals The next version of both the Skydiver’s Information Manual and Instructional Rating Manual are scheduled to be released sometime in September. Both manuals are currently receiving revisions based on changes created at the July Board meeting. Below are the major changes for each manual: IRM Candidates in an AFF Instructor Rating Course will need to score at least 75% on the In-Air Skills and Instruction Evaluation Form. All Coach and Instructor rating candidates must complete the appropriate open-book test prior to attending a course. A score of 80% is required to pass the test. For those who show up without the test completed, or do not score at least 80% on the first test, a 100% score will be required on the test that is taken during the course. A missed major rigging error is now scored as an automatic unsat in all courses for the air-skills section of each candidate evaluation. Candidates who successfully complete a Coach or Instructor course may immediately exercise the privileges of that rating with a course director endorsement in the candidate’s log book. The candidate then has 30 days to ensure that the course paperwork has been processed at USPA Headquarters. SIM Section 5-3 will include the following wing-loading recommendations as a maximum: A license—1.0 psf maximum B license—1.0 psf maximum C license—1.2 psf maximum D license—1.4 psf maximum Further downsizing beyond the D license guideline above should be performed according to the downsizing progression listed in SIM Section 6-10 Advanced Canopy Flight. The BSR’s have been changed to clarify that all student jumps, including tandems, must be completed between official sunrise and sunset AAD Instructions Also at the July Board meeting, the S&T Committee discussed ways to better inform jumpers of the operational limits of an Automatic Activation Device. The Committee feels that the SIM and IRM adequately address the necessary information, but awareness can be improved if each drop zone would post a conspicuous sign that reads “Your AAD must be turned on here.” This should make jumpers aware that their AAD needs to be as close to the landing area altitude as possible when it is turned on, and hopefully coax more jumpers to learn more about their AAD by reading the operation manual. Canopy Education USPA has begun a long-term public service campaign aimed at improving canopy skills and reversing the current trend in canopy accidents. The ads feature quotes from the US Canopy Team and longtime swooping competitor Kaz Sheekey and highlights six points which are the focus of the campaign: 1. Get professional canopy training 2. Learn new skills with a parachute suitable for your skill level. 3. Downsize gradually 4. Learn new canopy skills and landing techniques above 1,000 feet. 5. Respect other jumpers under canopy and in the landing area. 6. Plan the jump, jump the plan, and always have an out. Look for additional promotions in the near future which will continue to focus on this message and promote safe canopy flight. Canopy Control Summit To continue and enhance USPA’s campaign for safe canopy flight, a two-day canopy control summit will be hosted by USPA on a date to be determined involving parachute manufacturers, canopy school providers, and canopy experts. Going Once, Going Twice… USPA is offering the last of the embroidered AFF JM and I polo shirts to those interested in picking up the high quality shirts for only the $10 per shirt shipping and handling fee. Additional savings will be available for orders of 5 or more shirts. Below is a list of quantities and sizes currently available. Send an email to safety@uspa.org to order of the shirts. The shirts are available only in white cotton polyester and for a limited time. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites davelepka 4 #2 August 15, 2005 I've said it before, and I'll say it again. From the organization that writes and publishes the IRM and the SIM, both of which are flush with specific and detailed information, their suggestion of... Quote1. Get professional canopy training 2. Learn new skills with a parachute suitable for your skill level ....in regrads to education in canopy control is passing the buck at it's worst, mainly becasue there's no one to pass it to. The definition of the words "professional" and "suitable" are what's lacking, and without definition, those words make the entire statement meaningless. I wonder if they would consider a name change to the United States Freefall Assoc.? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,995 #3 August 15, 2005 >The definition of the words "professional" and "suitable" are what's > lacking, and without definition, those words make the entire > statement meaningless. I agree, but at least we've made a step in the right direction. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites MakeItHappen 15 #4 August 15, 2005 QuoteI've said it before, and I'll say it again. From the organization that writes and publishes the IRM and the SIM, both of which are flush with specific and detailed information, their suggestion of... [Quote] 1. Get professional canopy training 2. Learn new skills with a parachute suitable for your skill level ....in regrads to education in canopy control is passing the buck at it's worst, mainly becasue there's no one to pass it to. I think you are misinterpreting the NL. Look at the back cover of August Parachutist. That is part of the 'Femur is not a verb' campaign. If you can create an advertisement with more detail that might drive home these points better, then make one and submit it to HQ. QuoteThe definition of the words "professional" and "suitable" are what's lacking, and without definition, those words make the entire statement meaningless. Cmon, get realistic here. There are commercial operators that teach canopy control and swooping. 'Learn new skills with a parachute suitable for your skill level' definitely suggests a metered progression. Each jumper will have a different progression. Each jumper is responsible to determine what is suitable. No one can make blanket statements of 'Jumpers with x many jumps can start using the Acme 107. Jumpers with z many jumps can use the Acme 97 and start in on 360 degree swoops.' It's a case by case situation, just like progression in any other discipline. .. Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites davelepka 4 #5 August 15, 2005 OK, so the USPA, which (save for the FAA) is the only governing body involved with skydiving in the US, suggests that jumpers should seek professional coaching with regards to canopy control. First off, by making the statement, they are admitting that the average jumper could benefit form additional training in this area. Why is it that the USPA neither offers a cirriculum for this traiing, nor certifies instructors to administer the training? It's no secret that the USPA is directly responsible for both the cirriculum and instructors for every other area of skydiving requiring such training, but when it comes to canopy control, the total extent of the effort is to suggest 'seeking professional training'. Isn't it ironic that the only org. creating professional instructors, knowing that they do not offer a canopy control instructional rating, is suggesting to seek a professional instructor? Their next brilliant move is to suggest that everyone jump a 'suitable' parachute. Isn't that directly implied with wanting to survive a jump? How often does a jumper don a rig with a canopy they do not believe is suitable? I would guess never. How often is that jumpers opinion of their skills, or the performance of that canopy not inline with what other jumpers refer to as 'reality'? I would guess it happens at least twice a day, everyday, somewhere in the US (maybe less in the winter). The simple fact is that people continue to frap in left and right under perfectly functioning canopies. The only malfunction in these accidents was with the pilots actions. Be it when they selected a canopy, or what they proceeded to do with it, they made a mistake along the way, that resulted in an accident. What if you could bestow the knowledge to make better choices under canopy, and fly a canopy in a smart and effectinve manner? That would surely help to reduce the number of accidents. What if you could have those jumpers follow a gradual program of downsizing, and moving toward more aggresive wings? That would give jumpers the 'wiggle room' to develop their skills in an enviorment which allows for a few errors along the way. Lets face it, the performance scope of modern canopies has made a drastic increase in the last few years. Last time I checked, jumpers were just as dumb as ever, and that combination is producing some grizzly results. The effort the USPA has put toward this so far has been about equal to a pat on the back, and a, "Be safe out there". You don't think that sucks? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites MakeItHappen 15 #6 August 15, 2005 QuoteOK, so the USPA, which (save for the FAA) is the only governing body involved with skydiving in the US, suggests that jumpers should seek professional coaching with regards to canopy control. First off, by making the statement, they are admitting that the average jumper could benefit form additional training in this area. Why is it that the USPA neither offers a cirriculum for this traiing, nor certifies instructors to administer the training? Jumpers that want to downsize should learn more about CC. Student status is not the place to teach jumpers about HP landings. This is similar to every other discipline. You want to get on +100-ways, go get more training. You want to do large CRW stacks, go get more training. You want to jump a camera or birdsuit, go get more training. You want to do vRW, go get more training. Last summer, Jim Crouch did write up a syllabus for CC that was proposed for SIM publication. It was modeled after several of the CC courses he attended over the preceding year. This syllabus was sent to Scott Miller, Ian Bobo, Jim Slaton and others. They came back and said 'Please do not publish this.' The reason was that there are no controls to prevent a jumper that might think they know how to do these maneuvers and go up with some trainee. They could end up killing each other. Other disciplines have seen similar situations. It happened in CRW in the 80s, and even last year. It happened with vRW in the 90s. It happened with RW in the 70s. QuoteIt's no secret that the USPA is directly responsible for both the cirriculum and instructors for every other area of skydiving requiring such training, but when it comes to canopy control, the total extent of the effort is to suggest 'seeking professional training'. Isn't it ironic that the only org. creating professional instructors, knowing that they do not offer a canopy control instructional rating, is suggesting to seek a professional instructor? USPA is not the only agency to certify instructors. Tandem mfgs certify instructors. There is at least one birdsuit mfgr that certifies instructors. SDU certifies coaches. There are a plethora of self-appointed RW, CRW, vRW, CC, Demo coaches that get paid to train jumpers. The commercialization of discipline specific instructors/coaches can fulfill the instructor gap. In CC, it is ramping up. QuoteTheir next brilliant move is to suggest that everyone jump a 'suitable' parachute. Isn't that directly implied with wanting to survive a jump? How often does a jumper don a rig with a canopy they do not believe is suitable? I would guess never. How often is that jumpers opinion of their skills, or the performance of that canopy not inline with what other jumpers refer to as 'reality'? I would guess it happens at least twice a day, everyday, somewhere in the US (maybe less in the winter). The difference between canopy progression and progression in other disciplines is the presence of a 'gatekeeper'. For instance, in RW there are organizers that meter the progression of jumpers. Organizers won't put some 50 jump wonder with 100 hours of tunnel time on a 100-way. In canopy progression, there are few gatekeepers. Sometimes a DZ may be a gatekeeper. At large DZs, this is nearly impossible to control. There are too many ways around any type of rule that may exist. QuoteThe simple fact is that people continue to frap in left and right under perfectly functioning canopies. The only malfunction in these accidents was with the pilots actions. Be it when they selected a canopy, or what they proceeded to do with it, they made a mistake along the way, that resulted in an accident. I think most everyone realizes this, except maybe the new jumpers that claim to be better than the rest of us. QuoteWhat if you could bestow the knowledge to make better choices under canopy, and fly a canopy in a smart and effectinve manner? That would surely help to reduce the number of accidents. You mean like this or that or this? If you email me I'll send you a draft article that was 'inspired' by the CK double fatality. If you want, I'll point out SIM changes that I influenced or precipitated. The S&T Comm really makes the changes, so it's really not just me. But I brought up a lot of changes. And I have a slew for the next mtg too. QuoteWhat if you could have those jumpers follow a gradual program of downsizing, and moving toward more aggresive wings? That would give jumpers the 'wiggle room' to develop their skills in an enviorment which allows for a few errors along the way. This is where I tend to see the skydiving world a bit differently. I think the skydiving culture has changed so much that the message we (collectively) say to new jumpers is 'downsize, downsize, downsize'. Not every jumper needs to downsize. Today, it's sort of a bragging right to claim xyz WL. 'My WL is higher than yours therefore I'm a better jumper than you - neener, neener.' The WL chart adds to this perception. Indirectly, that chart says that if you jump a 1.0 WL you are just a beginner. Did you know that most Accuracy jumpers jump a WL under 1? Can you see some new hot-shot telling Cheryl Stearns that she doesn't know jack about CC because her WL is .8 or .9? Yet, we see comments like this on DZ.com. Sort of like 'When you get more experience, you'll want to downsize.' It's kind of like saying 'Well, when Cheryl Stearns learns more about CC and gains more experience, she'll downsize to a 2.0 WL'. This attitude in our sport is so stupid. WL does not equate to CC expertise. That's what we need to change the most. We need to say 'Hey, it's ok to jump at low WLs. If you want to do HP landings, get more education.' QuoteLets face it, the performance scope of modern canopies has made a drastic increase in the last few years. Last time I checked, jumpers were just as dumb as ever, and that combination is producing some grizzly results. The effort the USPA has put toward this so far has been about equal to a pat on the back, and a, "Be safe out there". You don't think that sucks? Not really, USPA is not my mother. I do not like the large number of injuries and fatalities from bad canopy control any more than anyone else. I think it is more of a social problem that has social solutions than it is a technical problem. If we could change the constant message of 'downsize, downsize, downsize' to something that says 'jump something you can put down on a postage stamp surrounded by tall trees on every jump' then maybe we'd get somewhere. I also think that there is not enough emphasis on approach angle and projected landing point. Instead overflying landmarks at such-n-such altitude is stressed. That does not account for wind speed, density altitude or WL. When the new SIM or the minutes from the summer mtg come out I can point you to the specific changes in these areas. .. Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites davelepka 4 #7 August 16, 2005 Keep in mind that I am not discussing HP landings or techniques when I suggest that additional traiing is needed. Far from it. What I'm talking about is a deeper understanding of the aerodynamic pricipals behind a canopy, the available control inputs, and their uses and limitations, weather conditions, and better decision making with regards to your canopy descent, and how and where to fly your canopy. None of this has anything to do with swooping, This all has to do with making a safe and informed canopy descent. It has to do with empowering jumpers with the knowledge to fly the canopy, as opposed to the canopy flying them. Nothing should ever happen under canopy that the pilot did not want to happen, and with the right information in their head, every jumper is capable of this. I agree with not publishing a guide to swooping. Swooping is a skill to be developed over time, and with guidance. By publishing that information, you're offering people a way to bypass the guidance part of it. People need to wake up and recognize the gap between the basic canopy instruciton offered in AFF, and swooping. That gap is huge, and full of information that you should have with you on every canopy flight. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites tombuch 0 #8 August 16, 2005 Quote Keep in mind that I am not discussing HP landings or techniques when I suggest that additional traiing is needed. Far from it. What I'm talking about is a deeper understanding of the aerodynamic pricipals behind a canopy, the available control inputs, and their uses and limitations, weather conditions, and better decision making with regards to your canopy descent, and how and where to fly your canopy. None of this has anything to do with swooping, This all has to do with making a safe and informed canopy descent. Dave: I see from your profile that you have been jumping for a long time, but are not an instructor. I think your concerns have already been addressed, but that you may not have been exposed to everything USPA has already done, and implementation may be lacking at your DZ. Have you taken a look at the SIM lately, specifically the ISP? Every category has specific canopy control skill-drills that should be completed by every student. Those drills are designed to train the very things you are talking about. Take a look at each category, and especially the upper levels such as "Cat F." You might also take a look at the four page "A" license card and the specific requirements for students. It's actually a pretty solid program, and far better than anything I was ever exposed to. Ideally, every student that graduates from this program will have a good understanding of all control inputs, weather, decision making, and parachute limitations. One of the problems we have in the field is that student programs get very rushed and instructors often skimp out on the detail, especially the canopy control stuff. The idea behind publishing the ISP and creating a check-off style card is to help students understand what they should know so they can prompt their instructors. Of course that requires that schools make the SIM available and that students actually read the SIM and then demand the training they are paying for. I think we have a pretty solid program of basic canopy flight, at least on paper. Additional progression is covered in sketch format in SIM Section 6-10, and there are some canopy flight providers that offer great advanced programs. For motivated students there is a great book by Brian Germain called The Canopy and It's Pilot. The problem seems to be more related to implementation at the local level rather than design at the national level. I'd like to see a greater focus on canopy control skills at the instructor training level, a better use of the available material in every skydiving school, and better utilization of available material by all students and advanced jumpers. I'd also like to see every school actually follow the ISP requirements, even if the drills are scrambled around in a home grown program. It would also be great if Brian could get his books listed on Amazon.com so limited availability is less of an issue, but that's an economic issue for him...As an author I can tell you the return from Amazon is great in terms of gross sales, but profit margins are terrible. .Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites davelepka 4 #9 August 16, 2005 Quoteyou may not have been exposed to everything USPA has already done, and implementation may be lacking at your DZ. Nope. My DZO is a regional director, and on the Safety and Training board. Furthermore, the safety record for canopy incidents at this DZ is impressive. The lengths they go to ensuring that jumpers make good equipment choices, and offering continuing training is impressive, and it's one of the things that helps me to see the shortcomings elsewhere. I know that there have been some improvements, but they do not extned past the A license proficiency card, and as you said, sometimes these items are rushed over by instructors. Why is it then that there are freefall related requirements for additional licenses, but nothing related to canopy flight/education? Does freefall get harder the more jumps you have? I don't think so. Does canopy flight? If you downsize, and jump more aggressive canopies, then yes, it does. While there are jumpers who remain on a docile and lghtly loaded wing for all thier jumps, most will progress through sizes and models as they aquire jumps. Take a look at Brian's book, and remove everything about swooping. What you have left is what EVERY jumper should know about canopy flight. Now compare that to the ISP and the A license program. The difference between the two is whats contributing to the open canopy incidents that were having. Eliminate that difference, and you'll see the open canopy incidents reduced to the odd freak accident. Look at flight training. They cover aerodynamincs, weather, resource management and decision making. There is no reason that jumpers should not have the same information. They too are engaging in aviation as a pilot-in-command, but without the benefit of an engine. Essentially ever canopy ride is an engine out scenario as for as a pilot is concerned. So for repeated 'emergency descents', skydivers are shorted on training? Them numbers don't add up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,027 #10 August 16, 2005 QuoteAAD Instructions Also at the July Board meeting, the S&T Committee discussed ways to better inform jumpers of the operational limits of an Automatic Activation Device. The Committee feels that the SIM and IRM adequately address the necessary information, but awareness can be improved if each drop zone would post a conspicuous sign that reads “Your AAD must be turned on here.” Unfortunately the above statement “Your AAD must be turned on here.” is ambiguous, since "turned on" can describe a state as well as an action. So the statement can be interpreted to mean simply that the AAD must be in the "on" state (rather than the "off" state) at this DZ. I think the wording needs to be tightened up to make it very clear that the act of turning it on must be performed at the DZ.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skybytch 273 #11 August 16, 2005 Quote Why is it then that there are freefall related requirements for additional licenses, but nothing related to canopy flight/education? Does freefall get harder the more jumps you have? I don't think so. Does canopy flight? If you downsize, and jump more aggressive canopies, then yes, it does. While there are jumpers who remain on a docile and lghtly loaded wing for all thier jumps, most will progress through sizes and models as they aquire jumps. I agree with Dave, but I also feel that those who remain on docile and lightly loaded canopies need canopy control training post-A license just as much as those who intend to downsize and/or fly more aggressive wings. Suggesting that jumpers "seek professional training" would be great if that professional training were available at every dz, regardless of size. It's not. Not every jumper can travel to places where such training is available, and imho it may not be advisable for them to do so - there's quite enough stress for a novice jumper involved in jumping at a different dz without adding in the stress of learning new skills. USPA, as the organization charged with keeping skydivers safely skydiving, should take the lead in making sure that the type of training we all agree is needed is available to every jumper at their home dz, regardless of where that home dz is. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Pendejo 0 #12 August 16, 2005 I'm curious, where does this step leave the DZO? If a jumper comes to the dz, having a B license, makes a skydive and his WL is at 1.3/1, said jumper makes a low turn to avoid another canopy (or what ever example you want to use that is not a HP landing) and pounds themself into the ground. Is the DZO now at greater risk of losing a lawsuit because the governing body of skydiving put up a wingloading chart and this jumper was over that number and the DZO still let them jump? Pendejo He who swoops the ditch and does not get out buys the BEER!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,995 #13 August 16, 2005 > Is the DZO now at greater risk of losing a lawsuit because the > governing body of skydiving put up a wingloading chart and this > jumper was over that number and the DZO still let them jump? Perhaps. However, people break BSR's (and FAR's) all the time at DZ's and are not grounded. I would imagine that a DZO that allows his pilot to drop people closer than a mile to a cloud would be at MORE risk, since he's violating a federal law, not just a recommendation from an voluntary organization. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Pendejo 0 #14 August 17, 2005 So will it go in the BSR's or will it just be in the general recommendations. I'm kinda confused as to where they are going to put it. The section that is listed in the original post is the general recommendations, not the basic safety requirements (although it is possible that I am just being stupid and not understanding what I'm reading). Pendejo He who swoops the ditch and does not get out buys the BEER!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,995 #15 August 17, 2005 >So will it go in the BSR's or will it just be in the general > recommendations . . . It will NOT be in the BSR area. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Pendejo 0 #16 August 17, 2005 Ahh... Now it makes more sense. Pendejo He who swoops the ditch and does not get out buys the BEER!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites 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 Go To Topic Listing × Sign In Sign Up Forums Dropzones Classifieds Gear Indoor Articles Photos Videos Calendar Stolen Fatalities Subscriptions Leaderboard Activity Back Activity All Activity My Activity Streams Unread Content Content I Started
davelepka 4 #2 August 15, 2005 I've said it before, and I'll say it again. From the organization that writes and publishes the IRM and the SIM, both of which are flush with specific and detailed information, their suggestion of... Quote1. Get professional canopy training 2. Learn new skills with a parachute suitable for your skill level ....in regrads to education in canopy control is passing the buck at it's worst, mainly becasue there's no one to pass it to. The definition of the words "professional" and "suitable" are what's lacking, and without definition, those words make the entire statement meaningless. I wonder if they would consider a name change to the United States Freefall Assoc.? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,995 #3 August 15, 2005 >The definition of the words "professional" and "suitable" are what's > lacking, and without definition, those words make the entire > statement meaningless. I agree, but at least we've made a step in the right direction. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MakeItHappen 15 #4 August 15, 2005 QuoteI've said it before, and I'll say it again. From the organization that writes and publishes the IRM and the SIM, both of which are flush with specific and detailed information, their suggestion of... [Quote] 1. Get professional canopy training 2. Learn new skills with a parachute suitable for your skill level ....in regrads to education in canopy control is passing the buck at it's worst, mainly becasue there's no one to pass it to. I think you are misinterpreting the NL. Look at the back cover of August Parachutist. That is part of the 'Femur is not a verb' campaign. If you can create an advertisement with more detail that might drive home these points better, then make one and submit it to HQ. QuoteThe definition of the words "professional" and "suitable" are what's lacking, and without definition, those words make the entire statement meaningless. Cmon, get realistic here. There are commercial operators that teach canopy control and swooping. 'Learn new skills with a parachute suitable for your skill level' definitely suggests a metered progression. Each jumper will have a different progression. Each jumper is responsible to determine what is suitable. No one can make blanket statements of 'Jumpers with x many jumps can start using the Acme 107. Jumpers with z many jumps can use the Acme 97 and start in on 360 degree swoops.' It's a case by case situation, just like progression in any other discipline. .. Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davelepka 4 #5 August 15, 2005 OK, so the USPA, which (save for the FAA) is the only governing body involved with skydiving in the US, suggests that jumpers should seek professional coaching with regards to canopy control. First off, by making the statement, they are admitting that the average jumper could benefit form additional training in this area. Why is it that the USPA neither offers a cirriculum for this traiing, nor certifies instructors to administer the training? It's no secret that the USPA is directly responsible for both the cirriculum and instructors for every other area of skydiving requiring such training, but when it comes to canopy control, the total extent of the effort is to suggest 'seeking professional training'. Isn't it ironic that the only org. creating professional instructors, knowing that they do not offer a canopy control instructional rating, is suggesting to seek a professional instructor? Their next brilliant move is to suggest that everyone jump a 'suitable' parachute. Isn't that directly implied with wanting to survive a jump? How often does a jumper don a rig with a canopy they do not believe is suitable? I would guess never. How often is that jumpers opinion of their skills, or the performance of that canopy not inline with what other jumpers refer to as 'reality'? I would guess it happens at least twice a day, everyday, somewhere in the US (maybe less in the winter). The simple fact is that people continue to frap in left and right under perfectly functioning canopies. The only malfunction in these accidents was with the pilots actions. Be it when they selected a canopy, or what they proceeded to do with it, they made a mistake along the way, that resulted in an accident. What if you could bestow the knowledge to make better choices under canopy, and fly a canopy in a smart and effectinve manner? That would surely help to reduce the number of accidents. What if you could have those jumpers follow a gradual program of downsizing, and moving toward more aggresive wings? That would give jumpers the 'wiggle room' to develop their skills in an enviorment which allows for a few errors along the way. Lets face it, the performance scope of modern canopies has made a drastic increase in the last few years. Last time I checked, jumpers were just as dumb as ever, and that combination is producing some grizzly results. The effort the USPA has put toward this so far has been about equal to a pat on the back, and a, "Be safe out there". You don't think that sucks? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MakeItHappen 15 #6 August 15, 2005 QuoteOK, so the USPA, which (save for the FAA) is the only governing body involved with skydiving in the US, suggests that jumpers should seek professional coaching with regards to canopy control. First off, by making the statement, they are admitting that the average jumper could benefit form additional training in this area. Why is it that the USPA neither offers a cirriculum for this traiing, nor certifies instructors to administer the training? Jumpers that want to downsize should learn more about CC. Student status is not the place to teach jumpers about HP landings. This is similar to every other discipline. You want to get on +100-ways, go get more training. You want to do large CRW stacks, go get more training. You want to jump a camera or birdsuit, go get more training. You want to do vRW, go get more training. Last summer, Jim Crouch did write up a syllabus for CC that was proposed for SIM publication. It was modeled after several of the CC courses he attended over the preceding year. This syllabus was sent to Scott Miller, Ian Bobo, Jim Slaton and others. They came back and said 'Please do not publish this.' The reason was that there are no controls to prevent a jumper that might think they know how to do these maneuvers and go up with some trainee. They could end up killing each other. Other disciplines have seen similar situations. It happened in CRW in the 80s, and even last year. It happened with vRW in the 90s. It happened with RW in the 70s. QuoteIt's no secret that the USPA is directly responsible for both the cirriculum and instructors for every other area of skydiving requiring such training, but when it comes to canopy control, the total extent of the effort is to suggest 'seeking professional training'. Isn't it ironic that the only org. creating professional instructors, knowing that they do not offer a canopy control instructional rating, is suggesting to seek a professional instructor? USPA is not the only agency to certify instructors. Tandem mfgs certify instructors. There is at least one birdsuit mfgr that certifies instructors. SDU certifies coaches. There are a plethora of self-appointed RW, CRW, vRW, CC, Demo coaches that get paid to train jumpers. The commercialization of discipline specific instructors/coaches can fulfill the instructor gap. In CC, it is ramping up. QuoteTheir next brilliant move is to suggest that everyone jump a 'suitable' parachute. Isn't that directly implied with wanting to survive a jump? How often does a jumper don a rig with a canopy they do not believe is suitable? I would guess never. How often is that jumpers opinion of their skills, or the performance of that canopy not inline with what other jumpers refer to as 'reality'? I would guess it happens at least twice a day, everyday, somewhere in the US (maybe less in the winter). The difference between canopy progression and progression in other disciplines is the presence of a 'gatekeeper'. For instance, in RW there are organizers that meter the progression of jumpers. Organizers won't put some 50 jump wonder with 100 hours of tunnel time on a 100-way. In canopy progression, there are few gatekeepers. Sometimes a DZ may be a gatekeeper. At large DZs, this is nearly impossible to control. There are too many ways around any type of rule that may exist. QuoteThe simple fact is that people continue to frap in left and right under perfectly functioning canopies. The only malfunction in these accidents was with the pilots actions. Be it when they selected a canopy, or what they proceeded to do with it, they made a mistake along the way, that resulted in an accident. I think most everyone realizes this, except maybe the new jumpers that claim to be better than the rest of us. QuoteWhat if you could bestow the knowledge to make better choices under canopy, and fly a canopy in a smart and effectinve manner? That would surely help to reduce the number of accidents. You mean like this or that or this? If you email me I'll send you a draft article that was 'inspired' by the CK double fatality. If you want, I'll point out SIM changes that I influenced or precipitated. The S&T Comm really makes the changes, so it's really not just me. But I brought up a lot of changes. And I have a slew for the next mtg too. QuoteWhat if you could have those jumpers follow a gradual program of downsizing, and moving toward more aggresive wings? That would give jumpers the 'wiggle room' to develop their skills in an enviorment which allows for a few errors along the way. This is where I tend to see the skydiving world a bit differently. I think the skydiving culture has changed so much that the message we (collectively) say to new jumpers is 'downsize, downsize, downsize'. Not every jumper needs to downsize. Today, it's sort of a bragging right to claim xyz WL. 'My WL is higher than yours therefore I'm a better jumper than you - neener, neener.' The WL chart adds to this perception. Indirectly, that chart says that if you jump a 1.0 WL you are just a beginner. Did you know that most Accuracy jumpers jump a WL under 1? Can you see some new hot-shot telling Cheryl Stearns that she doesn't know jack about CC because her WL is .8 or .9? Yet, we see comments like this on DZ.com. Sort of like 'When you get more experience, you'll want to downsize.' It's kind of like saying 'Well, when Cheryl Stearns learns more about CC and gains more experience, she'll downsize to a 2.0 WL'. This attitude in our sport is so stupid. WL does not equate to CC expertise. That's what we need to change the most. We need to say 'Hey, it's ok to jump at low WLs. If you want to do HP landings, get more education.' QuoteLets face it, the performance scope of modern canopies has made a drastic increase in the last few years. Last time I checked, jumpers were just as dumb as ever, and that combination is producing some grizzly results. The effort the USPA has put toward this so far has been about equal to a pat on the back, and a, "Be safe out there". You don't think that sucks? Not really, USPA is not my mother. I do not like the large number of injuries and fatalities from bad canopy control any more than anyone else. I think it is more of a social problem that has social solutions than it is a technical problem. If we could change the constant message of 'downsize, downsize, downsize' to something that says 'jump something you can put down on a postage stamp surrounded by tall trees on every jump' then maybe we'd get somewhere. I also think that there is not enough emphasis on approach angle and projected landing point. Instead overflying landmarks at such-n-such altitude is stressed. That does not account for wind speed, density altitude or WL. When the new SIM or the minutes from the summer mtg come out I can point you to the specific changes in these areas. .. Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davelepka 4 #7 August 16, 2005 Keep in mind that I am not discussing HP landings or techniques when I suggest that additional traiing is needed. Far from it. What I'm talking about is a deeper understanding of the aerodynamic pricipals behind a canopy, the available control inputs, and their uses and limitations, weather conditions, and better decision making with regards to your canopy descent, and how and where to fly your canopy. None of this has anything to do with swooping, This all has to do with making a safe and informed canopy descent. It has to do with empowering jumpers with the knowledge to fly the canopy, as opposed to the canopy flying them. Nothing should ever happen under canopy that the pilot did not want to happen, and with the right information in their head, every jumper is capable of this. I agree with not publishing a guide to swooping. Swooping is a skill to be developed over time, and with guidance. By publishing that information, you're offering people a way to bypass the guidance part of it. People need to wake up and recognize the gap between the basic canopy instruciton offered in AFF, and swooping. That gap is huge, and full of information that you should have with you on every canopy flight. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tombuch 0 #8 August 16, 2005 Quote Keep in mind that I am not discussing HP landings or techniques when I suggest that additional traiing is needed. Far from it. What I'm talking about is a deeper understanding of the aerodynamic pricipals behind a canopy, the available control inputs, and their uses and limitations, weather conditions, and better decision making with regards to your canopy descent, and how and where to fly your canopy. None of this has anything to do with swooping, This all has to do with making a safe and informed canopy descent. Dave: I see from your profile that you have been jumping for a long time, but are not an instructor. I think your concerns have already been addressed, but that you may not have been exposed to everything USPA has already done, and implementation may be lacking at your DZ. Have you taken a look at the SIM lately, specifically the ISP? Every category has specific canopy control skill-drills that should be completed by every student. Those drills are designed to train the very things you are talking about. Take a look at each category, and especially the upper levels such as "Cat F." You might also take a look at the four page "A" license card and the specific requirements for students. It's actually a pretty solid program, and far better than anything I was ever exposed to. Ideally, every student that graduates from this program will have a good understanding of all control inputs, weather, decision making, and parachute limitations. One of the problems we have in the field is that student programs get very rushed and instructors often skimp out on the detail, especially the canopy control stuff. The idea behind publishing the ISP and creating a check-off style card is to help students understand what they should know so they can prompt their instructors. Of course that requires that schools make the SIM available and that students actually read the SIM and then demand the training they are paying for. I think we have a pretty solid program of basic canopy flight, at least on paper. Additional progression is covered in sketch format in SIM Section 6-10, and there are some canopy flight providers that offer great advanced programs. For motivated students there is a great book by Brian Germain called The Canopy and It's Pilot. The problem seems to be more related to implementation at the local level rather than design at the national level. I'd like to see a greater focus on canopy control skills at the instructor training level, a better use of the available material in every skydiving school, and better utilization of available material by all students and advanced jumpers. I'd also like to see every school actually follow the ISP requirements, even if the drills are scrambled around in a home grown program. It would also be great if Brian could get his books listed on Amazon.com so limited availability is less of an issue, but that's an economic issue for him...As an author I can tell you the return from Amazon is great in terms of gross sales, but profit margins are terrible. .Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davelepka 4 #9 August 16, 2005 Quoteyou may not have been exposed to everything USPA has already done, and implementation may be lacking at your DZ. Nope. My DZO is a regional director, and on the Safety and Training board. Furthermore, the safety record for canopy incidents at this DZ is impressive. The lengths they go to ensuring that jumpers make good equipment choices, and offering continuing training is impressive, and it's one of the things that helps me to see the shortcomings elsewhere. I know that there have been some improvements, but they do not extned past the A license proficiency card, and as you said, sometimes these items are rushed over by instructors. Why is it then that there are freefall related requirements for additional licenses, but nothing related to canopy flight/education? Does freefall get harder the more jumps you have? I don't think so. Does canopy flight? If you downsize, and jump more aggressive canopies, then yes, it does. While there are jumpers who remain on a docile and lghtly loaded wing for all thier jumps, most will progress through sizes and models as they aquire jumps. Take a look at Brian's book, and remove everything about swooping. What you have left is what EVERY jumper should know about canopy flight. Now compare that to the ISP and the A license program. The difference between the two is whats contributing to the open canopy incidents that were having. Eliminate that difference, and you'll see the open canopy incidents reduced to the odd freak accident. Look at flight training. They cover aerodynamincs, weather, resource management and decision making. There is no reason that jumpers should not have the same information. They too are engaging in aviation as a pilot-in-command, but without the benefit of an engine. Essentially ever canopy ride is an engine out scenario as for as a pilot is concerned. So for repeated 'emergency descents', skydivers are shorted on training? Them numbers don't add up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #10 August 16, 2005 QuoteAAD Instructions Also at the July Board meeting, the S&T Committee discussed ways to better inform jumpers of the operational limits of an Automatic Activation Device. The Committee feels that the SIM and IRM adequately address the necessary information, but awareness can be improved if each drop zone would post a conspicuous sign that reads “Your AAD must be turned on here.” Unfortunately the above statement “Your AAD must be turned on here.” is ambiguous, since "turned on" can describe a state as well as an action. So the statement can be interpreted to mean simply that the AAD must be in the "on" state (rather than the "off" state) at this DZ. I think the wording needs to be tightened up to make it very clear that the act of turning it on must be performed at the DZ.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skybytch 273 #11 August 16, 2005 Quote Why is it then that there are freefall related requirements for additional licenses, but nothing related to canopy flight/education? Does freefall get harder the more jumps you have? I don't think so. Does canopy flight? If you downsize, and jump more aggressive canopies, then yes, it does. While there are jumpers who remain on a docile and lghtly loaded wing for all thier jumps, most will progress through sizes and models as they aquire jumps. I agree with Dave, but I also feel that those who remain on docile and lightly loaded canopies need canopy control training post-A license just as much as those who intend to downsize and/or fly more aggressive wings. Suggesting that jumpers "seek professional training" would be great if that professional training were available at every dz, regardless of size. It's not. Not every jumper can travel to places where such training is available, and imho it may not be advisable for them to do so - there's quite enough stress for a novice jumper involved in jumping at a different dz without adding in the stress of learning new skills. USPA, as the organization charged with keeping skydivers safely skydiving, should take the lead in making sure that the type of training we all agree is needed is available to every jumper at their home dz, regardless of where that home dz is. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pendejo 0 #12 August 16, 2005 I'm curious, where does this step leave the DZO? If a jumper comes to the dz, having a B license, makes a skydive and his WL is at 1.3/1, said jumper makes a low turn to avoid another canopy (or what ever example you want to use that is not a HP landing) and pounds themself into the ground. Is the DZO now at greater risk of losing a lawsuit because the governing body of skydiving put up a wingloading chart and this jumper was over that number and the DZO still let them jump? Pendejo He who swoops the ditch and does not get out buys the BEER!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,995 #13 August 16, 2005 > Is the DZO now at greater risk of losing a lawsuit because the > governing body of skydiving put up a wingloading chart and this > jumper was over that number and the DZO still let them jump? Perhaps. However, people break BSR's (and FAR's) all the time at DZ's and are not grounded. I would imagine that a DZO that allows his pilot to drop people closer than a mile to a cloud would be at MORE risk, since he's violating a federal law, not just a recommendation from an voluntary organization. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pendejo 0 #14 August 17, 2005 So will it go in the BSR's or will it just be in the general recommendations. I'm kinda confused as to where they are going to put it. The section that is listed in the original post is the general recommendations, not the basic safety requirements (although it is possible that I am just being stupid and not understanding what I'm reading). Pendejo He who swoops the ditch and does not get out buys the BEER!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,995 #15 August 17, 2005 >So will it go in the BSR's or will it just be in the general > recommendations . . . It will NOT be in the BSR area. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pendejo 0 #16 August 17, 2005 Ahh... Now it makes more sense. Pendejo He who swoops the ditch and does not get out buys the BEER!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
