billvon 2,996 #51 March 5, 2005 >I think I'd word this differently, especially the "could have definitely" > part which I find hard to interpret. Yeah, a better way to phrase it would have been "the proposed BSR, if followed, would have prevented at least 3 and likely 5 of the accidents from occuring as described." Needless to say they could have found other ways to kill themselves, including doing the same stupid thing under a more lightly loaded canopy. But the accidents would have, at the very least, happened under a lighter wing loading, thus increasing their odds of survival. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Liemberg 0 #52 March 5, 2005 QuoteI can't win here! No you can't. What happens of course is that as long as you put up your proposal on a 'low-treshold' website like this one here, a lot of people feel inclined to give their comments and suggestions. This could lead to a better proposal, in the long run even a perfect proposal but OTOH not a proposal that everybody is happy with. We all know however that the USPA board is where this or any proposal should be directed to; at last, if the whole point of this exercise is that you want something written in the BSR's to create the situation where people without enough experience or proper training jumping too highly loaded canopies doesn't happen as often as happens now, simply because there is a hurdle built into the BSR's. We know that hurdles like that can be circumvented, we know it is not going to put a complete halt on canopy related landing accidents, we know that with a bit more effort you can kill yourself just as well under a lighter loaded canopy and we know that once you send it 'as is' to the board, amendments and changes might result in new rules in the BSR's that may make it hard for you to recognise your original proposal, even if that was discussed overhere untill we all turned blue in our face - that is the way these things go... But now ask yourself how long YOU have been writing about this problem and what has changed since your first post (here or on "rec-dot-skydiving"?) other than a general awareness that more training and experience is needed with the new class canopies available today? BSR's themselves have a limited effect - If I jump without an AAD and for whatever reason don't pull before I'm back at 'terra firma' I probably break al the bones in my fragile body AND the BSR that said I should have pulled my main at or above 2000ft but the latter is not of great concern I would think. But, as the saying goes - BSR's are written in blood. Since (IMO) there is too much blood spilled, I would suggest you send your 'imperfect proposal that will be changed before it gets into the rules' through the proper channels and see what comes out. To me, that seems more fruitful than this 'take 5' discussion which in many respects is a repetition of moves - and in chess that leads to a draw which I always find an outcome disappointing for everyone... "Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci A thousand words... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #53 March 5, 2005 In universities we write a lot of proposals. We subject then to rigorous internal critiquing before they ever get sent off to their intended recipient. IMO Sending a half-baked proposal with no research to back it up to the USPA BOD is a sure way to get it rejected. While the excellent is the enemy of the good, I think the canopy flight safety BSR proposal is better now than it was 18 months ago, thanks to a lot of discussion and feedback.... 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
Hooknswoop 19 #54 March 5, 2005 It hasn't really changed from what was sent top USPA a long time ago. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
penniless 0 #55 March 6, 2005 QuoteIt hasn't really changed from what was sent top USPA a long time ago. Derek By whom? It's changed a whole lot from some of the proposals. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #56 March 6, 2005 Quote By whom? It's changed a whole lot from some of the proposals. Again, it hasn't changed much from what was sent to USPA. The letter can be found here on DZ.com. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #57 March 6, 2005 QuoteQuote By whom? It's changed a whole lot from some of the proposals. Again, it hasn't changed much from what was sent to USPA. The letter can be found here on DZ.com. Derek The point of the thread as Billvon stated is to make it clear which specific proposal is being discussed. Just because YOUR proposal hasn't changed much doesn't mean that "take 5" isn't very different from a lot of what has been floating around out there. And I believe YOUR proposal looked the way it did on account of discussions here in mid 2003 (in which I and many others participated). See, for example, www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=534587#534587 .... 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
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)