a KISS BSR proposal for Wingloading

[kelpdiver 2]

Applying the .2 differential directly to the chart is more clear, but it sends a different message.

I'm using the previous standard as the suggested max, but allowing a over factor for a number of reasons. But the goal is to still have people sticking closer to the chart. If it was just increased by that overage, the suggestion got more aggressive, and I could see jumpers wanting to be "just a wee bit" over the extended max.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

If you look at the excel sheet I posted and sort by jump numbers, you'll see LOWT deaths of people with well over 1000 jumps. In a couple, it seems like their hands just slipped at the wrong moment.

Yep dropping a toggle can be fatal, I will be changing the way I hold my toggles and my risers after a recent canopy control course from an experienced swooper warned me of this. I will also not be taking a wrap at altitude on my brake lines for other reasons he warned me about. Any of this might save my life some day. The first CC course I was on never even mentioned this. It's interesting to me that canopy control coaching from multiple instructors provides valuable life saving insights that even 1000 jump experts could benefit from. Even if you've been coached there's always more to learn. When on AFF I had multiple instructors and everyone on the DZ staff seemed to understand that there was significant benefit in having multiple instructors to get good coverage of the subject matter. I don't see CC as any different even if you had a standard curriculum.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

PD calls for 500 jumps before jumping a Stiletto. Next up, the Velo, is for "Jumpers who have been jumping small elipticals for several skydiving seasons, and consdier themselves very proficient".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Nothing about this proposal says otherwise. But like I said, if you think freshly minted D holders are idiots, go for the variation that doesn't exempt them.

.

First off, I quoted PD because you seemed to think that 1000 jumps was an arbitraty number, and that 500 was good enough.

Second, your problem is that you don't know what it's like to be a swooper with 500 jumps, and what it's like to be the same with twice that number.

How about surviving 500 skydives, flying faster and faster canopies, getting yourself into the 60th or 70th percentile of canopy performance, all after riding the steep part of the learning curve of your first few hundred jumps. What sort of mindset do you think that creates? How much confidence does that instill in someone?

How about 500 jumps later? You've doubled your numbers, and come a long way, long enough to see how much you have learned since you had 500 jumps, but still remember how much you thought you knew back then.

Just understand, there are canopies out there that take 1000 jumps to be safe on. There are also a boatload of other choices, that offer more performance than most jumpers could ever wring out of them, and that would be more suitable for a jumper to learn on.

It's the double edged sword of having these canopies around. For those who should have them, they are incredible machines, that are fast enough to challenge the best pilots. The donwside is that they are around, and do get into the wrong hands.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Applying the .2 differential directly to the chart is more clear, but it sends a different message.

I'm using the previous standard as the suggested max, but allowing a over factor for a number of reasons. But the goal is to still have people sticking closer to the chart. If it was just increased by that overage, the suggestion got more aggressive, and I could see jumpers wanting to be "just a wee bit" over the extended max.

For those so motivated I think they're all smart enough to figure out what the number is and aspire to reach it anyway. In the mean time looking at the modified table you can better see what the real proposal means. Again it's not my intent to make this proposal or offer anything novel, just point out what your numbers actually represent.

• Quote

[murps2000 86]

I know you've been flamed up & down in other threads over this stuff, but I think yours is a pretty good proposal. Some may still slip through the cracks & get messed up after they purchase their x-brace canopy with the ink still wet on their D-license after 500 freefalls. But at least the guy who's got a D with 450 hop & pops doesn't get screwed out of going for what he wants and trying to do it right (Like that guy Rhino, who doesn't seem to post here much, anymore).

You can't save everybody, and the boneheads will defy all attempts at keeping them alive regardless of how many rules are in place, or how complicated they are. The only thing I don't like is having to do a night jump to fly a certain WL. I guess those people will have to wait a few hundred more jumps?

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

The only thing I don't like is having to do a night jump to fly a certain WL. I guess those people will have to wait a few hundred more jumps?

That's no sillier than having to make a night jump to get any of the other privileges of a "D" license (most of which have now transferred to the "C" since the required jump numbers changed). I had to make night jumps in order to compete at Nationals.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Designer 0]

I also like the test out idea.There is a significant difference between a 500 jumper with a cool thinking head vs 500 and possibly able/willing to take more chances.The DZO's and Instructors know who the possible dangerous people are.Maybe not so much to others but maybe themselves.I also think it is another great idea that "All the Instructors" at a DZ take a greater interest in what/who(just passed A license)might be planning for a new canopy?

[kelpdiver 2]

Within the philosophy I'm presenting, a test out over complicates matters too much. Does anyone really watch prospective B jumpers like me to observe my 10m landings? Or the Cs? Who's going to do the test out? And what will the test be? And is it a bit odd to test someone on a canopy before you let them jump it?

I think it's better to either give Ds lattitude or stick to the chart for the full 1000 jump progression.

[billvon 2,990]

>Does anyone really watch prospective B jumpers like me to observe
>my 10m landings?

You realize that, strictly speaking, they have to do that now anyway, right? There is an accuracy requirement for the B license, and all your landings that you are using to claim that accuracy must be signed off by someone who witnessed the jump. So right now you have 20 people who have to witness your landings (or one person watching all 20 landings.)

>Who's going to do the test out?

Initially any instructor; eventually a canopy coach.

>And what will the test be?

Depends. I'm partial to the seven skills myself, but that's open to discussion. I would even be fine with leaving it up to each coach.

>And is it a bit odd to test someone on a canopy before you let them jump it?

No; you test someone on their current canppy before they get the new canopy. That way, if they're not ready, they can work on the needed skills on the larger (safer) canopy.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

>Does anyone really watch prospective B jumpers like me to observe
>my 10m landings?

You realize that, strictly speaking, they have to do that now anyway, right? There is an accuracy requirement for the B license, and all your landings that you are using to claim that accuracy must be signed off by someone who witnessed the jump. So right now you have 20 people who have to witness your landings (or one person watching all 20 landings.)

kelpdiver has mentioned the existing accuracy requirements regularly, I think he was just asking about actual witnessing vs any honor system that is applied. I think it's a mix. I try to get people who actually see me land to sign any accuracy jump (I'm pretty fastidious about this), I never see anyone lining up witnesses for their B or C license accuracy jumps.

I *suspect* the only time this happens with any reliability is people on student status (AFF-I witnesses) and those trying to meet strict demo-pro requirements (S&TA for that right?), correct me if what you see happening at DZs is any different.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>Does anyone really watch prospective B jumpers like me to observe
>my 10m landings?

You realize that, strictly speaking, they have to do that now anyway, right? There is an accuracy requirement for the B license, and all your landings that you are using to claim that accuracy must be signed off by someone who witnessed the jump. So right now you have 20 people who have to witness your landings (or one person watching all 20 landings.)

I know that's how it's written, but it's getting pretty clear that it's not how it actually works out. At Skydance, I can't even land in the main LZ without the B. Initially they have people landing at the student 'Barn' a full mile (and gun range) away, then often they'll clear people to land at South Field, which is adjecent to the main LZ. So even if I do RW work, odds are I'm landing on my own there.

Lucky for me, I don't feel any need to cheat on the honor system. I have a real target (sometimes hard to have), land, count the paces.

I suspect that this sort of test out will either be ignored similarly because of the hassle, or used to eliminate the test out provision entirely.

Quote

>And is it a bit odd to test someone on a canopy before you let them jump it?

No; you test someone on their current canppy before they get the new canopy. That way, if they're not ready, they can work on the needed skills on the larger (safer) canopy.

That makes for a good test of competency on the current canopy, but doesn't really tell you they're 'safe' on the new one. Would you limit the magnitude of the downsize to deal with that? Again, it's getting complicated quickly.

[billvon 2,990]

>That makes for a good test of competency on the current
>canopy, but doesn't really tell you they're 'safe' on the new one.

I can watch someone land half a dozen times on a 1.2 to 1 canopy and it's pretty obvious if they're ready for the next smaller one. Do they fly the canopy through the flare? Manage energy well? Have lateral control? Be aware of other people in the LZ? If yes, then they're probably ready.

I spent two years watching people for just this reason. They never listened to me (of course) but I could predict with great accuracy who would break their femurs. One will never walk normally again, two broke their femurs and learned caution, the other two I never heard from again.

[kelpdiver 2]

I believe you can, but that sounds like a pretty subjective judgement call, hard to codify or consistently implement. And if they're good at 1.2 on a Spectre, what wingloadings and canopies should that call allow them to advance to? And last, how should you be compensated for your time and skill (or dare I say, legal responsibility) of watching those 6 landings?

Nothing precludes an individual DZ from having people like you do checkoffs for downsizing, but does it work well as USPA policy?

[chrisgr 0]

If CC education is the most important part of this discussion, how do you propose to ensure that the jumper has the necessary skills to advance? Leave it up to the individual DZ’s? It will never be consistently applied.

Some have already said that the w/l chart and CC competency requirements must be linked to some type of license. If the w/l chart and CC competency requirements are linked to some type of license, then we need a method to verify these skills and sign-off the jumper for licensing/advancement.

This may require unique canopy licenses or another licensing structure to support the goals of providing proper CC education. Our licensing body is the USPA. If you don’t like the way it works, take it to a different forum.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

That makes for a good test of competency on the current canopy, but doesn't really tell you they're 'safe' on the new one.

The point is if they're not competent on their current canopy they won't be downsizing until they are. It prevents someone going smaller when they should be staying where they are (at best).

Quote

Would you limit the magnitude of the downsize to deal with that?

It is limited to the next size AFAIK, i.e. +0.2 WL on most proposals. It's just a filter, it doesn't predict competence it prevents someone going with a demonstrably bad downsize decision.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Our licensing body is the USPA. If you don’t like the way it works, take it to a different forum.

Excuse me? It's my thread and my proposal, and it's appropriately located. If you don't like the way it works, you can find that "post new" button.

I'm suggesting simplification will make any change in canopy policy more easily implemented. It merely slows down the rate at which someone downsizes and tries to keep people in a reasonable (not "safe") wingloading range. It's hard to project what to do with CC education when it really doesn't exist in a singular form, and not at all with respects to the USPA.

When someone suggests new standards and protocols, more attention ought to be made to how it will actually work. As we've been talking about, we already play a bit loose on the details when it comes to B and C landing accuracy requirements.

[chrisgr 0]

Your thread?
Your proposal?

OK ... enjoy.

[Designer 0]

Suppose your right.Didn't think you were going to be "Critical"?Test out should be for us D License holders already jumping high performance ellipticals.