kallend 2,106 #76 February 23, 2005 QuoteQuoteWell, bone of contention right there. The best proposal (IMO) that I have seen ties WL to license level, not to raw jump numbers. But (AFAIK) jump numbers are incorporated in license levels. Anyone out there who has an A license without making 25(?) jumps. B-licence without 100(?) jumps (sorry - not that familiar with the USPA system - but in Holland for a license, among other things you have to have a certain number of jumps and a certain level of accuracy when landing...) With these things (IMO) its a bit "you have got to start somewhere" with refinment comming into place once good data becomes available - if ever. However a license could be part of the proposal also... ... Well, as someone pointed out, it was until recently thought by the experts to be self-evident that hormone replacement therapy was good for post menopausal women. Then someone looked at (ohmigod) actual data and discovered that it was in fact a bad idea all along. A poorly thought out cure can be worse than the problem it's supposed to fix.... 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
kelpdiver 2 #77 February 23, 2005 QuoteQuoteWell, bone of contention right there. The best proposal (IMO) that I have seen ties WL to license level, not to raw jump numbers. But (AFAIK) jump numbers are incorporated in license levels. Anyone out there who has an A license without making 25(?) jumps. B-licence without 100(?) jumps (sorry - not that familiar with the USPA system - but in Holland for a license, among other things you have to have a certain number of jumps and a certain level of accuracy when landing...) There's the deviation. B is 50 jumps, with 10 jumps to 10m accuracy. C is 200, 20 jumps to 2m. If you just went by jump numbers, you could advance on canopy sizing without demonstrating that particular piloting skill. (That said, it's only one of many skills) I've been poking through the accident reports and should be able to post a more useful accounting later today, along with a repost of my KISS BSR. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Liemberg 0 #78 February 23, 2005 Quoteit was until recently thought by the experts to be self-evident [...snip...]Then someone looked at (ohmigod) actual data and discovered that it was in fact a bad idea all along. Fine. Once actual data prove experts to be wrong, they stand corrected. But - in all walks of life - with lack of actual data what the majority of experts say is what is usually done. Why is that, you think? Poorly thought out cures could be the only cures available right now. (But I doubt that is the case here...) If the poorly thought out cure only cures part of the disease, at least it is a start. Doing nothing - waiting for better crunchable data - doesn't appeal to me. During the first thirteen years of my skydiving career, people going in under fully functional canopies were simply unheard of. That sure has changed. "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 2,106 #79 February 24, 2005 QuoteQuoteit was until recently thought by the experts to be self-evident [...snip...]Then someone looked at (ohmigod) actual data and discovered that it was in fact a bad idea all along. Fine. Once actual data prove experts to be wrong, they stand corrected. But - in all walks of life - with lack of actual data what the majority of experts say is what is usually done. Why is that, you think? Poorly thought out cures could be the only cures available right now. (But I doubt that is the case here...) If the poorly thought out cure only cures part of the disease, at least it is a start. Doing nothing - waiting for better crunchable data - doesn't appeal to me. During the first thirteen years of my skydiving career, people going in under fully functional canopies were simply unheard of. That sure has changed. In the case of hormone replacement therapy for women, long touted by the experts, doing nothing would have resulted in tens of thousands fewer premature deaths from cancer. And that, my friend, is the reason for doing your homework before telling people what they must do for their own good.... 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
Liemberg 0 #80 February 24, 2005 QuoteIn the case of hormone replacement therapy for women, long touted by the experts, doing nothing would have resulted in tens of thousands fewer premature deaths from cancer. And that, my friend, is the reason for doing your homework before telling people what they must do for their own good. Anybody pregnant then? In this case, the end result would be that smaller, highly loaded canopies would stay longer 'out of reach' for relativly inexperienced skydivers. They would be forced to either build up experience under more docile canopies or get proper training and PROVE their abilities before moving on. Following your logic, the lack of data would suggest there would be nothing against my students jumping a high performance canopy loaded at 1,5 or above - since there is no data suggesting this to be extremly unsafe. Just looking one day at a skydiving operation and the behaviour in the air and during landing of different type and different loaded canopies and the speeds built up it should be clear for anybody - not just the experts - that faster is less safe than slower. I don't know if Jonathan Tagle's record swoop of over 146 meters is gonna stay in the record books for long but I'm pretty sure that if somebody is going to beat that, it wont be my <25 jumps kid under his Raven III ... (maybe he'll beat it one day, but not under his Raven III... ) Hitting the ground or an obstacle with ones fragile body, less speed means less damage. Avoiding to hit anything by mastering the control of your canopy is accomplished through training, again and again and again - regardless of the talent one starts with. Again, experts could be wrong and have been wrong before; in skydiving and in other walks of life. But untill that can be proven it is considered rather normal to follow their lead. Crawl before you can walk, walk before you can run and that cannot be turned around by saying "why am I to crawl when you guys are running all the time - I want to run too!" Now I know this all seems to contradict my tag-line under this post, but it doesn't. Why? Because overhere at DZ.com 'in cyberspace' it may be a discussion and we could type until our fingers get numb but in real life it is people cripling themselves. "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 2,106 #81 February 24, 2005 Thank you for making my point so well.... 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
