Hooknswoop 19 #76 January 18, 2005 QuoteI have a question I'd like to know how you would handle in the wing loading BSR. Lets say at 200 jumps you buy a Pilot 150 your exit weight is 180 for a wing loading of 1.2 Ok now lets say over the course of 1 year you make 75 jumps and you gain 20 lbs. Now your wing loading is 1.33 at 275 jumps. Do you ground that person until they loose weight, let them jump their canopy? More importantly if you let them jump their canopy how do you word that in the BSR? This is not far fetched I did almost exactly this two years ago. It's already built in. Since the jumper would then exceed the maximum WL for their jump#'s, they would be required to demonstrate their ability to fly at that WL. If they couldn't do it, and therefore shouldn't be flying that canopy, yes, they wouln't be allowed to fly that canopy. If they could demonstrate their ability, then they are allowed to exceed the WL limit for their jump #'s. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
parachutist 2 #77 January 18, 2005 QuoteQuote >but their base training should be - down to 100 ft? Arms up and >prepare for landing. This is a good neutral. For first jump students, I agree. Before you are "let loose" into the real world of unsupervised jumping, and without your telltale student canopy (which warns other people that you may not be able to avoid them) you have to learn low turns (IMO.) That's confusing to newbies: teaching them one thing for safety, then making them unlearn that and retrain to a new safety path. People are easily confused when they're scared, and if they have something to go back to, something that they've learned from day 1... then they'll do that when concerned. I see very few incident reports of jumpers who were injured because of no turn... the vast majority are caused by turns at low altitude that they didn't recover from. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #78 January 18, 2005 QuoteI do have even a FX89 for sale, thats faster for him to do a accident. Dorbie, I'm already a rebel in my canopy course but you have show me that you are not ready to jump an other (faster) canopy yet. listen to the adivice and stay safe, I would not like to see you in the statistics. I'm not asking for a permission slip to downsize so you've shown me that you haven't even read my posts properly. I haven't shown you anything about my CC abilities, and according my initial interpretations these guys were saying I'm exceeding wingloading NOW despite the advice of people who've trained me and seen me jump and my uneventful canopy operation at my current wing loading for about a hundred jumps. Having been on a CC course and sought additional canopy training and since these requirements are now being presented as a means to encourage people to seek such training I guess I'd qualify in some manner already. Next time read my posts or even the rest of the thread before references to me downsizing to a canopy that will get me killed faster. I don't mind a joke but generic advice that's laden with supposition is one of the problems here. Just because I oppose a set of restrictions doesn't mean I have a deathwish. I wouldn't downsize without taking advice but it won't be from people who've never seen me fly on DZ.com. P.S. yea it would suck to bounce now at a WL of 1.2 after posting objections, I'd become the posterboy for canopy nannies. The embarrassment alone would kill me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #79 January 18, 2005 QuoteAt my home DZ every jumper MUST receive an approval from his instructor before downsizing. He cannot just bring the rig and jump it. If he jumps canopy too small for him without permission, he may be grounded for a day/week/month (anyway, he may ground himself for whole life). It seems very strict but it works good. And thats what we are asking for. We have a basic chart in place (Brians WL to jump chart) created by an expert canopy pilot and canopy designer. And we are saying that is the BASE. If you wish to procede faster than that base then there woudl be a practical test to show you can control the canopy at the top of your section of the chart (I have proposed the PRO test sinc eit is easy to administor, and is already in place...Plus ask anyone that has done it...It proves that you can fly a canopy). If you can pass the test you can proceded at whatever rate you can handle. But you would nto be allowed to pick any canopy and jump it just because you think you could handle it. Having and Instructor sign you off to downsize is perfect....But not likley to happen on a large scale without a BSR."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites chrisgr 0 #80 January 18, 2005 Like it or not, you have been ‘taking advice’ from people who have never seen you fly since you started your student training. Consider the current BSR’s. You have probably taken most of these rules and regulations as absolutes that must be followed. At one time, most of the BSR’s were merely advice (yikes). Yes, you may be slightly exceeding the proposed w/l chart, but you have also stated that you have practiced many of the skills that would be tested to fly your canopy and / or continue your canopy progression. What is the harm of proving yourself? There is an important reason why many jumpers continue to challenge themselves on canopy survival skills. Even if we are not planning to downsize, we know that these skills are necessary to continue skydiving and safely fly our canopies. Your instructors, S&TA, DZO, etc. are still the best resources and they probably are giving you safe advice if they have watched your canopy control and landings. What they do not have, however, is a standard by which to educate and evaluate canopy pilots that is consistently practiced by licensed instructors. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,070 #81 January 18, 2005 > Do you ground that person until they loose weight, let them jump their > canopy? More importantly if you let them jump their canopy how do you > word that in the BSR? Per the BSR we've been discussing, they would either have to: 1. prove to a canopy coach or an S+TA they can fly the canopy 2. take a canopy control course or 3. get a larger canopy In practice, once someone has a canopy at a given DZ, no one's going to make them 'give it back' unless something serious happens. If they go to a new DZ they might have trouble - which would be an excellent reason to take a canopy control course so they don't have to deal with the restriction. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,070 #82 January 18, 2005 >teaching them one thing for safety, then making them unlearn that and >retrain to a new safety path. We do it all the time. For their first jump, they must pull if they find themselves alone in freefall. After jump 4 or so, that changes. Their scan changes, their TLO's change, their body position changes, and their pull altitude changes all throughout AFF. This is because it's tough to teach leg turns (for example) to someone who has never been in freefall before, so you start slowly. But I do agree that it is wise to make the switch as early as possible. Start flat turns early in the student program; get them used to turning low and train them how to do it safely. That way there will be less confusion. >I see very few incident reports of jumpers who were injured because of >no turn... the vast majority are caused by turns at low altitude that they >didn't recover from. Again, prohibiting low turns is like outlawing impacts. I see very few incident report that do not include a hard impact, so if you just outlaw them you're good to go. The problem is that low turns are done to avoid powerlines, fences, freeways, other jumpers etc which may or may not injure the jumper more than the low turn. It's often better to land straight ahead than to turn low, but telling someone to accept a broken back instead of a fatality is a tough call, when the other option (flat turn resulting in no injury) is an option. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites freakbrother 0 #83 January 18, 2005 QuoteI think you may have missed one point of the proposed BSR. You can't fly a smaller, faster canopy until you've proven your ability. Once you've demonstrated your ability to the appropriate person, you're cleared to downsize. So, the only additional hurdle that is being placed in your way is that you need to demonstrate the necessary survival skills before you downsize, rather than when you get into a tight spot under your smaller new canopy. If you don't demonstrate that ability, you're restricted to the WNE chart. Well, there seems to be some disagreement about what "NEVER EXCEED" means. Does NEVER mean never, or does it mean never unless you test out? That seems to be a source of some confusion. Clarify that and I thing a lot of the arguments will go away. For my part, I'd like a complete dissociation from jump numbers, and reliance instead on training and proven ability.. . www.freak-brother.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,070 #84 January 18, 2005 >Does NEVER mean never, or does it mean never unless you test out? The confusion here is that there is no official proposal. The proposal that Derek, Lisa, Scott etc and I sent in to USPA a while back includes a way to 'test out' of any restrictions by demonstrating canopy control to a canopy coach/S+TA. Here's an example of what such a BSR might look like: K. Parachute equipment 5a. No skydiver may exceed wing loading limits on their main parachute as given in the following table: [FB] A license XX to 1 B license YY to 1 C license ZZ to 1 D license WW to 1 5b. Any skydiver can request a canopy evaluation from a canopy coach or an S+TA. The S+TA/CC will ask the jumper to demonstrate some or all of the canopy control skills listed in section XX. The CC/S+TA may then endorse the jumper's logbook to allow him/her to jump at the next highest loading based on their performance. [FB] 5c. Upon successful completion of an approved canopy control course, the skydiver may then jump at any loading he qualifies for as endorsed by the course director.[FB] Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dorbie 0 #85 January 18, 2005 Yes, on taking the advice that's true, but BSR's represent collective wisdom not individual opinion that makes specific and unknowable 'observations' about my ability. w.r.t. proving myself and canopy progression you'll see that I've already stated that this is less objectionable if it's applied reasonably. The devil is in the details. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #86 January 18, 2005 QuoteAll you have done is complain and tear down any program that would impose some form of control. And if your profile is correct, you are not qualified to speak on the subject. As I said, you read very selectively, looking for what you want to see. And unless you're going to assert that skydiving is a unique sport, unlike all others, you're quite wrong on my qualifications to discuss. Quote This says more about you then I ever could. Real Name: Darwin's Buddy Hey, you helped select that name. I've decided that in light of recent events, no need for specifics. I'm pretty much resigned to the idea that this proposal will be rammed through. It will do some good, it will have some negative side effects, and it will affect almost no one here today. It's the kind of legislation a San Francisco Democrat would be proud of. I just hope you guys work out all the little details sooner than later, given an unwillingness to hear any faults now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites obelixtim 150 #87 January 18, 2005 Well in the absence of anything else, and a recognition that there is a problem, at least its a start.....might not be perfect, and we won't really know how effective it is until its given time to work.....or not.....but there's been a lot of talk about it for a number of years.....at some point in time there has to be some action...... Its a basic benchmark which at least lets everyone know where the starting point is, and eliminates a lot of confusion...which only perpetuates the problem..... And its not set in stone.....it can be modified or adjusted at a later date if necessary....and most likely will......fresh ideas are not automatically ignored, because things change.... Skydiving has always been like that.... Most new skydiving disciplines have evolved slowly, with quite a bit of trial and error....but eventually things work out OK.....the rules are designed to cater for the largest number of people, and there will always be individuals who don't "fit" the solution.....thats life..... You new guys will in the future be confronted with new dilemmas that you'll need to solve......and when there is nothing to base a solution on, you'll find it quite a difficult process........ Its a challenge......not an imposition....regard it as such..........My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mjosparky 4 #88 January 18, 2005 QuoteI just hope you guys work out all the little details sooner than later, given an unwillingness to hear any faults now. Instead of just bitching, why don't you become one of "you guys" and help work out the little details. Come up with something positive that contributes to the goal instead of coming up reasons you think it will fail. Come up with ideas to help it succeed. And just so you know, I have nothing to do with this proposal. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites freakbrother 0 #89 January 18, 2005 Quote>Does NEVER mean never, or does it mean never unless you test out? The confusion here is that there is no official proposal. The proposal that Derek, Lisa, Scott etc and I sent in to USPA a while back includes a way to 'test out' of any restrictions by demonstrating canopy control to a canopy coach/S+TA. Here's an example of what such a BSR might look like: K. Parachute equipment 5a. No skydiver may exceed wing loading limits on their main parachute as given in the following table: [FB] A license XX to 1 B license YY to 1 C license ZZ to 1 D license WW to 1 5b. Any skydiver can request a canopy evaluation from a canopy coach or an S+TA. The S+TA/CC will ask the jumper to demonstrate some or all of the canopy control skills listed in section XX. The CC/S+TA may then endorse the jumper's logbook to allow him/her to jump at the next highest loading based on their performance. [FB] 5c. Upon successful completion of an approved canopy control course, the skydiver may then jump at any loading he qualifies for as endorsed by the course director.[FB] That's cool. Thanks for the clarification, Coulda done with it earlier, I guess. Nothing like arguing at cross purposes to waste a lot of bandwidth.. . www.freak-brother.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites crotalus01 0 #90 January 19, 2005 just to play devils advocate here: if the WNE goes into effect, dont you think those low jump people who are hell bound to try swooping will just try it with larger canpies? reading the incident reports it seems that the deaths/injuries associated with low turns are about 60:40 intentional to panic turns. hell, i could probably get a decent swoop from my 190 if i got on the front risers or hooked it (i have no interest at this time so thats not gonna happen). as we have seen from the incident reports from '04, you can spiral in under a 280 and still kill yourself. just a thought. As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pash 0 #91 January 19, 2005 If I knew I had to have "x" jumps or completed some proficiency to swoop by "testing out", but didn't have that signed off on, I would expect and deserve to be grounded or talked to. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Bartje 0 #92 January 19, 2005 youare right, after posting this reply I continued reading what wasafter and there you are ok. My excuses. I never wish somebody to hurt himself, Keep o, listen to others, we can not stop learning. A FreeFly Gypsy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #93 January 19, 2005 Quote Instead of just bitching, why don't you become one of "you guys" and help work out the little details. Come up with something positive that contributes to the goal instead of coming up reasons you think it will fail. Come up with ideas to help it succeed. And just so you know, I have nothing to do with this proposal. This is getting pretty circular. I have, and I did. Perhaps having nothing to do with this proposal is why you don't seem to be getting this, and instead are repeated this same bullshit about me over and over again. Nor is it defeatist to point out the major issues that will need addressing to make the transition a success, like the limited availability of 230+ rental rigs. Far better to identify these snags now. Oh, and it's a bit contradictory to post that I'm unqualified to speak on the subject, and then to tell me to be one of "you guys." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pash 0 #94 January 19, 2005 You and I are those guys. I'm not "qualified" to speak either. You and I are in the same boat, sort of. Tell me, would you rather have it handed to you by someone outside the community or would you rather recognize that people here 10+ years have seen people more qualified than us die because we didn't stop to think that more experienced people are just that. MORE EXPERIENCED. It doesn't mean giving up personal freedoms, taking a 2nd home equity loan, and being limited to finding a DZ 500 miles away that happens to have a 500 sq ft. canopy. They have suggested COUNTLESS times the ability to "test out." This would mean that you YES YOU, may be able to go up to your instructor, and ask to jump your CURRENT canopy (rental or otherwise) and PROVE you can land the thing in several ways. Wouldn't you feel more ACCOMPLISHED if you DEMONSTRATED your ability in the eyes of the MORE EXPERIENCED? Or do you think that they want no one to follow them and would prefer an extinct sport? They want us here and they want us to be here longer than our last bonehead decision would otherwise let us. You are not a bonehead by the way. But you must prove yourself to be outside of the bell-curve of the ones that got us to this debate in the first place. How about one or two more jumps on that 7,000 sq ft canopy first just to prove it. Get signed off on then you're off and running in NO TIME!! They may let us downsize to 5,000 sq ft in no time! PS - I'm sure no one here, including me, meant a lack of tact here in this thread. I think that includes you. I have to exercise tact day-in and day-out but this is not a sport in which I desire tact from the leadership. Give it to me straight. It's like being a recruit in WWII: Please help keep me alive with what you know. I'll do everything I can do to repay the favor. --edited to add that PS Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mjosparky 4 #95 January 19, 2005 QuoteQuote Instead of just bitching, why don't you become one of "you guys" and help work out the little details. Come up with something positive that contributes to the goal instead of coming up reasons you think it will fail. Come up with ideas to help it succeed. And just so you know, I have nothing to do with this proposal. This is getting pretty circular. I have, and I did. Perhaps having nothing to do with this proposal is why you don't seem to be getting this, and instead are repeated this same bullshit about me over and over again. Nor is it defeatist to point out the major issues that will need addressing to make the transition a success, like the limited availability of 230+ rental rigs. Far better to identify these snags now. Oh, and it's a bit contradictory to post that I'm unqualified to speak on the subject, and then to tell me to be one of "you guys." "Bingo" No mor calls please. We have a winner. Someone who has all the answers. Good luck in the future, you will need it. DoneMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,070 #96 January 19, 2005 >dont you think those low jump people who are hell bound to try >swooping will just try it with larger canpies? Probably. But if you do exactly the same stupid thing under a Spectre 170 as under a Xaos 108, you are more likely to survive under the Spectre. More likely people will bitch about it and try to demonstrate they can fly their Spectre 170 so they can downsize. When they realize they can't flat turn - well, at least they learned something about their abilities. >as we have seen from the incident reports from '04, you can spiral >in under a 280 and still kill yourself. And skydivers can kill themselves by not responding to a mal even if they pull at 3000 feet. Doesn't mean the 2000 foot limit is meaningless as a result. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,070 #97 January 19, 2005 >Nor is it defeatist to point out the major issues that will need > addressing to make the transition a success, like the limited > availability of 230+ rental rigs. Far better to identify these snags now. All the San Diego rental rigs (except one) are 230+ square feet. Almost every DZ in the country uses 230+ sq ft student canopies. Getting the gear will not be a problem. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Shark 0 #98 January 19, 2005 QuoteAnd as we were talking about the bigger guys...I run 210-220 over this past year. Translating to an exit weight of 245-255, right at the normal max of 254. The ideal size for me has been a ZP 230, at sea level. 210 is right over the edge of ok for me - I'd want to be at 205lbs or better. I've had some trouble visiting DZs and renting: Elsinore - Spectre 210 is biggest for gear shop, plus altitude concerns there. I found the envelope that weekend. QuoteSo if we mandate a 1.0 limit, either the rental options need to improve, or 6'ers are going to have to make compromises on time or gear or spend more money on a 260 that they use for a limited time. You quote our gear shop at Elsinore. I know for a fact that they will refer you to the school if you require a larger canopy. Several licensed jumpers still rent the Nav 240s and 260s. Wingloading is just part of the equation; a large part. What about a 110 lb. chick loaded at 1.4? She's just above the jump number range for it, why cant she jump the Velocity 87? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mjosparky 4 #99 January 19, 2005 QuoteYou and I are those guys. I'm not "qualified" to speak either. You and I are in the same boat, sort of. Tell me, would you rather have it handed to you by someone outside the community or would you rather recognize that people here 10+ years have seen people more qualified than us die because we didn't stop to think that more experienced people are just that. MORE EXPERIENCED. It doesn't mean giving up personal freedoms, taking a 2nd home equity loan, and being limited to finding a DZ 500 miles away that happens to have a 500 sq ft. canopy. They have suggested COUNTLESS times the ability to "test out." This would mean that you YES YOU, may be able to go up to your instructor, and ask to jump your CURRENT canopy (rental or otherwise) and PROVE you can land the thing in several ways. Wouldn't you feel more ACCOMPLISHED if you DEMONSTRATED your ability in the eyes of the MORE EXPERIENCED? Or do you think that they want no one to follow them and would prefer an extinct sport? They want us here and they want us to be here longer than our last bonehead decision would otherwise let us. You are not a bonehead by the way. But you must prove yourself to be outside of the bell-curve of the ones that got us to this debate in the first place. How about one or two more jumps on that 7,000 sq ft canopy first just to prove it. Get signed off on then you're off and running in NO TIME!! They may let us downsize to 5,000 sq ft in no time! PS - I'm sure no one here, including me, meant a lack of tact here in this thread. I think that includes you. I have to exercise tact day-in and day-out but this is not a sport in which I desire tact from the leadership. Give it to me straight. It's like being a recruit in WWII: Please help keep me alive with what you know. I'll do everything I can do to repay the favor. --edited to add that PS OH, No, not another one of those new jumpers that wants to use common sense and get training and take advise and all that restrictive shit. They are a dying breed I heard. Opps, thats right, its the ones that don't think they need training and won't take advise that are a dying breed. My mistake. Seriously, with an attitude like yours, you have a good chance of surviving in this sport. The people working to put this program together do not want to hold new jumper down, they want to help them survive long enough to enjoy what skydiving has to offer. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #100 January 19, 2005 Maybe it's just because I'm a "new jumper", but I can't understand all the resistance to something that can be easily tested out of (for people that are "grandfathered in") AND WILL MAKE PEOPLE SAFER CANOPY PILOTS AND SAVE LIVES. WTF is up with this? If you're currently jumping a rig that's over your W/L, you can talk to the DZO/S&TA/CC and test out with your current rig, rent a student rig or demo a canopy and test out of it!!!! WHY all the resistance and doomsaying over this???? Am I just ignorant, or is there an honest reason other than "I can't be bothered to do that and I'm perfectly safe under my current canopy"? In case you couldn't tell, I'm all for it - I'm already planning to take a canopy control course as soon as I can after finishing my "A", and will probably get instruction from Skydive U, as well. It will make me better at flying my body and my canopy, which will make me safer to myself and those around me. How can that NOT be a good thing?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next Page 4 of 12 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
Ron 10 #79 January 18, 2005 QuoteAt my home DZ every jumper MUST receive an approval from his instructor before downsizing. He cannot just bring the rig and jump it. If he jumps canopy too small for him without permission, he may be grounded for a day/week/month (anyway, he may ground himself for whole life). It seems very strict but it works good. And thats what we are asking for. We have a basic chart in place (Brians WL to jump chart) created by an expert canopy pilot and canopy designer. And we are saying that is the BASE. If you wish to procede faster than that base then there woudl be a practical test to show you can control the canopy at the top of your section of the chart (I have proposed the PRO test sinc eit is easy to administor, and is already in place...Plus ask anyone that has done it...It proves that you can fly a canopy). If you can pass the test you can proceded at whatever rate you can handle. But you would nto be allowed to pick any canopy and jump it just because you think you could handle it. Having and Instructor sign you off to downsize is perfect....But not likley to happen on a large scale without a BSR."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chrisgr 0 #80 January 18, 2005 Like it or not, you have been ‘taking advice’ from people who have never seen you fly since you started your student training. Consider the current BSR’s. You have probably taken most of these rules and regulations as absolutes that must be followed. At one time, most of the BSR’s were merely advice (yikes). Yes, you may be slightly exceeding the proposed w/l chart, but you have also stated that you have practiced many of the skills that would be tested to fly your canopy and / or continue your canopy progression. What is the harm of proving yourself? There is an important reason why many jumpers continue to challenge themselves on canopy survival skills. Even if we are not planning to downsize, we know that these skills are necessary to continue skydiving and safely fly our canopies. Your instructors, S&TA, DZO, etc. are still the best resources and they probably are giving you safe advice if they have watched your canopy control and landings. What they do not have, however, is a standard by which to educate and evaluate canopy pilots that is consistently practiced by licensed instructors. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,070 #81 January 18, 2005 > Do you ground that person until they loose weight, let them jump their > canopy? More importantly if you let them jump their canopy how do you > word that in the BSR? Per the BSR we've been discussing, they would either have to: 1. prove to a canopy coach or an S+TA they can fly the canopy 2. take a canopy control course or 3. get a larger canopy In practice, once someone has a canopy at a given DZ, no one's going to make them 'give it back' unless something serious happens. If they go to a new DZ they might have trouble - which would be an excellent reason to take a canopy control course so they don't have to deal with the restriction. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,070 #82 January 18, 2005 >teaching them one thing for safety, then making them unlearn that and >retrain to a new safety path. We do it all the time. For their first jump, they must pull if they find themselves alone in freefall. After jump 4 or so, that changes. Their scan changes, their TLO's change, their body position changes, and their pull altitude changes all throughout AFF. This is because it's tough to teach leg turns (for example) to someone who has never been in freefall before, so you start slowly. But I do agree that it is wise to make the switch as early as possible. Start flat turns early in the student program; get them used to turning low and train them how to do it safely. That way there will be less confusion. >I see very few incident reports of jumpers who were injured because of >no turn... the vast majority are caused by turns at low altitude that they >didn't recover from. Again, prohibiting low turns is like outlawing impacts. I see very few incident report that do not include a hard impact, so if you just outlaw them you're good to go. The problem is that low turns are done to avoid powerlines, fences, freeways, other jumpers etc which may or may not injure the jumper more than the low turn. It's often better to land straight ahead than to turn low, but telling someone to accept a broken back instead of a fatality is a tough call, when the other option (flat turn resulting in no injury) is an option. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freakbrother 0 #83 January 18, 2005 QuoteI think you may have missed one point of the proposed BSR. You can't fly a smaller, faster canopy until you've proven your ability. Once you've demonstrated your ability to the appropriate person, you're cleared to downsize. So, the only additional hurdle that is being placed in your way is that you need to demonstrate the necessary survival skills before you downsize, rather than when you get into a tight spot under your smaller new canopy. If you don't demonstrate that ability, you're restricted to the WNE chart. Well, there seems to be some disagreement about what "NEVER EXCEED" means. Does NEVER mean never, or does it mean never unless you test out? That seems to be a source of some confusion. Clarify that and I thing a lot of the arguments will go away. For my part, I'd like a complete dissociation from jump numbers, and reliance instead on training and proven ability.. . www.freak-brother.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,070 #84 January 18, 2005 >Does NEVER mean never, or does it mean never unless you test out? The confusion here is that there is no official proposal. The proposal that Derek, Lisa, Scott etc and I sent in to USPA a while back includes a way to 'test out' of any restrictions by demonstrating canopy control to a canopy coach/S+TA. Here's an example of what such a BSR might look like: K. Parachute equipment 5a. No skydiver may exceed wing loading limits on their main parachute as given in the following table: [FB] A license XX to 1 B license YY to 1 C license ZZ to 1 D license WW to 1 5b. Any skydiver can request a canopy evaluation from a canopy coach or an S+TA. The S+TA/CC will ask the jumper to demonstrate some or all of the canopy control skills listed in section XX. The CC/S+TA may then endorse the jumper's logbook to allow him/her to jump at the next highest loading based on their performance. [FB] 5c. Upon successful completion of an approved canopy control course, the skydiver may then jump at any loading he qualifies for as endorsed by the course director.[FB] Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #85 January 18, 2005 Yes, on taking the advice that's true, but BSR's represent collective wisdom not individual opinion that makes specific and unknowable 'observations' about my ability. w.r.t. proving myself and canopy progression you'll see that I've already stated that this is less objectionable if it's applied reasonably. The devil is in the details. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #86 January 18, 2005 QuoteAll you have done is complain and tear down any program that would impose some form of control. And if your profile is correct, you are not qualified to speak on the subject. As I said, you read very selectively, looking for what you want to see. And unless you're going to assert that skydiving is a unique sport, unlike all others, you're quite wrong on my qualifications to discuss. Quote This says more about you then I ever could. Real Name: Darwin's Buddy Hey, you helped select that name. I've decided that in light of recent events, no need for specifics. I'm pretty much resigned to the idea that this proposal will be rammed through. It will do some good, it will have some negative side effects, and it will affect almost no one here today. It's the kind of legislation a San Francisco Democrat would be proud of. I just hope you guys work out all the little details sooner than later, given an unwillingness to hear any faults now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
obelixtim 150 #87 January 18, 2005 Well in the absence of anything else, and a recognition that there is a problem, at least its a start.....might not be perfect, and we won't really know how effective it is until its given time to work.....or not.....but there's been a lot of talk about it for a number of years.....at some point in time there has to be some action...... Its a basic benchmark which at least lets everyone know where the starting point is, and eliminates a lot of confusion...which only perpetuates the problem..... And its not set in stone.....it can be modified or adjusted at a later date if necessary....and most likely will......fresh ideas are not automatically ignored, because things change.... Skydiving has always been like that.... Most new skydiving disciplines have evolved slowly, with quite a bit of trial and error....but eventually things work out OK.....the rules are designed to cater for the largest number of people, and there will always be individuals who don't "fit" the solution.....thats life..... You new guys will in the future be confronted with new dilemmas that you'll need to solve......and when there is nothing to base a solution on, you'll find it quite a difficult process........ Its a challenge......not an imposition....regard it as such..........My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 4 #88 January 18, 2005 QuoteI just hope you guys work out all the little details sooner than later, given an unwillingness to hear any faults now. Instead of just bitching, why don't you become one of "you guys" and help work out the little details. Come up with something positive that contributes to the goal instead of coming up reasons you think it will fail. Come up with ideas to help it succeed. And just so you know, I have nothing to do with this proposal. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freakbrother 0 #89 January 18, 2005 Quote>Does NEVER mean never, or does it mean never unless you test out? The confusion here is that there is no official proposal. The proposal that Derek, Lisa, Scott etc and I sent in to USPA a while back includes a way to 'test out' of any restrictions by demonstrating canopy control to a canopy coach/S+TA. Here's an example of what such a BSR might look like: K. Parachute equipment 5a. No skydiver may exceed wing loading limits on their main parachute as given in the following table: [FB] A license XX to 1 B license YY to 1 C license ZZ to 1 D license WW to 1 5b. Any skydiver can request a canopy evaluation from a canopy coach or an S+TA. The S+TA/CC will ask the jumper to demonstrate some or all of the canopy control skills listed in section XX. The CC/S+TA may then endorse the jumper's logbook to allow him/her to jump at the next highest loading based on their performance. [FB] 5c. Upon successful completion of an approved canopy control course, the skydiver may then jump at any loading he qualifies for as endorsed by the course director.[FB] That's cool. Thanks for the clarification, Coulda done with it earlier, I guess. Nothing like arguing at cross purposes to waste a lot of bandwidth.. . www.freak-brother.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crotalus01 0 #90 January 19, 2005 just to play devils advocate here: if the WNE goes into effect, dont you think those low jump people who are hell bound to try swooping will just try it with larger canpies? reading the incident reports it seems that the deaths/injuries associated with low turns are about 60:40 intentional to panic turns. hell, i could probably get a decent swoop from my 190 if i got on the front risers or hooked it (i have no interest at this time so thats not gonna happen). as we have seen from the incident reports from '04, you can spiral in under a 280 and still kill yourself. just a thought. As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pash 0 #91 January 19, 2005 If I knew I had to have "x" jumps or completed some proficiency to swoop by "testing out", but didn't have that signed off on, I would expect and deserve to be grounded or talked to. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bartje 0 #92 January 19, 2005 youare right, after posting this reply I continued reading what wasafter and there you are ok. My excuses. I never wish somebody to hurt himself, Keep o, listen to others, we can not stop learning. A FreeFly Gypsy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #93 January 19, 2005 Quote Instead of just bitching, why don't you become one of "you guys" and help work out the little details. Come up with something positive that contributes to the goal instead of coming up reasons you think it will fail. Come up with ideas to help it succeed. And just so you know, I have nothing to do with this proposal. This is getting pretty circular. I have, and I did. Perhaps having nothing to do with this proposal is why you don't seem to be getting this, and instead are repeated this same bullshit about me over and over again. Nor is it defeatist to point out the major issues that will need addressing to make the transition a success, like the limited availability of 230+ rental rigs. Far better to identify these snags now. Oh, and it's a bit contradictory to post that I'm unqualified to speak on the subject, and then to tell me to be one of "you guys." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pash 0 #94 January 19, 2005 You and I are those guys. I'm not "qualified" to speak either. You and I are in the same boat, sort of. Tell me, would you rather have it handed to you by someone outside the community or would you rather recognize that people here 10+ years have seen people more qualified than us die because we didn't stop to think that more experienced people are just that. MORE EXPERIENCED. It doesn't mean giving up personal freedoms, taking a 2nd home equity loan, and being limited to finding a DZ 500 miles away that happens to have a 500 sq ft. canopy. They have suggested COUNTLESS times the ability to "test out." This would mean that you YES YOU, may be able to go up to your instructor, and ask to jump your CURRENT canopy (rental or otherwise) and PROVE you can land the thing in several ways. Wouldn't you feel more ACCOMPLISHED if you DEMONSTRATED your ability in the eyes of the MORE EXPERIENCED? Or do you think that they want no one to follow them and would prefer an extinct sport? They want us here and they want us to be here longer than our last bonehead decision would otherwise let us. You are not a bonehead by the way. But you must prove yourself to be outside of the bell-curve of the ones that got us to this debate in the first place. How about one or two more jumps on that 7,000 sq ft canopy first just to prove it. Get signed off on then you're off and running in NO TIME!! They may let us downsize to 5,000 sq ft in no time! PS - I'm sure no one here, including me, meant a lack of tact here in this thread. I think that includes you. I have to exercise tact day-in and day-out but this is not a sport in which I desire tact from the leadership. Give it to me straight. It's like being a recruit in WWII: Please help keep me alive with what you know. I'll do everything I can do to repay the favor. --edited to add that PS Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 4 #95 January 19, 2005 QuoteQuote Instead of just bitching, why don't you become one of "you guys" and help work out the little details. Come up with something positive that contributes to the goal instead of coming up reasons you think it will fail. Come up with ideas to help it succeed. And just so you know, I have nothing to do with this proposal. This is getting pretty circular. I have, and I did. Perhaps having nothing to do with this proposal is why you don't seem to be getting this, and instead are repeated this same bullshit about me over and over again. Nor is it defeatist to point out the major issues that will need addressing to make the transition a success, like the limited availability of 230+ rental rigs. Far better to identify these snags now. Oh, and it's a bit contradictory to post that I'm unqualified to speak on the subject, and then to tell me to be one of "you guys." "Bingo" No mor calls please. We have a winner. Someone who has all the answers. Good luck in the future, you will need it. DoneMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,070 #96 January 19, 2005 >dont you think those low jump people who are hell bound to try >swooping will just try it with larger canpies? Probably. But if you do exactly the same stupid thing under a Spectre 170 as under a Xaos 108, you are more likely to survive under the Spectre. More likely people will bitch about it and try to demonstrate they can fly their Spectre 170 so they can downsize. When they realize they can't flat turn - well, at least they learned something about their abilities. >as we have seen from the incident reports from '04, you can spiral >in under a 280 and still kill yourself. And skydivers can kill themselves by not responding to a mal even if they pull at 3000 feet. Doesn't mean the 2000 foot limit is meaningless as a result. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,070 #97 January 19, 2005 >Nor is it defeatist to point out the major issues that will need > addressing to make the transition a success, like the limited > availability of 230+ rental rigs. Far better to identify these snags now. All the San Diego rental rigs (except one) are 230+ square feet. Almost every DZ in the country uses 230+ sq ft student canopies. Getting the gear will not be a problem. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shark 0 #98 January 19, 2005 QuoteAnd as we were talking about the bigger guys...I run 210-220 over this past year. Translating to an exit weight of 245-255, right at the normal max of 254. The ideal size for me has been a ZP 230, at sea level. 210 is right over the edge of ok for me - I'd want to be at 205lbs or better. I've had some trouble visiting DZs and renting: Elsinore - Spectre 210 is biggest for gear shop, plus altitude concerns there. I found the envelope that weekend. QuoteSo if we mandate a 1.0 limit, either the rental options need to improve, or 6'ers are going to have to make compromises on time or gear or spend more money on a 260 that they use for a limited time. You quote our gear shop at Elsinore. I know for a fact that they will refer you to the school if you require a larger canopy. Several licensed jumpers still rent the Nav 240s and 260s. Wingloading is just part of the equation; a large part. What about a 110 lb. chick loaded at 1.4? She's just above the jump number range for it, why cant she jump the Velocity 87? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 4 #99 January 19, 2005 QuoteYou and I are those guys. I'm not "qualified" to speak either. You and I are in the same boat, sort of. Tell me, would you rather have it handed to you by someone outside the community or would you rather recognize that people here 10+ years have seen people more qualified than us die because we didn't stop to think that more experienced people are just that. MORE EXPERIENCED. It doesn't mean giving up personal freedoms, taking a 2nd home equity loan, and being limited to finding a DZ 500 miles away that happens to have a 500 sq ft. canopy. They have suggested COUNTLESS times the ability to "test out." This would mean that you YES YOU, may be able to go up to your instructor, and ask to jump your CURRENT canopy (rental or otherwise) and PROVE you can land the thing in several ways. Wouldn't you feel more ACCOMPLISHED if you DEMONSTRATED your ability in the eyes of the MORE EXPERIENCED? Or do you think that they want no one to follow them and would prefer an extinct sport? They want us here and they want us to be here longer than our last bonehead decision would otherwise let us. You are not a bonehead by the way. But you must prove yourself to be outside of the bell-curve of the ones that got us to this debate in the first place. How about one or two more jumps on that 7,000 sq ft canopy first just to prove it. Get signed off on then you're off and running in NO TIME!! They may let us downsize to 5,000 sq ft in no time! PS - I'm sure no one here, including me, meant a lack of tact here in this thread. I think that includes you. I have to exercise tact day-in and day-out but this is not a sport in which I desire tact from the leadership. Give it to me straight. It's like being a recruit in WWII: Please help keep me alive with what you know. I'll do everything I can do to repay the favor. --edited to add that PS OH, No, not another one of those new jumpers that wants to use common sense and get training and take advise and all that restrictive shit. They are a dying breed I heard. Opps, thats right, its the ones that don't think they need training and won't take advise that are a dying breed. My mistake. Seriously, with an attitude like yours, you have a good chance of surviving in this sport. The people working to put this program together do not want to hold new jumper down, they want to help them survive long enough to enjoy what skydiving has to offer. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #100 January 19, 2005 Maybe it's just because I'm a "new jumper", but I can't understand all the resistance to something that can be easily tested out of (for people that are "grandfathered in") AND WILL MAKE PEOPLE SAFER CANOPY PILOTS AND SAVE LIVES. WTF is up with this? If you're currently jumping a rig that's over your W/L, you can talk to the DZO/S&TA/CC and test out with your current rig, rent a student rig or demo a canopy and test out of it!!!! WHY all the resistance and doomsaying over this???? Am I just ignorant, or is there an honest reason other than "I can't be bothered to do that and I'm perfectly safe under my current canopy"? In case you couldn't tell, I'm all for it - I'm already planning to take a canopy control course as soon as I can after finishing my "A", and will probably get instruction from Skydive U, as well. It will make me better at flying my body and my canopy, which will make me safer to myself and those around me. How can that NOT be a good thing?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)