BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread)

[davelepka 4]

Quote

The sport will not go extinct, with or without these changes. And given history, it's unlikely the death count will change,

The death count has changed. Dramatically. Thats why were havig this discussion. Ten years ago, open canopy incidents were no more prevalent than other incidents. Were you unaware of this, or do you have reason to believe that the trend has stabilized, and will not get any worse? If the latter is the case, do you believe that the number of open canopy incidents is acceptable?

Quote

the canopy training and standards requirements that are coupled to this discussion that will do the most good. Personally I'd like that as the priority, but it's a much harder one to do.

This is a point I have echoed on many occasions. What do you propose we do in the meantime? The USPA has been 'working' on this problem for years, with no tangible results thus far.

Looking at the small picture, there were two serious incidents in the last couple weeks involving low time jumpers making low turns, with predictable resutls. Both jumpers were on eliptical canpies at a WL FAR excceding the values of the WL NE chart. There is nothing to say that if the chart were in place these incidents wouldn't have happened, but I'm willing to bet that if it was:

1. Their WL would have been much lower. Maybe not to the number of the chart, but having a chart in place would have shown the extreme negligence in allowing these jumpers to jump the canopies they were.

2. If their Wl and canopy choice was closer to the WL chart, and they had perfprmed the same manuver, these incidents would not have occured. A more appropriate canopy would have recovered from the input in sufficient time and altitude to allow for an un-eventful landing.

OR

3. If the jumpers had changed their approach to try and swoop the larger canopy, at a minimum the impact would have been lessened.

In my opinion, 1, 2, and/or 3, anre better alternatives to the reality of what did happen.

[DontPanic 0]

In some posts, the way this W/L BSR is presented doesn't seem to bad. In other posts, it begins to sound like the W/L BSR would impose alot of confusing bureaucracy.

I am still using the rental equipment at my DZ, and I have always talked with the coaches whenever I have downsized to a different canopy. It would not have been a burden to obtain a sign-off from the S&TA or the Canopy Coach before jumping a certain canopy, since I was already checking with them before jumping a new canopy. Also, it would have been OK with me to have acquired some sign-offs on some canopy skills before progressing past the 1/1 ratio.

But when I look at my current situation, I get confused when I measure my situation up against some of the things I'm seeing in posts in this thread. My current exit weight is about 210-215 lbs. I lost 10 lbs to get there, but who knows, I may gain that 10 lbs back someday. Based on the BSR proposals I have seen, I can jump our 215 Falcon without bumping into the W/L BSR (I would still have to get the approval of the DZ coaches before progressing).

Our next size down is a 190 Sabre, which would be at about 1.12/1 for me. Some of the posts here seem to indicate I would need to jump a rig in the 1 - 1.1 range before going to 1.12/1, but we don't have a rig in that range. Then, just to confuse things even more I have to worry about gaining or losing 5 or 10 lbs.

To me, it would simplify things to say you have to get signed off for a canopy size that exceeds the W/L BSR (instead of saying you have to get signed off to advance to the next segment of the W/L BSR). Once you get signed off for that canopy size, as long as you stay current (which assumes you would be jumping that canopy through minor weight changes, and staying accustomed to it's behaviour as your weight changes gradually), you are still cleared for that canopy size.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

To me, it would simplify things to say you have to get signed off for a canopy size that exceeds the W/L BSR (instead of saying you have to get signed off to advance to the next segment of the W/L BSR).

That is what our proposal says.....

It combines CC training at each license level with an increase in the WL the person can jump. If you gain weight, can't find a canopy in the range you need, whztever and next size down works but is above you max WL, then just demonstrate the ability to handle the higher WL and you get signed off.

Again, the proposal is not meant to hold anyone back that doesn't need to be held back. If someone with 50 jumps want to jump a Stiletto 89 at 1.6:1, they either won't be allowed to, or if they can demonstrate they are an exception to the rule, then they will be allowed to.

No BSR is perfect. Should every D license holder pull at 2,000 feet on every jump? No sometimes 2,000 feet is unsafe. Can someone get away with pulling below 2,000 feet? Yes, but the risk factor starts to really go up. The min pull altitude BSR was set at 2,000 partially because it is an easy number. Why not 1,900 feet or 2,100 feet? The BSR needs to be as simple as possible to be accepted. Does the BSR stop everyone from deploying under 2,00ft? No. But it does make a positive difference and give DZ's and easy BSR to enforce. You could make ahugely complicated WL SR that accounted for every little detail, but it would be so complicated it would be impractical.

Derek

[Ron 10]

Quote

But when I look at my current situation, I get confused when I measure my situation up against some of the things I'm seeing in posts in this thread. My current exit weight is about 210-215 lbs. I lost 10 lbs to get there, but who knows, I may gain that 10 lbs back someday. Based on the BSR proposals I have seen, I can jump our 215 Falcon without bumping into the W/L BSR (I would still have to get the approval of the DZ coaches before progressing).

Your Falcon 215 you would be 1.06 round up 1.1
The 190 you would be 1.21 round down 1.2.

1.1 to 1.2 is not a big jump. And if you got the approval of the S&TA then there would be no problem.

Quote

To me, it would simplify things to say you have to get signed off for a canopy size that exceeds the W/L BSR (instead of saying you have to get signed off to advance to the next segment of the W/L BSR). Once you get signed off for that canopy size, as long as you stay current (which assumes you would be jumping that canopy through minor weight changes, and staying accustomed to it's behaviour as your weight changes gradually), you are still cleared for that canopy size.

Practical application this would happen.

You would not be allowed to go from a 1.1 to a 1.5 without proving you could handle it. And that is the major issue, not 1.12 to 1.16

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[RippedCord 0]

Quote

It not just to protect people from themselves, its to protect the sport as a whole ...

This is an argument I fully support and can side with. Now we are making rules to protect ourselves from the actions of others.

Now, assuming that we pass such rule/requirement, who gets charged with the responsibility of enforcing it, and HOW do they go about enforcing it?

AMDG

[Designer 0]

Humm,interesting idea!To attempt this could be trouble.They will just go somewhere else to be stupid!All dropzones would have to agree to test there own solutions.Maybe at the next DZ conference?A BSR IS JUST 1 POSSIBLE SOLUTION.What else could we try?Let's put our thinking caps on folks.(lol)

[billvon 2,991]

> who gets charged with the responsibility of enforcing it . . .

Initially S+TA's. (They do this now, they just don't have any guidelines to use.) Eventually canopy control coaches. As always the DZO would have to back them up.

>and HOW do they go about enforcing it?

Same way I enforced stuff at Brown. "You can't jump that Stiletto here" or "You can't jump that here until you prove that you can land your old canopy."

[tspillers 0]

This is a reply to the group.

Based on the S&T Com Meetings, I don't think there will be a BSR. They are very interested in guidelines. There are several ideas that will be discusssed by a subcommittee in which I am on. I have been lurking the posts and there are many good ideas. Keep posting and debating (it save committee work and time).

As I have mentioned in the past, I am in favor of a chart with an advancement option. I am also interested in having canopy skills performance at each license level, but that is another issue. I also believe there should be a canopy class system. For example a class I (maybe Navigator type) has a wingloading X, but a class II (Sabre 2) has wing loading Y at the same given level. Please email me if you have any input on a way to implement this. Just post here to discuss the idea.

Todd

I am not totally useless, I can be used as a bad example.

[billvon 2,991]

>If someone is afraid for a lawsuit than I start thinking that they are
>not 100% sure off an decision.

I'm afraid of lawsuits. I organize at Rantoul and I'm always worried someone will get hurt and sue everyone involved (including me.)

A few years back someone in a group I organized flipped on her back, started to spin, tried to pull then just gave up. I pulled her reserve. I later found out that she probably had some brain damage from a previous accident. If I hadn't been able to get to her in time, what are the odds her family would go after me for allowing a brain-damaged woman to jump out of an airplane, even _encouraging_ her? Not zero.

Lawsuits are now a part of this sport. Skydivers sue other skydivers. It's a sad state of affairs but it is reality.

Note that this really doesn't have too much to do with the BSR - other than the fewer injuries and deaths, the fewer lawsuits.

[billvon 2,991]

>For example a class I (maybe Navigator type) has a wingloading X,
> but a class II (Sabre 2) has wing loading Y at the same given level.
> Please email me if you have any input on a way to implement this.
> Just post here to discuss the idea.

There is a thread in gear+rigging to discuss this - basically, we get the manufacturers to do this. If USPA is going to just make recommendations instead of doing a BSR, no one will take them seriously (or at least, they won't take them more seriously than the manufacturer.) The manufacturer knows his canopy best, so we just get them (via PIA) to come up with a loading for each of his canopies that correspond to student/beginner/intermediate/advanced loadings.

[tspillers 0]

Of Course PD already does this.

The feeling is that it will give more fuel to the I's, DZO's, S&TA's, etc. without shoving it down everyone's throat and it switches the 'grandfather' issue from 'how do we deal with it' to maybe those individuals should think about what they are jumping. It will still, as always, have to be dealt with most on the local level. Education is where we have to focus. Showing them some guidlines and training them and allowing them to perform certain skills prior to advancement.

This of course is just my opinions based on my spin of the meetings.

I am not totally useless, I can be used as a bad example.

[okalb 104]

The problem with a recommendation is the people who want to drastically exceed the chart are usually the ones who "know better" and don't want to listen to anyone.

If it is just a recommendation all we can do is tell them that it is not a good idea. We already do that now but they don't listen. If it is BSR we can tell them that it is a bad idea and you can't do it. That is the only way most of the "know it alls" will listen.

-OK

Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

The death count has changed. Dramatically. Thats why were havig this discussion. Ten years ago, open canopy incidents were no more prevalent than other incidents. Were you unaware of this, or do you have reason to believe that the trend has stabilized, and will not get any worse?

Fatalities Each Year:
1992 - 27 1998 - 44
1993 - 41 1999 - 27
1994 - 30 2000 - 32
1995 - 27 2001 - 35
1996 - 39 2002 - 33
1997 - 31 2003 - 25

You mean canopy deaths, I meant deaths period. Aside from the notion of find new ways to increase risk, I believe that as a whole a group responds to known incidents. After a bad rash, people act more cautiously. After a long good stretch, people get more complacent. Making discussion and dissemination of accidents critical. I wish non fatal accident information was of better quality - much more progress can be made there than on the deaths side.

[Bartje 0]

Quote

A few years back someone in a group I organized flipped on her back, started to spin, tried to pull then just gave up. I pulled her reserve. I later found out that she probably had some brain damage from a previous accident. ....

don't they need a medical attest to skydive?
Everyone who's in my course does need an medical attest with the docters declaration that the person is fit to jump.

A FreeFly Gypsy

[billvon 2,991]

>Of Course PD already does this.

Yes. Unfortunately they have five categories; others have four or three categories. If we could get them to standardize on the number of levels and define them in terms of experience/training that would help.

>to maybe those individuals should think about what they are
> jumping.

Won't do much to solve the problem though. The people who are able to listen will continue to listen to people who give them advice. The problem now is there are people who simply won't listen no matter who tells them they are loading their canopies too heavily; any such advice is seen as an attack. You say "you might want some more training before jumping that canopy" and they hear "you suck and are not good enough to fly a hot canopy." So they feel they have to prove you wrong. Jesus Christ could appear unto them and tell them to upsize and they'd figure "well, Jesus doesn't swoop anyway, so he wouldn't understand my skills."

>Education is where we have to focus. Showing them some guidlines
> and training them and allowing them to perform certain skills prior
> to advancement.

I agree; but again, the people who will listen to advice to get training are the people listening now. The problem are the people who know they are so good that they don't need the training. The training-to-get-out-of-restrictions clause is intended to deal with these people.

[tspillers 0]

I agree with you I think.

Are you saying we shouldn't offer a test out? If so, I think that isn't realistic. We either make the limits so high, it doesn't matter, or we penalize those who spend their time going to courses on canopy control, getting coaching, and practicing how to fly their canopies. It would be like setting a rule that you must have 50 jumps to be on a 20-way, but not allowing for the guy with 5 hours of tunnel time and 20 of his 30 jumps were SDU program.

I believe that unless DZO's and instructors get involved, then a BSR wouldn't even help. Some DZ's have already set their own limits. This has been met with much resistance. If there were a guidline that the DZ's could follow, it would make for less resistance. Also, there are many DZ's that feel that if it is printed (recommendation or BSR), it is fuel for attourney's as standard accepted practice.

I also think a recommendation would get passed easier than a BSR for w/l. I have not fact to back this up, this is just my feeling.

I am not totally useless, I can be used as a bad example.

[billvon 2,991]

>Are you saying we shouldn't offer a test out?

No, we should offer an option to test out to the next level.

>I believe that unless DZO's and instructors get involved, then a BSR
> wouldn't even help.

I agree 100%. One of the most important parts of the BSR would be the training canopy coaches would get; canopy coaches (i.e. people who are able to teach HP canopy safety) can then teach canopy control to new jumpers and evaluate them when they want to test out. It is a skill that is currently lacking at some DZ's.

>I also think a recommendation would get passed easier than a BSR
> for w/l. I have not fact to back this up, this is just my feeling.

I agree, but I am not considering what would be easiest to do at this point, but rather what would be most effective.

[pash 0]

Quote

That is what our proposal says.....

It combines CC training at each license level with an increase in the WL the person can jump. If you gain weight, can't find a canopy in the range you need, whztever and next size down works but is above you max WL, then just demonstrate the ability to handle the higher WL and you get signed off.

Again, the proposal is not meant to hold anyone back that doesn't need to be held back. If someone with 50 jumps want to jump a Stiletto 89 at 1.6:1, they either won't be allowed to, or if they can demonstrate they are an exception to the rule, then they will be allowed to.

No BSR is perfect. Should every D license holder pull at 2,000 feet on every jump? No sometimes 2,000 feet is unsafe. Can someone get away with pulling below 2,000 feet? Yes, but the risk factor starts to really go up. The min pull altitude BSR was set at 2,000 partially because it is an easy number. Why not 1,900 feet or 2,100 feet? The BSR needs to be as simple as possible to be accepted. Does the BSR stop everyone from deploying under 2,00ft? No. But it does make a positive difference and give DZ's and easy BSR to enforce. You could make ahugely complicated WL SR that accounted for every little detail, but it would be so complicated it would be impractical.

Derek
Think
I wonder how many incidents have been avoided because DZ.com exists?

For anyone still in opposition to this matter, please re-read the above post. It seems to me that the experienced proponents of this BSR already understand that YOU are an ace and that this rule is only meant for the people that can't fly a small canopy properly. If this passed it wouldn't really affect you because you're probably doing just fine anyway thank you very much.

Hypothetical: What if the BSR passed and you went for sign off by jumping your hp canopy but didn't get it because [insert reason here]? Would you call that money-out-the-window or would you quietly start working on your cc skills? Would you give weight to the highly experienced coaches that acted as eye-witnesses to your [insert adjective here] landing?

This BSR would put the power in their hands instead of yours. Scary for some, sure. And I think that is the root.

jason

[mjosparky 4]

Quote

Quote

It not just to protect people from themselves, its to protect the sport as a whole ...

This is an argument I fully support and can side with. Now we are making rules to protect ourselves from the actions of others.

Now, assuming that we pass such rule/requirement, who gets charged with the responsibility of enforcing it, and HOW do they go about enforcing it?

My choice would be the biggest, badest, MF on the DZ and have him use a ball bat.
But I think Bill's answer is more likely to happen.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[davelepka 4]

Quote

Are you saying we shouldn't offer a test out?

we penalize those who spend their time going to courses on canopy control, getting coaching, and practicing how to fly their canopies.

a rule that you must have 50 jumps to be on a 20-way, but not allowing for the guy with 5 hours of tunnel time and 20 of his 30 jumps were SDU program.

Keep in mind, that your 30 jump tunnel-wonder has not proven his ability track in a crowd, react to a funnel in a formation, or fly his canopy in heavy traffic.

Likewise, a student who presues canopy flying with courses and coaching is not penalized by a WL limitation. They are rewarded improved skills, and if canopy flight is their thing, they can upsize every 100 jumps, and be at a good WL for their experience.

The point to remember is that most swoopers agree, there is no rush to learning to swoop. By the time you have your basic canopy skills nailed down, say 150 or 200 jumps, you're able to jump at 1.2.

This is a fine WL for working with a double front riser approach. You need at least 100 jumps to learn both how to fly the approach, as well as deal with the increased speed (what good does a high speed swoop do you if you cannot control the canopy throughout).

Now you're ready for 90's, and can move up to 1.3, but keep mind that you need 20 jumps min. to get used to the new canopy,then another 20 or so transitioning your established skill of double fronts. Even if you moved up to 90's and wanted to donwsize at your next available interval (400 jumps), that only leaves you sixty 90 degree approaches on your canopy before upsizing. 60 jumps does not the expert make.

Do you see where this is going? The folks who are so opposed to these ideas are the up-and -commers who have a misconception about just what's involved in learning HP canopy flight. The fact is that to safely learn how to swoop, it takes enough jumps that the WL chart becomes a non-issue. When you're ready, the canopies are available to you. You don't need anything more than 1.2 to learn your basic skills, and maybe some double front stuff, and the jump number requirements on the chart are in line with when you should be working on that stuff.


All the swoopers at my DZ got into the habit of getting up early on the weekends, and flying several Cessna hop n pop loads before the Otter fires up. All of us have 1000+ jumps, and make approx 8 - 10 Otter jumps through the day, but we still make the effort to get those 3 or 4 extra swoops each day. Thats what it takes to swoop. Not 200 jumps and warm fuzzy feeling. It's not a penalty to impose a WL chart, it's reality.

[freakbrother 0]

Quote

Quote

The death count has changed. Dramatically. Thats why were havig this discussion. Ten years ago, open canopy incidents were no more prevalent than other incidents. Were you unaware of this, or do you have reason to believe that the trend has stabilized, and will not get any worse?

Fatalities Each Year:
1992 - 27 1998 - 44
1993 - 41 1999 - 27
1994 - 30 2000 - 32
1995 - 27 2001 - 35
1996 - 39 2002 - 33
1997 - 31 2003 - 25

You mean canopy deaths, I meant deaths period. .

There's a bit more detail in the attached graph.

.
.
www.freak-brother.com

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

You mean canopy deaths, I meant deaths period. .

There's a bit more detail in the attached graph.

[davelepka 4]

Maybe I should have been specific with my post regarding the increase in deaths. I was refering to the deaths related to open canopy incidents only.

That graph really illustrates my point. Both in the quantity, and the time frame. Since open canopy incidents have prevailed, there has been zero change regarding the training or regluation of canopy flight (with the exception of private schools).

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

This BSR would put the power in their hands instead of yours. Scary for some, sure. And I think that is the root.

It certainly is a big one. This is a sport of personal freedom, and personal responsibility. The two should go hand in hand.

Some (most?) of the strongest proponents are those who made a mistake in the past and paid for it, or were closely involved to others that did. The solution might be viewed as denying people the same right to make a mistake. Is that right (fair) and appropriate?

That's a philosophical question based on personal risk beliefs, and clouded by the consideration of affected people beyond the individual jumper in question. If your answer is an total yes or no, you haven't thought it through.

At that level, I think each DZO has the right to set policy, but would prefer not to see the USPA do so.

[billvon 2,991]

>The solution might be viewed as denying people the same right to
>make a mistake. Is that right (fair) and appropriate?

Well:

1. We seem to have no problem denying the people the right to make mistakes like driving drunk or flying an airplane without training.

2. Often the mistake results in death. While it's all well and good to allow people to make mistakes as a learning tool, dying right afterwards does not allow much learning to take place.

3. We seem to agree as a sport that some people are simply not qualified to judge for themselves if they are ready to risk something. No DZ on the planet would let a whuffo walk onto the DZ, rent a Triathalon 190 and jump solo for the first time, even if he claimed to understand all the risks and accept them. It's not that he's lying, it's simply that he cannot yet understand the risks in what he's about to do - he has no references to compare it to.

I believe many people who downsize rapidly have the same problem. Not only do they not understand the risk they are taking, they don't even know what they don't know. Witness all the people who re-evaluate their risk taking after they see someone die for the first time.