BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread)

[davelepka 4]

Quote

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

Why do you think that the jumpers who are most vocal in supporting these ideas are well past being effected by any changes to the rules? Is it becasue it's easy to make changes that won;t effect us? Maybe just to jerk around the little guy?


If you think so, ask yourself this, what do any of have to gain from our efforts? How does it benefit us personally to support such actions?

If you cannot think of an answer to those questions, would you consider that after years of juming, and living through the very same stage of jumping you're at now (and most of us were just starting out when the shit started hiting the fan), and seeing the pattern develop, and things get progressively worse, that we just flat out care what happens to people? Especially those people who see what we do, and persue skydiving?

Year in and year out we see that same things happening. A change must occur to stop the carnage. Not only is it sad to see, it drops the skydiving population every time, and we cannot afford those losses. Is it really going to cramp your style that much to follow the chart? If everyone else is following the same chart? Can't you show yourself to be the more gifted and skilled pilot on any canopy you are jumping? I have illustrated several times that an ambitious jumper can learn the skills and build a solid foundation on canpopies that fall within the chart guidelines. You may disagree, but I would direct your attention to the fact that as focused as you are on your jumping and swooping, I have been on mine for the last decade. In truth, I'm probably more dedicated to it than you are (ask my ex-wife living in my ex-house).

Take one for the team, and trust me when I say that in 500 jumps you'll going crazy fast, and be doing safely and with the respect of your peers. For now, pull it back a notch, and see that if you cannot crawl, how do you expect to learn how to sprint?

[RippedCord 0]

Quote

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

These are mistakes that have a high probability of causing serious injury or death to others. Can we say the same about someone who uses a high performance canopy?

AMDG

[billvon 3,070]

>These are mistakes that have a high probability of causing serious injury
> or death to others. Can we say the same about someone who uses a
>high performance canopy?

I think so. It's not as much of an issue as with drunk driving because the sky is so big and the roads are so crowded, but already we've had people (including whuffo spectators) killed by swoopers. I remember one guy at our DZ who once took out the Airspeed 8-way team because they 'got in his way' (they were doing a jam-up in the mockup.) Fortunately no one was hurt, but he came close to seriously injuring both himself and several others.

[mjosparky 4]

Quote

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.

You are making assumptions about peoples beliefs, their reasons for supporting a program like this and what DZO's would prefer to see done in this area.
The people I have talked support it because they feel it will help keep other agencies from stepping in and it will benefit the sport as a whole. The few DOZ's I have talked with are not against USPA take the lead on this, in fact they wish USPA would get off the dime and get it done.

Earlier you were talking about no data to support a W/L restriction and then you come up with this unsupported post.

You can't have it both ways.

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[RippedCord 0]

Quote

>These are mistakes that have a high probability of causing serious injury
> or death to others. Can we say the same about someone who uses a
>high performance canopy?

I think so. It's not as much of an issue as with drunk driving because the sky is so big and the roads are so crowded, but already we've had people (including whuffo spectators) killed by swoopers. I remember one guy at our DZ who once took out the Airspeed 8-way team because they 'got in his way' (they were doing a jam-up in the mockup.) Fortunately no one was hurt, but he came close to seriously injuring both himself and several others.

So are we talking high probability of serious injury or risk to others or are these rare to very rare incidents? Or, are we coming down on the side of any probability or serious risk or injury to others is unacceptable and warrants more policing of a jumpers canopy size?

I think the "any probability" and potential for an outside agency to step in could be arguments in favor of an additional rule(s).

AMDG

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

Why do you think that the jumpers who are most vocal in supporting these ideas are well past being effected by any changes to the rules? Is it becasue it's easy to make changes that won;t effect us? Maybe just to jerk around the little guy?

If you think so, ask yourself this, what do any of have to gain from our efforts? How does it benefit us personally to support such actions?

I think a lot of supporters aren't able to distinguish between their good intentions and their proposals.

Life would be different if earnestly meaning well could change the character of a proposed regulation.

nathaniel

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[billvon 3,070]

>So are we talking high probability of serious injury or risk to others
>or are these rare to very rare incidents?

Fairly rare, but then HP canopy fatalities are fairly rare as well. As drop zones get larger, traffic increases and people with less and less experience jump faster and faster canopies, the risk to everyone goes up. Not just because they can collide with people - whenever you add a jumper who can't control his canopy to a crowded landing pattern you increase the risk for everyone both in the air and on the ground.

>Or, are we coming down on the side of any probability or serious risk or
> injury to others is unacceptable and warrants more policing of a jumpers
> canopy size?

No.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Why do you think that the jumpers who are most vocal in supporting these ideas are well past being effected by any changes to the rules? Is it becasue it's easy to make changes that won;t effect us? Maybe just to jerk around the little guy?

If you think so, ask yourself this, what do any of have to gain from our efforts? How does it benefit us personally to support such actions?

Dave,

On the whole, I think the motivation is a sincere desire to eliminate obviously preventable accidents. The kind that happen to people you hope will femur, because death is a likely alternative outcome. But the proposals go much further to attempt to close down even the potential of risk. Will that increase safety? Sure. Is it good to take away the responsibility of deciding from the jumpers? Not so sure. The concern of outside interference has been raised, but I find it hard to see happening so long as the sport stays in its historical range of 20-40 fatal accidents each year.

I'm a pretty cautious jumper, but have been more aggressive in other sports. I've done glacier climbs without a huge background in little league mountaineering. I do one or two trips per year. My first dive in the Farallon Islands was #39, on the first sport diver trip out there in 15 years. These were great experiences, but in a more regimented sport, I'd never have been permitted to do them.

There's the notion that there's no rush. The sky/mountain/ocean will always be there. For most, that ends up being true, but there are no guarantees. My girlfriend died last spring at 32 from recurrent melanoma. 6 years after the initial illness, she went from perfectly fine to dead in 5 weeks. The only consolation is that she had never put off goals or interests to "next year." It reaffirmed for me the value of taking informed risks, and got me back on track from my AFF training.

Using Brian's chart as the recommended guideline while setting the never exceed to +.2 seems a better compromise. For me, the objection is really at the low end. I don't understand 1.0 as a hard limit when that's not what first rig buyers are getting. They're going 1.1, at least on the > 150 category, and don't seem to be suffering badly as a consequence.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Is it good to take away the responsibility of deciding from the jumpers? Not so sure.

Why?

Do you think the minimum deployment altitude BSR is a bad idea?

What is the difference?

Derek

[obelixtim 150]

Well for you nit picking nay sayers, I have a real simple answer( for me), as a DZO who likes to give every jumper the freedom to enjoy themselves to the max......unless they threaten my (and others) livelihood and peace of mind......

I'll just ban swooping from my DZ.....from anyone I don't know or clear.....(yes, I have the power!!!)

I don't need your money....

I don't need the hassle....

I don't need the arguments....

I don't need the bad PR from your accident....

Don't need the paperwork.....

Don't need to justify my decision.....to anyone....

Simple.........and permanent.......

I'll let you worry about finding another place to jump......

If thats OK with you....of course.....

Why you no listen????.......

I know if I give you enough rope you'll end up hanging yourselves......job done!!!!....

My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

[Bartje 0]

freedom means learning,
who are we to decide that others can not jump a canopy if we know when we are sure that they have common sense. Common sense like they are people who wants to put it in a chart and make it a rule.When there is common sense than there is no problem, the problem is when an instructor makes a miscall at somebody. Should we not be more give more attention to the instructors course for those instructors who are giving canopycourses?
I think this can help to turn the statistics in the other direction.
Of corse you need students whith a good state of mind but I'm sure that you can do 50% better than now.
The statistics do not show the mentality from those people who did have an accident. You can use those statistics for what yiu want , I realize that the result is there, but you can put it in a context like you want.
We need good instructerscourses to start with, after that we can start to give courses at people who want's to learn but this will take years.

Everybody has the solution, it's in between your ears.
Start with a positive mind when you skydive, canopy is not more dagerous as you make it.

A FreeFly Gypsy

[Bartje 0]

Quote

.....(yes, I have the power!!!)

And, does it feel good or are you not happy with the job.

A FreeFly Gypsy

[pash 0]

Quote

I think a lot of supporters aren't able to distinguish between their good intentions and their proposals.

Life would be different if earnestly meaning well could change the character of a proposed regulation.

nathaniel

And they are trying to change life for the better. This isn't meaning well. This is taking an action that may be unpopular to those most affected for the benefit of those most affected.

Every counter point seems to revolve around philosophy and money. I quite like the philosophy of the leaders in this sport and I know they don't do it for the money.

YOU get to have your fast-ass canopy once you demonstrate you can fly it.

[pash 0]

Quote

But the proposals go much further to attempt to close down even the potential of risk.

Only for those that shouldn't be there in the first place. Demonstrate you can consistently fly your canopy then you can assume the risk. They aren't talking about that many jumps when you consider your potential amount of time in this sport. You may be at the skill level that would get you tested out anyway. Is it wise for those that COULD NOT get checked out on their canopy to compound the risks that already inherently exist?

Quote

Will that increase safety? Sure.

Good enough reason for me.

Quote

Is it good to take away the responsibility of deciding from the jumpers? Not so sure.

For those that prove they are irresponsible in their decisions, yes.

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

YOU get to have your fast-ass canopy once you demonstrate you can fly it.

I don't want a fast ass canopy, not right now anyway. I'm quite happy with what I've got--be careful with your presumptions.

But I still think these proposals could reasonably do more harm than good, or possibly do nothing at all, and I think the burden is on the proponents to show otherwise. ie with more than their good intentions.

nathaniel

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Well for you nit picking nay sayers, I have a real simple answer( for me), as a DZO who likes to give every jumper the freedom to enjoy themselves to the max......unless they threaten my (and others) livelihood and peace of mind......

I'll just ban swooping from my DZ.....from anyone I don't know or clear.....(yes, I have the power!!!)

I fully support your right to do so, Tim. Every DZO can set their standards. If they're unreasonable, some people will choose elsewhere. Or even if they're reasonable - a large market will happily support multiple operators at differing levels of permissiveness.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Is it good to take away the responsibility of deciding from the jumpers? Not so sure.

Why?
Do you think the minimum deployment altitude BSR is a bad idea?
What is the difference?

The difference is between obvious accidents in waiting, and potential ones. I've done a couple jumps at 1.2 - at that level I've certainly increased the risk level, but nowhere near the same as if I jumped at 1.4. And the rest of my last 18 were at 1.1.

The minimum deployment BSR says Ds can open at 2000, but few do so as a matter of practice, wouldn't you agree? And lowtimers like me open at 3500 or more even if 3000 is the line.

That BSR is fairly permissive for normal practices. The 1.x for > x00 jumps chart is not. It would be the equilivent of setting As to 4000ft. Bs&Cs to 3000.

Or something like that - I'm feeling rather inarticulate right now. Maybe Nathaniel can address that more succinctly, just as he did so well a little earlier today.

[parachutist 2]

Quote

Quote

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.

A more realistic analogy to driving would be: You are saying that it's ok to tailgate, as long as they are taught how to dodge the other car's bumper at last minute.

In reality they should be taught to avoid putting themselves in a bad situation: They must plan ahead. ie: do not tailgate... do not put yourself into a situation that requires hard turns at low altitude. As students are taught from the beginning, minor 5-10 degree turns are ok and they will allow you to avoid most obstacles that may be noticed last minuute. With a little precaution there is no need for turns greater than 10 degrees below 100 ft, and attempts to make such turns would in majority of situations cause more problems than if the jumper were to fly straight ahead and make the best of the situation.

Something that I think you do not realize, because you have about 4k jumps under your belt, is that low-timers have not trained their brains to interpret data that is incoming from their senses yet (air speed felt on the skin, G's felt through the leg straps, ability to judge ground speed and altitude accurately via vision). So while you can teach them the theory of how to do safe low turns, you can not really get the knowledge into their heads until they have plenty of actual practice. This is why I say low-timers have no business doing low turns.

Also low-timers do not have a good feel for turbulence and the effects of it. Best way to get through turbulence is arms up til time to flare. So once again simple is best here for low-timers.. teach them something that will get them through a majority of bad situations: Down to 100ft? Arms up... wait, wait, wait... flare.

Chris

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

***
Do you think the minimum deployment altitude BSR is a bad idea?
What is the difference?

The minimum deployment BSR says Ds can open at 2000, but few do so as a matter of practice, wouldn't you agree? And lowtimers like me open at 3500 or more even if 3000 is the line.

Hooknswoop and I have gone over this in PMs, and to rehash:

Unfortunately, it's not that simple. I cannot show that the pull-altitude BSR is bad, and that's why I'm not (not right now, anyway) debating for its repeal.

We cannot simply compare pull-altitudes before and after, because pull-altitudes are not the sumtotal of jumpers' actions, and the pull-altitude BSR wasn't the only thing that changed in the early '90s that could influence jumpers' behaviour, specifically pull altitude.

But, I think it's not just a co-incidence that the first reliable AADs entered the market in the early '90s, and that their introduction co-incided with decreases in no-pull incidents. What would the fatality results look like if we were to count AAD saves as no-pulls? There's been several dozen of them.

While some of them were jumpers showing extremely poor judgement and deciding not to pull & "waiting for the CYPRES to fire", it's unreasonable to think that reliable AADs have not contributed to the decline in no-pull fatalities.

Whereas there's little evidence at all (at least that I've seen), to indicate that the pull-altitude BSR has had any effect, plus or minus. Other than the time-correlation that it shares with reliable AADs.

And there's nothing to say that both reliable AADs and pull-altitude rules couldn't be factors simultaneously. Just the evidence we have pertains more to AADs than to pull-altitude rules.

The question we're debating here is not whether pull-altitude rules are good or bad, it's whether new rules about wing loadings are justified, and the two are not comparable. Although if you like we can start a separate thread to debate the merits of pull-altitude rules, inside & outside the context of reliable AADs.

nathaniel

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[mjosparky 4]

Quote

if we know when we are sure that they have common sense. Common sense like they are people who wants to put it in a chart and make it a rule.

Common sense is not that common, if it was we would not be having this discussion. Doing 45 mph in a hook turn, 50 feet off the ground, common sense sometimes eludes the best of us. At times like that, experience and training might be your last hope.

No one wants to hold any one down, or hold them back. The goal is to provide you with the tools and skills to go were you want to go safely. By doing it safely, at least safer, it will keep the DZO's from some kind of complete ban on HP canopies and swooping and keep the Feds. for looking hard at us.

The reason we have a altitude BSR is because people were dying pulling low and the Feds. were not happy. There was a time when the State of California was also in the business of regulating skydiving. With some firm guidelines in place the got out of the business. Do you want to give them a reason to open shop again?

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[RippedCord 0]

Quote

...There was a time when the State of California was also in the business of regulating skydiving. With some firm guidelines in place the got out of the business. Do you want to give them a reason to open shop again?

Sparky

Wow, so this is not just a scenario with real possibilities, but one that has already happened.

I'm curious to learn more about what brought about that type of intervention, how deep it got, and what the guidelines were that resulted in the state gov't getting out.

AMDG

[pash 0]

Quote

YOU get to have your fast-ass canopy once you demonstrate you can fly it.

Quote

I don't want a fast ass canopy, not right now anyway. I'm quite happy with what I've got--be careful with your presumptions.

But I still think these proposals could reasonably do more harm than good, or possibly do nothing at all, and I think the burden is on the proponents to show otherwise. ie with more than their good intentions.

YOU plural. I cannot make a presumption about you specifically because you offer no specific information. Remember, I asked about jump numbers so I could better understand from what category from which you're coming? Maybe it's ad hominem to ask but patterns exist and I listen up when people who've been around long enough see these patterns and speak about them.

As a matter of fact, my opinion is that it's not up to the USPA, DZO's, S&TA's, or leadership to PROVE it to anyone. YOU plural (which will include me) may just be entering a time where it is up to us to PROVE we can do it before they decide to give you permission. There are a lot of individualistic aspects to this sport but BSR's got to be BSR's for a reason: Time and experience of the people who payed attention to what was happening around them and did something about it - not pontificating over the bruised egos of people who had to let go of a perceived entitlement.

jason

[pash 0]

Quote

I've done a couple jumps at 1.2 - at that level I've certainly increased the risk level, but nowhere near the same as if I jumped at 1.4. And the rest of my last 18 were at 1.1.

Question: do you think if there were a BSR, that you would be able to demonstrate proficiency at 1.2?

I'm not quite sure I could right away but I certainly plan to work my ass off to learn good canopy control skills.

[crotalus01 0]

[reply By doing it safely, at least safer, it will keep the DZO's from some kind of complete ban on HP canopies and swooping and keep the Feds. for looking hard at us.

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

There are a lot of individualistic aspects to this sport but BSR's got to be BSR's for a reason: Time and experience of the people who payed attention to what was happening around them and did something about it

And what do they have to show for it? A fatality rate that's not changed significantly over time, only changed in its incidence.

No, time and experience are indisputable.

At least they were till the Rennaissance.

It's strictly possible that, should a BSR be passed, it could potentially do good. Irrespective of how it would turn out, though, that the outcome is uncertain today makes it a bad idea to do so today. The USPA ought to exercise greater jurisprudence.

Having good quantitative data to back up a proposal would go a long way to justify a proposal. Having a rational basis for a proposal would go further.

nathaniel

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?