BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread)

[stratostar 5]

First of all this post IS NOT A BASH!
But if your numbers are correct in 9 years you have done 5.4
jumps a year, that would mean you have NEVER maintained your currency durring that time and there for that makes you a danger to yourself and a hazzard to others, you are just current enough to become another number!
There for you got a long way to go before you even would need to worrie about a WL BSR and how it would "take away from you". When someone like you shows up to jump I refresh or retrain them and watch them like a hawk and put them out on a bigass canopy 288 or better unless your were a 97lbs girl then maybe a 220 or 190,MAYBE. Go get current and stay current that might lower your risk, some.

~

you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

[cbain 0]

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]

I have a serious question about a concern I've thought of reading over all these wonderful posts.

For example, a person is over the WL BSR and they take a course or a test and the S&TA or the canopy coach approve them to jump at a higher WL than the recommendation. Then the next week they decide to pull a 270 and swoop the pond because now they've "proven" themselves. They screw up and die. How do you keep the S&TA or CC from being blamed, sued, punished, etc because they said it was "ok"?

I am concerned that the testing out option or the course option would never be effective because the S&TA's, DZO's and the CC's would be afraid of the possible repurcussians to themselves if they approve some one to jump over the recommendations. So even though it would be in the rules that you could test it would never actually happen.

And how are the S&TA's, DZO's and CC's going to be trained to know when a person really is ready (or not) to go to a higher WL? Will there be some sort of certification process and rating, or will it have to be mandated by the FAA like riggers are due to the extra liability these folks would be taking on? And who will pay for their training to make these judgement calls?

I'm not against a WL BSR, actually I really hope it helps. But like some other people have pointed out, there are going to be side effects and issues that can't even be forseen yet and I don't think all the forseeable ones have even been dealt with yet. Implenting new policy in any area (not just skydiving) is a very bumpy process with a lot of pitfalls.

It's also going to cost a lot of money to implement and that will get passed on to us and not just those that want to test out. Everybody already complains about USPA dues what if dues double to cover the cost of implementing this policy?

I'd like to see the USPA take this seriously and tell us how much is it going to cost to implement and what the legal ramifications would be. Maybe start it at just a couple of DZ's first, like pilot program, and see what happens there before widespread implementation.

Christina

[D22369 0]

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 canopies?***

Yes they will, but their odds of surviving are higher with a larger, more doscile wing over them, but then when they try high performance landings its the S&TA's job to tell them to knock their shit off..........

nine years ago If I had tried my emergency turn with anything smaller than my interceptor 220 over my head I would have died on the scene rather than break the tib/fib.

I got lucky....

Roy

They say I suffer from insanity.... But I actually enjoy it.

[mjosparky 4]

To your first concern, instructors sign you off student status and approve you lic. requirements in effect saying you are safe in freefall.

To you second concern, yes the people who would make the call on "testing out" would be trained on how to make the call. What this program is trying to prevent is getting the FAA involved. Who pays for an instructors training now? Who paid for your coach rating?

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

How do you keep the S&TA or CC from being blamed, sued, punished, etc because they said it was "ok"?

Same thing applys to signing off an "A" license or PRO rating. What if on their first demo after you signed them off they hit a spectator? Are you liable?
No, all you did was sign off that they met the requirements. They can still sue though.

Derek

[billvon 2,991]

>How do you keep the S&TA or CC from being blamed, sued, punished,
>etc because they said it was "ok"?

Same way you keep them from getting sued now when they "allow" people to jump 99 square foot canopies at 200 jumps. Same way you keep an instructor from getting sued when they graduate a student from AFF and he dies shortly afterwards. Same way you keep a USPA coach from getting sued when they set up a 4-way and the guy collides with someone else after deployment.

The best way to prevent lawsuits is reduce injuries and deaths. The BSR is one way to do that. Saying "we shouldn't do anything new to prevent deaths so no one can be blamed" will lead to more, not fewer, lawsuits.

>And how are the S&TA's, DZO's and CC's going to be trained to know
> when a person really is ready (or not) to go to a higher WL?

Same way I can tell when someone is ready for a release dive, to graduate from AFF, or is ready for a 4-way - experience with teaching and organizing. It will be a different sort of teaching, but one that can be learned.

Every once in a while I go out to the landing area with a camera and video people landing. Even without them doing any tasks, just landing straight in, it's pretty easy to see who's ready for a smaller canopy and who isn't. Now we just have to get the standards that some of us can see down on paper.

> Will there
> be some sort of certification process and rating . . .

I think it will be very similar to the coach rating, since it will involve more classroom than practical work.

>And who will pay for their training to make these judgement calls?

They will, just as people pay for the coach rating now.

> But like some other people have pointed out, there are going to be
> side effects and issues that can't even be forseen yet and I don't think
>all the forseeable ones have even been dealt with yet. Implenting
>new policy in any area (not just skydiving) is a very bumpy process with
> a lot of pitfalls.

I agree. A long time ago (well, six years) many of us were pushing for a 'graduate course' from USPA, a standardized course that took people from new grad to experienced jumper safely. We ended up with the ISP. The ISP has had, so far, a moderate effect, because many people don't implement it. It is, however, gradually gaining acceptance, driven partly by the task list on the A license card and partly by people becoming familiar with it.

I have a feeling that any canopy course will be similar. At first no one will heed it. Then a few drop zones will, and a few gear dealers will. Then a big gear dealer will start asking to see the canopy-control course endorsement before selling you a small canopy. Then a boogie will announce that you need the endorsement (or the license) to demo any canopies at their boogie. It will be enacted gradually, as many of these things are. The USPA standards will be seen first as an optional guide; they will only gradually take on the force of custom.

So while we may not get it 100% right the first time, as it is gradually impemented, we will have the opportunity to tweak it. It would be a mistake, I think, to wait until it's perfect before implementing it - it never will be. Nothing in skydiving is.

>It's also going to cost a lot of money to implement and that will get
>passed on to us and not just those that want to test out. Everybody
>already complains about USPA dues what if dues double to cover the
>cost of implementing this policy?

Why would there be any dues increase? You'd have to print another three or four pages for the SIM. That's like $0.10, and they don't send the SIM to everyone. You'd have to pay for the canopy control courses. Coaches would do that. You'd have to pay for an eval from a CC, and you'd have to pay for a CC course. The participants would do that. If you never want to do any of that, and just stick to your Spectre 210 forever, you will see no additional costs.

Do you see a hidden cost somewhere else?

>Maybe start it at just a couple of DZ's first, like pilot program, and
>see what happens there before widespread implementation.

That will happen anyway.

[davelepka 4]

I'm a big fan of the WL NE chart, as well as the need for increased education. I've always thought that the education was the more important of the two (although having both is the ideal situation).

The reason I've publicly supported the WL NE chart, is becasue of the simplicity in implementing it. Write it down, fax to every DZ you can think of, and say, 'This is what you should be doing, everyone else is going to do this'. And yes, everyoen can keep jumping what they have, but when they want to donwsize, their WL must fall into the given chart values. An addition I would make to the Brian Germains chart would be no HP canopies under 500 jumps (Stiletto, Crossfire, etc) and no X-brace under 800 jumps.

Now we have the whiners who think they are special and better than everyone else, and they want to test out of the restrictions. The ideas you have to cater to this are actaully prerry good, and once the bugs are worked out, they seem like they will work well.

That, however is the catch. 'Once they are wroked out'. When is that going to be? Even if we could get the USPA to focus on this it would be at least another year before there were functioning CC coaches at some DZ's (not all). The addition of the 'tst out' clause to the WL chart takes away it's ease (and speed) of implementation.

What about getting the WL chart out there, as it sits, without the 'test out' clause and start to get a handle on the situation? We can add the ability to test out at a later date. When the educational cirriculum,testing criteria,as well as the coach certification criteria are established, then we cann add the ability to test out.

[Bartje 0]

Quote

An addition I would make to the Brian Germains chart would be no HP canopies under 500 jumps (Stiletto, Crossfire, etc) and no X-brace under 800 jumps.

Why would you do that, making a differance in braced and non braced hp canopies.
A Crossfire2 is for example not that much slower or less performant than a cross braced canopy.
Keep the guidelines (or rules) simple as possible,

A FreeFly Gypsy

[davelepka 4]

Quote

A Crossfire2 is for example not that much slower or less performant than a cross braced canopy.

The Crossfire is HP, but it's no X-Brace. A Crossfire at 1.5 is even further from an X-Braced canopy.

I agree, a Crossfore at 2.0 is zippy, and needs a skilled pilot, but within the confines of the WL chart, 500 jumps seems reasonable for a Crossfire at that loading.

[Bartje 0]

So you will suggest a wl chart and a canopy chart parralel. Do I see that correct?
Not a bad idea but a bit confusing I think.

A FreeFly Gypsy

[chrisgr 0]

Forgive the cross-post, but tdog has an interesting suggestion regarding canopy type classes / ratings here ...


http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1441148#1441148

[billvon 2,991]

>An addition I would make to the Brian Germains chart would be no HP
> canopies under 500 jumps (Stiletto, Crossfire, etc) and no X-brace under
> 800 jumps.

Why? Do you think that a cross-braced canopy loaded at 1:1 is any more or less dangerous than the same canopy without cross-bracing? Cross-bracing is just a technology to allow heavier loadings without distortion of the airfoil; it does not make the canopy "go faster" or anything.

Also, keep in mind that the point of this is not to say "if you have under 200 jumps you are perfectly safe jumping a 1.2 loaded square canopy but totally unsafe jumping a 1.2 loaded elliptical canopy." The point is to help keep people off heavily loaded canopies until they get the training or experience to handle them. There's no way you could ever come up with a chart of canopy size vs type vs experience to keep people perfectly safe. It's the training that the BSR requires, rather than the restrictions, that will make people safer canopy pilots. The restrictions are just a way to encourage them to get it and keep them alive until they _do_ get it.

[davelepka 4]

Look, a company makes a HP canopy, thats what it's built for, HP flight. There's no reason that a jumper needs an HP wing under 500 jumps, at any loading.

X-braced canopies are sold in smaller sizes. Smaller sizes which would require a numerically lower WL as per the charts guidelines. Combine these two factors, and most jumpers won't even qualify to jump an X-Braced wing much under 800 jumps. Not to mention the point from the first paragraph, x-braced canopies are designed for HP flight, and who needs that at lower jump numbers?

Again, I agree that the training will have the greater influence over the course of events, but considering the glacial pace of developing that system, the WL chart is a good band-aid for the time being. I'm in no way suggesting that it's a stand-alone solution, or that it wil ease the need to ASAP the training program, but it's something we could do for now. In comparison to the NOTHING that has been done to address this matter, at this point anything would be an advatage.

[freakbrother 0]

Quote

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?

Well, here's the issue as I see it:

1. What exactly is the proposal that is being discussed? Brian's WNE chart ("NEVER EXCEED") or BillnDereknLisa....'s draft BSR which is significantly different?

2. If the issue is to force more canopy training, how does that affect someone with N+ jumps (where N is the top of the WNE chart) who decides to downsize with no additional training? Experienced jumpers are killing themselves in just as great numbers as inexperienced ones.

3. Some have argued that the data available shows gender and age to be more reliable indicators than jump numbers or WL of the likelihood of a landing accident. MAYBE this proposal is addressing the lesser problem. Don't you think we should try to find out for sure?


Hence discussion is a good thing and will help to get the best outcome. I think those trying to shut down discussion are doing us a disservice.

I have to commend Bill and others for being willing to listen and to modify their proposal from its original form in the light of comments received.

.
.
www.freak-brother.com

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I have a serious question about a concern I've thought of reading over all these wonderful posts.

For example, a person is over the WL BSR and they take a course or a test and the S&TA or the canopy coach approve them to jump at a higher WL than the recommendation. Then the next week they decide to pull a 270 and swoop the pond because now they've "proven" themselves. They screw up and die. How do you keep the S&TA or CC from being blamed, sued, punished, etc because they said it was "ok"?

I thought about this as well. On a legal basis, whenever you start to advise or moderate, you take on more responsibility. That why most online forums don't really moderate at all, because then they may be held responsible for allowing libelous postings. By taking no role at all (as is more or less how it works now for wingloading), they are not legally involved.

So on that vein, the DZ is just as responsible when they say that person is ok at 1.x as specified by the BSR. Or over the BSR, but grandfathered.

It certainly wouldn't be a righteous lawsuit. I suspect the waiver will cover these adequetely, but it will be just another checkbox marked off on the suit, along with the gear maker, the instructor, etc.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

First of all this post IS NOT A BASH!
But if your numbers are correct in 9 years you have done 5.4
jumps a year,

It would, using simple math, but that would be false.
41 jumps in 2004. 6 in 2003.

The winter has me less current than I'd like, and I've been waiting forever for Aerodyn to crank out some more Smarts. Having spent $4000 on a rig I can't yet jump, I've been reluctant to pay for too many rentals right now. This is where the costs enter the equation for me.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

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.

Yes, we talked for a bit about it, and I opted to go with the Spectre, did the first jump to see how it would be, and it seemed ok. Second jump told me that I shouldn't buy this canopy unless I'm lighter. The collapsible PC seemed to be a significant factor in the speed - both the spectre 210 and 230 felt much faster than the Tri 220 and Fusion 230 I've used that do not have it. Should it be part of this chart, or is it useless complexity given most are sold with a kill line?

Student chutes of adequete size will always be present; the catch is that it's a) a student chute, sometimes a well worn out one, on a very uncomfortable rig and b) reserved for student use as a priority. At a midsized DZ like Skydance, I had trouble at times getting at one in the period between AFF and being able to use Action Airs 230s. Fewer jumps on worse canopies slows the learning process, or pushes the person more quickly to buying.

The Tri and the Sabre2 are available up to 260, but the Pilot only comes in a 210. If this change comes in, I hope it will work out that there is enough demand to justify larger sizes, and the gear stores stocking more of them.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

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?

Pash - as you probably read, I don't object to the test out. I just think it should apply to everyone. And it's not clear what standard would be used - a few have been proposed, and now even a suggestion that we not have a test out until sometime TBD.

The sport will not go extinct, with or without these changes. And given history, it's unlikely the death count will change, but it will likely dramatically reduce the incident scenario of a low timer dying on a hot chute. Yet IMO, it's 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.

[crotalus01 0]

Quote

3. Some have argued that the data available shows gender and age to be more reliable indicators than jump numbers or WL of the likelihood of a landing accident. MAYBE this proposal is addressing the lesser problem. Don't you think we should try to find out for sure?

i think this is an excellent point. i am a 34 year old male. i have very little interest in swooping for the simple fact that i cannot afford to break myself. i have a very strong suspicion that if i tried swooping it would only be a matter of time until that happened. i am perfectly happy under my 190 w/l at 1.2 - and i questioned hard about that. i bought it because EVERYONE i jump with (and the DZO) told me to go with the 190 at the slightly higher w/l than the 210 i was looking at. and my landings on the 190 are awesome compared to the student 210 i was jumping.
on the other hand, almost all of the younger (18 to 28) guys i jump with are chomping at the bit for sub-100 foot canopies. almost all of them are really into HP landings. i have already seen one biff in, and that was one too many. watching someone bounce and end up 70 feet from where they first hit is not fun (thank God he wasnt seriously injured - how i have no idea).
anyway, the point is maybe several factors should be looked at instead of *just* wingloading. i do not see tons of difference between my 190 and the 210 i was on other than the flare, a little more speed (maybe up to 17 MPH from about 10 MPH on the 210), and that it will give me a bit of a groundsurf on a straight in landing if i hit the flare just right.

edit to add - i am confident in my flat - and flare turn abilities as i practice them from about 5K to about 2K. i have turned approx. 90 degrees as low as 100 feet for obstacle avoidance. never had to flare turn low. i have also landed it cross - and downwind. good PLFs have saved my ass several times. i do NOT want to try landing on rears yet, my comfort level just isnt there. and no front riser dives.

As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD...

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

i am a 34 year old male. i have very little interest in swooping for the simple fact that i cannot afford to break myself.

I started skydiving at the age of 38 (I'm now 41) and at that time when I first got into the sport, I said that I wasn't interested in swooping as well. It looked dangerous and I wasn't interested in busting myself up. But look at me now. Swooping is one of my passions. Will I ever be the best? I think it's obvious that the answer is no. Will I bounce? I hope not, but it's also not safe. Are the risks worth the rewards? In many cases, the answer is yes. But in others, it's no. We evolve as jumpers as we gain experience and as time passes. So just because you say you're not interested in doing something today doesn't mean you might not change your mind in the future.

It's not always the young men who are asking for it when it comes to swooping and flying small canopies fast. Every jumper has the potential to kill themselves up there. What it boils down to is the choices that we make. Are they educated choices? How about choices based on experience and choices based on individual risk tolerance comfort levels? Are we making smart choices? Are we flying the right canopy for our experience levels? For the environments we jump in and for our current skill levels? Do we know how to find the performance characteristic of each canopy that we fly and are we patient with our canopies jumping them hundreds and hundreds of times each before moving on to the next canopy? Or do we just want to go big and go big early on in our careers?

It's all about choices. Have you made good choices for yourself?

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[RippedCord 0]

Quote

Hey Keith,

...What do you feel would be a workable program?

Sparky

I don't think there is one. As much as I hate to see people hurt or lose their lives, I find myself coming down against unnecessarily making rules to protect people from themselves.

However, I come from this background: I didn't start skydiving until the last year of my thirties and I knew I wasn't indestructible. I felt that I had a good safety awareness instilled by Jim Wallace's school. Also, I was doing my AFF levels 3 & 4 and very close to the landing strip on July 19, 2003 when I saw the downplane & low hookturn that had Eric Denney on life support for so long and that had a really big impact on me.

JP's comment that people didn't always pull above 2000' until a BSR was created gave me quite some pause for thought, but the difference here is that the deployment altitude isn't something that people are looking to "test out of."

This isn't going to affect me either, but I thought I'd throw in my two cents about creating rules that (I feel) lessen an individual's responsibility to himself.

AMDG

[mjosparky 4]

Quote

against unnecessarily making rules to protect people from themselves

It not just to protect people from themselves, its to protect the sport as a whole from the results of poor choices made by the individual. Fatalities draw the attention of the media, weather from a low pull or a low turn. At least with a low pull the story will say he didn't open his parachute in time, shame on him. In a low turn fatality the story could say he was under a good parachute and still died. If we can develop a program that will prevent this from happening, at least with less frequency, we could not only save a few from themselves, but draw less attention to the "dark side" of skydiving.
Just something to think about.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[Bartje 0]

I get the impression that we are Don Quichotte, we are fighting against the skydivers mentality,
each program can help but will not be the sollution for 100%,
the solution is that we have to change the general skydivers mentality and you have to start this with jump one, not with the first jump on a hp canopy, not with the first swoop, we, as instructors has the responsibility each time that we send someone up.
If you are afraid for a lawsuit than I start thinking that you are not 100% sure off your decision.
I realize hat there will always be a risk but hé, we are doing a extreme sport and that is the first thing what I say when I have a group newbies.
Each time when people ask me info and the question is there I will say it. Everybody in my course did hear it minimum once.
Each briefing, course or anybody who ask tips and tricks will hear it: Skydiving is a extreme sport and safety is for 99% between the ears.

A FreeFly Gypsy

[mjosparky 4]

Quote

If you are afraid for a lawsuit than I start thinking that you are not 100% sure off your decision.

I didn't mention anything about a lawsuit, much less being afraid of one.

And I agree, it has to do with mentality, not the "general" mentality, but the "me, me, me" mentality.
Like one person posted, new jumper have a right to have fun. True, but their right to this fun ends when it ruins my day.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[Bartje 0]

Quote

If you are afraid for a lawsuit than I start thinking that you are not 100% sure off your decision.

it has to be: If someone is afraid for a lawsuit than I start thinking that they are not 100% sure off an decision.
my miswriting.

A FreeFly Gypsy