WL BSR, take 4?

[mjosparky 4]

You realy are dense, I only have 106.
Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[lawrocket 3]

More prescient news on this. There is recent authority to suggest that the effective self-governance can be forced by threat of federal regulation.

Baseball is becoming more self-regulatory so the government won't step in. Story here:

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-steroids&prov=ap&type=lgns

We have a situation where a sport has issues regarding self-policing. So, Congress says, "We may have to fix this."

While I understand that skydiving is not as high-profile, government is almost always interested in what goes on in the skies.

If skydivers keep dying doing stupid things, will BSRs become FARs? Maybe not anytime soon, but I can certainly see it heading down that path.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Hooknswoop 19]

It would be bad if that happened, but unless USPA steps up to the plate and prevents it, it just might happen.

Derek

[Ron 10]

Quote

More prescient news on this. There is recent authority to suggest that the effective self-governance can be forced by threat of federal regulation.

I have been saying this is in our future for years.

Quote

While I understand that skydiving is not as high-profile, government is almost always interested in what goes on in the skies.

If skydivers keep dying doing stupid things, will BSRs become FARs? Maybe not anytime soon, but I can certainly see it heading down that path.

No, it will be much worse. BSR's will be guidelines for the FAA to write its own rules. They will not be written by skydivers, but instead some pilots, many of whom don't like much less understand skydiving.

If the FAA starts really looking at us...we are in DEEP trouble.

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

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

More prescient news on this. There is recent authority to suggest that the effective self-governance can be forced by threat of federal regulation.

Baseball is becoming more self-regulatory so the government won't step in. Story here:

Baseball was THE national sport, and sells 50 million tickets a year, with at least that many more fans that just watch on TV. It also has a fairly unique antitrust exemption that Congress occasionally threatens to remove when something about the sport bothers them. The President's ties to the Rangers can't be missed either.

With the extent of the BALCO testimony that has been shamelessly leaked to the Chronicle, baseball was going to have to do something. I don't believe the government threat did much to speed it up. But certainly it insured that action would happen in spite of the players union leadership.

But skydiving? Unless a Congressman's son bounces or the fatality rate spikes horrendously, they're never going to care. Falling airplanes, or a jumper taking out another plane, that could get a response. 10 people a year dying under perfectly good canopies...no.

A couple years back, California lost 7 or 8 divers in a single year in large part to diving alone. While Laguna Beach has long had a ban on that (and not carrying a snorkel...morons), no one outside the diving community blinked.

The Gov generally is concerned with bad practices or negligence by commercial operators/manufacturers that get customers killed, not when they do it to themselves. And that is the right course.

This would be the dumbest reason for a new BSR. Decide it on the merits.

[billvon 2,991]

>But skydiving? Unless a Congressman's son bounces or the fatality
>rate spikes horrendously, they're never going to care.

I agree. But the public not caring does not equate to some bureaucrat leaving the FAR's alone. The FAR's are now an absolutely massive tome, with lots of picky details on GA pilot currency requirements, ultralight certification standards, homebuilt operational rules etc etc. Now, the general public could care less about whether an ultralight's maximum weight includes the ballistic parachute or not, but that detail got included because the people who write the FAR's figured it made sense - and they really wanted to define ultralight weights carefully so the category was not abused.

So it's not enough to say that people don't care. Most don't, but it doesn't take much to generate an NPRM in an area like ultralights or parachuting rules. It takes even less to generate an AC. and AC's often have the force of law.

So it doesn't take a senator's son bouncing to start things in motion. It could be an airport owner who tells an FAA rep "I gotta problem with all those life flights at the DZ over there! You guys should do something about that." We've dodged the bullet a few times by saying "refer to the BSR's" - much of the stuff in the FAR concerning demos (which the FAA does care about quite a bit) came right out of USPA, and indeed the FAR's refer to USPA ratings and licenses when it comes to talking about demos.

So a BSR would be a layer of protection against this, both because it can help reduce the problem and also serve to unify a response to any worrisome NPRM that comes out. "Encourage compliance with the new BSR that deals with this problem" is a very good way to reply to a proposed new rule.

[pash 0]

I would fully support a WL BSR and honestly don't have any real input on the form it would take. If it meant minimum liscense requirements / jump numbers / proficiency tests for certain WL ratios I'm sure the USPA and you guys with the 1,000's will be able to hash out the final look of it.

It seems like opposition to this is just opposition to any governance. I'm not really a big fan of rules and being told what to do but how could anyone argue with a plan that requires MORE EDUCATION AND SKILL before attempting a WL that hasn't really worked out well for a LOT of people? I haven't really heard anything that I would call substantive. I can't see anyone on the more-experienced side disagreeing with this if they were grandfathered.

I could see someone in my position arguing with it, but here I am in support of MORE EDUCATION and PROFICIENCY REQUIREMENTS. Mandated by us and for us - not by an outside organization when it will probably take a form most would not like.

I don't see how it would diminish the fun or inherent risk in skydiving - only the STUPID mistakes made by people who wouldn't know good advice if it hit them in the face at 120mph.

edited for spling

[pash 0]

Quote

Skills covered for each license:

High performance malfunctions
Flat/Flared turns
Collision avoidance/flying in traffic
Sliders (Kill line, stowage, etc)
Accuracy skills
Basic Principles of Flight
Recovery Arc
Effects of wing loading
Canopy Maintenance
Adjusting Steering Line Length
Preventing and Curing Line Twists
Canopy Piloting Skills
Long Spot Techniques
Flying in Turbulence
Dealing with Traffic
Approach and Landing
Accuracy
Off DZ landings
Crosswind/downwind landings.

For each license, each topic will be covered more in-depth, building upon prior teaching and experience.

Thoughts?

Derek,

Is your thinking on this that the items would appear as "sign off" sections on the cards required for each liscense? So for A-Liscence, you would have your check-out dive, regaining stability, packing, etc.... AND one, some, or all of these items above? These would help prevent the "split" of canopy size and w/l from the liscense but still allow for "testing out" of those sections on the B, C, and D liscenses.

Also, I thought I read somewhere that an actual proposal WAS sent to USPA and wanted to know if it is still holding or rejected or what? Have you actually sent something in to USPA yet or are the details to be determined out of everyone's input.

I really do like the idea of putting some canopy coach sign off's on a card to go along with the Liscense. Do you see any value in including the HP landings in this as well - such as "a 270 hook turn at x' altitude" would assume a certain liscence or at least a "test out" of the skill on a specific liscense?

thanks,
jason

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Is your thinking on this that the items would appear as "sign off" sections on the cards required for each liscense? So for A-Liscence, you would have your check-out dive, regaining stability, packing, etc.... AND one, some, or all of these items above? These would help prevent the "split" of canopy size and w/l from the liscense but still allow for "testing out" of those sections on the B, C, and D liscenses.

Cover most or all for each license and cover them more in depth as the jumper progresses.

Quote

Also, I thought I read somewhere that an actual proposal WAS sent to USPA and wanted to know if it is still holding or rejected or what? Have you actually sent something in to USPA yet or are the details to be determined out of everyone's input.

USPA put a small, new section in the SIM's, beyond that I have no idea if they are doing anything or not.

Quote

I really do like the idea of putting some canopy coach sign off's on a card to go along with the Liscense. Do you see any value in including the HP landings in this as well - such as "a 270 hook turn at x' altitude" would assume a certain liscence or at least a "test out" of the skill on a specific liscense?

I don't think everyone should learn HP landings. I do think that those who do should recieve formal training before doing so.

For testing out, I don't think anyone that is excelling should be held back at all. I think people should be allowed to progress as fast as their abilities allow.

Derek

[pash 0]

Quote

I don't think everyone should learn HP landings. I do think that those who do should recieve formal training before doing so.

Good point. My suggestion would have meant then: that to get your D-Liscese, as an example, you would HAVE to do the 270 and hit 5 out of 6 gates I can see how this would be undesirable as not EVERYONE wants to swoop. (YET).

Quote

For testing out, I don't think anyone that is excelling should be held back at all. I think people should be allowed to progress as fast as their abilities allow.

I agree and have made statements supporting some "test-out" after proving the ability.

How could the two (w/l + HP landings) be reconciled to eliminate a split or cumbersome process? Are most of the opinion that a pure w/l BSR would take care of the premature HP attempts?