Re: [diablopilot] Landing injury.

[polarbear 1]

Performing a straight-in landing on a big canopy ONLY gives you experience doing that...It DOES NOT even come CLOSE to preparing you to fly a small elliptical, or to use combinations of different controls to acheive your goal, or to fly a small canopy in traffic, or to recognize the corner...

I emphatically disagree with a jump number system. I believe a system based on jump numbers would also fall flat on it's face in no time. It WOULD NOT be fair to a large number of jumpers. Any way you cut it, this regulation will not be very popular. Unpopular rules have an uncanny ability for not being followed. If you want a rule to be followed, it must be fair, and overall jump numbers are NOT a fair system.

Think about this...you obviously believe you are OK on the canopies you jump. What if the regulation says you can't fly the canopy you are on simply because your jump number is too low. Will you be prepared to smile and go shell out $$$ for a bigger canopy that you don't want to fly in the first place? Can you do that, or will you grumble about it being unfair? What if there is a non-USPA dropzone right up the road that doesn't enforce the BSR...do they start getting some of your business?

"Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

It WOULD NOT be fair to a large number of jumpers. Any way you cut it, this regulation will not be very popular. Unpopular rules have an uncanny ability for not being followed. If you want a rule to be followed, it must be fair, and overall jump numbers are NOT a fair system.

Fuck fair, and fuck unpopular. Both describe speed limits too, but you don't see us getting rid of those.

DZ's are sitting by hoping something like this will happen so they can point to the rule book and say "no" without fear that everyone else will say "yes".

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[polarbear 1]

Quote

Fuck fair, and fuck unpopular. Both describe speed limits too, but you don't see us getting rid of those.

You also see most people exceed the speed limits (often by a wide margin). Why? Because the cops usually don't give a damn unless somebody is obviously being unsafe while speeding. The letter of the law is the speed limit; the spirit of the law is just don't be unsafe. It's the spirit of the law that is usually followed becasue it MAKES MORE SENSE.

I still say a regulation that is based solely on jump numbers makes little sense and is therefore doomed to failure.

And if DZs were that keen on canopy rules, they would make their own.

"Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

And if DZs were that keen on canopy rules, they would make their own.

They are and some have.

Reality is they can only restrict jumpers more than the competing DZ's to a certian extent before they loose so much business they have to close their doors.

The margins in this industry (profit) are dismal, and no one want's to chip in and run a club anymore. Pay the light bill anyone?

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[polarbear 1]

Well, that's for sure. My point was it would be more wise-spread...I'll admit I haven't jumped at lots of DZs, but the only one I've ever been to that had anything close to a rule was a posted "No Hook Turn" sign.

The S&TA executed a hook turn landing on the first load I saw. Some rule.

"Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

[MarkM 0]

Quote

I emphatically disagree with a jump number system. I believe a system based on jump numbers would also fall flat on it's face in no time. It WOULD NOT be fair to a large number of jumpers.

Yeah, it's going to be unfair. It's also really unfair people have to have 200 jumps before they can start jumping wingsuits under a BMI's supervision. Someone who's been doing belly for 200 jumps won't have the same wingsuit skills as someone who's spent 100 jumps carving tracks through the sky. So why should they have the same restrictions?

Because simple, easy to understand, universal and set in stone rules are easier to accept than complex ones.

That's why so many people still use and even teach the 45 degree rule for exit seperation. It's easy to remember, so people use it, even though it can be inaccurate.

[Bolas 5]

Here's an idea for the swoop gods and more experienced swoopers these low jump number rapid downsizers are talking too.

Challenge them to a kind of swoop competition... the kicker is you use their canopy especially if it give you a lower wingloading or a bigger one of the same type to at least match the loading. Let them go first and land anywhere they want with whatever kind of approach they want. You have them watch as you do the same approach and start your landing in the same place they did and beat their distance.

The hope is they say "Damn, I didn't know that canopy could do that. How'd you do it?" Give them a few tips and then suggest they try those techniques out and in their mind they have kind of have a new goal they can try with that canopy.

If they come back again in a month or so just repeat the process.

Another not so hands on approach would be to make a swoop video with the larger more docile canopies. How amazing and mind opening would it be to see a member of the Pro Swooping Tour swoop a Navigator 280? Obviously it would have to be downwind...

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[billvon 2,991]

>Because the cops usually don't give a damn unless somebody is
>obviously being unsafe while speeding.

That's exactly right! And when they do see someone being unsafe, they ticket them for exceeding the speed limit. They don't have to say "Hey, I can't give you a ticket, just slow it down" and watch them rocket off at 100mph. And the cop doesn't have to pull their license for "being unsafe" and spend a month in court trying to prove subjectively that they are poor drivers, while the speeders are claiming they are excellent drivers. And the speeder can prove it! They've been driving for six months and have never had an accident. Case closed. Yet six months later the same speeder dies when his car can't stop on a rainy road when an SUV cuts him off when he's doing 95mph on a side street.

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

>Because the cops usually don't give a damn unless somebody is
>obviously being unsafe while speeding.

That's exactly right! And when they do see someone being unsafe, they ticket them for exceeding the speed limit. They don't have to say "Hey, I can't give you a ticket, just slow it down"

And here we go again, begging the question. The risks and costs of driving at excessive speed have been quantified, as have been the benefits of speed limits and enforcement. The results are fairly conclusive.

The analogy is not.

nathaniel

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

[slug 1]

Quote

Quote

And if DZs were that keen on canopy rules, they would make their own.

They are and some have.

Reality is they can only restrict jumpers more than the competing DZ's to a certian extent before they loose so much business they have to close their doors.

The margins in this industry (profit) are dismal, and no one want's to chip in and run a club anymore. Pay the light bill anyone?

Don't know about perris, big boys and big toy's but in general terms the money in the skydivng industry is in Tandems, AFF & video.

Since DZO's cant do everything they need a cadre of worker bees tandems aff vidoe that usually come up from the ranks of the fun jumpers at the DZ.

The fun jumpers also put on a show for the amusement riders and their friends. Sadly sometimes the fun jumpers show the whuffo's how much they can get hurt if a tandem goes bad.

I would think that a DZ the size of perris could have different programs for the different disciplines of skydiving that are run by responsiable folks.

IMO the sport is dangerous enough without haveing mentors who like to take down planes lower than necessary or let folks jump canopies with little margin for error.

Just my opinion

R.i.P.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

I still say a regulation that is based solely on jump numbers makes little sense and is therefore doomed to failure.

And your solution is?

And if DZs were that keen on canopy rules, they would make their own.

And some do. Ther is a DZ where no-one can be over 1.5:1, no-one. Is that your solution?

Derek

[polarbear 1]

And the speeder who gets a ticket from the cop just goes right on speeding, because he knows that the chance he meets that cop again and gets stopped by him is too small. Unpopular law, doesn't get followed or respected.

I still say the same thing will happen if a canopy regulation doesn't make sense.

"Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

[polarbear 1]

I already stated my opinion...if you want to regulate canopies, base it on canopy experience and demonstrated canopy skill.

"Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

[Ron 10]

Quote

I already stated my opinion...if you want to regulate canopies, base it on canopy experience and demonstrated canopy skill.

And whats your problem having a slower standard progression that only the people that are able to pass a test are able to exceed?

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

[Ron 10]

Quote

Performing a straight-in landing on a big canopy ONLY gives you experience doing that...It DOES NOT even come CLOSE to preparing you to fly a small elliptical, or to use combinations of different controls to acheive your goal, or to fly a small canopy in traffic, or to recognize the corner...

Nope, but flying a 1.1 loaded canopy does give you some idea of how a 1.2 loaded canopy will fly...Just as a 1.4 will teach you loads about a 1.5.

Flying a 1.1 will not teach you much about a 1.6.....But right now people are allowed to do just that...Go from a 1.1 to a 1.6.

So a regulation would make people get experience or show enough skill that they can handle a higher WL before they could downsize...

And THAT is the key.

Quote

I emphatically disagree with a jump number system. I believe a system based on jump numbers would also fall flat on it's face in no time. It WOULD NOT be fair to a large number of jumpers. Any way you cut it, this regulation will not be very popular. Unpopular rules have an uncanny ability for not being followed. If you want a rule to be followed, it must be fair, and overall jump numbers are NOT a fair system.

Jumps numebers ARE fair...We already use them for such things as pull altitudes, ratings...ect. and it is even MORE fair if we have atest that lets you go faster than the "norm"

It would be basicly saying :"You think you are so good....? Put up or shut up!"

As for not being popular...fuck that... Pull altitudes were VERY unpoplular when they came out...Now how many people do you hear bitch about them? They saved lives.

Quote

Think about this...you obviously believe you are OK on the canopies you jump. What if the regulation says you can't fly the canopy you are on simply because your jump number is too low. Will you be prepared to smile and go shell out $$$ for a bigger canopy that you don't want to fly in the first place? Can you do that, or will you grumble about it being unfair? What if there is a non-USPA dropzone right up the road that doesn't enforce the BSR...do they start getting some of your business?

Nope it would not be fair...Thats why you would have to Grandfather the current group. But just like rasing the drinking age on a guy that was 17 and 364 days, while letting a guy that was 18 still drink was not fair. It was still the best way to handle it. You should not take away a persons right once they have it and make them buy new gear.

But the kid right now in AFF...He would not ever know any different. Just like you don't bitch about having to pull at 2 grand.

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

[anthonylock 0]

Ron I agree with what your saying, however one thing to think about is the cost of the purchase/hire of these canopies.

Most people would not be able to keep close to the curve by buying a new/used canopy evey 100 jumps or so. One thing to do is use lead to up by .1 or .2 however there will still be alot of people who go from 1.2:1 or so at 200ish jumps and fly that until 900 when they buy a new canopy at 1.9:1....

However that said this method would still prevent the 2.1:1 at 300 jump type stuff, and so its a good start.

Tony

(edited due to spelling)

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Most people would not be able to keep close to the curve by buying a new/used canopy evey 100 jumps or so.

Then don't buy a new canopy every 100 jumps. That list was a maximum WL chart, not a you must downsize at this rate chart.

Quote

One thing to do is use lead to up by .1 or .2 however there will still be alot of people who go from 1.2:1 or so at 200ish jumps and fly that until 900 when they buy a new canopy at 1.9:1....

Going from 1.2 to 1.9 is a bad idea regardless of the number of jumps.

Derek

[Fast 0]

After reading this whole thread I think that this comes back to some of the same issues regarding overall enforcement of rules that people argue about. No one wants something to limit thier choices, even if it would help in some cases.

Its similar to the arguments between who should enforce and make rules (USPA vs. FAA) Most of the arguments for unrestricted WL seem to come from people who would be pushing the limits of the proposed WL BSRs because they feel they are good enough to do it and why should they have been limited? It is clear that often people end up on canopies that they aren't ready for. Sometimes they do it themselves, sometimes its because they get advice from people who are not as in touch with the current student/low timer scene, etc.

I have to agree that if a system was put in place to prevent people from jumping canopies they think they are ready for, but are not, it would help prevent some of the low hook turn deaths that we have every year. Is the freedom of the very rare few who do have the skill to progress faster than the norm worth the lives that are lost every year? I mean seriously, MOST people are right in the middle(Average) and are not skilled (or better than average) swoopers from day one. It just doesn't work that way, I'm sorry. The people who are truly gifted would learn faster on larger canopies anyways. I think there is too much downsizing that goes on for bad reasons. Most people haven't rung out the canopy that they are jumping and that just the simple truth.


Its stupid to argue about the feasibility of any system. Just because something has _some_ complexity to it does not mean it wont be followed. It just needs to be presented in a straight forward matter with basic steps to follow. Generally the people who would be tasked with managing who can jump what (or has what canopy rating) are pretty smart. They are people who can pass AFFI courses and get other ratings. They know how the system works and most of them would be people who are already instructors. Don't discount anything based purely on complexity.

When it comes down to it, any system leaves us with a USPA card that says what we can jump. Any DZ with a scale can look at a jumpers rig and see that they weight this and have this size canopy and compare that to a USPA card and see if the person can jump that rig. The complexity of determining what a person can jump or not only affects the instructors who receive the extra training on how to do it. There doesn't have to be any complex systems for manifest people to follow. Scale + Jumper + USPA Card = Decision, regardless of how we determine what WL a person can jump its that simple.

A system has to be able to account for some of the things done to cheat it but it doesn't have to be perfect. If a person breaks the rules they pay the price, simple as that. RE: Driving fines... The reason that people keep on speeding is because they don't fear the penalties that are levied when you are caught speeding. I will garuntee you that if the fine for speeding was a 30 day suspension of lic or an excessive fine ($1000), a lot less people would get caught speeding because a lot less people would be doing it. When deciding to speed you way the consequences of getting caught with the benefits of the action (like most things.) Most people will accept a few hundred dollars in fines and slightly higher insurance to risk speeding.

I think that most skydivers wouldn't accept a month off of jumping to risk jumping a canopy that was only slightly smaller than they one they have (because you wouldn't get away with a big jump in size.) This being the case we would have people following the rules. Ok, so there are non-uspa DZs that they can goto, well that isn't the case everywhere. I also imagine that if we don't stop breaking ourselves this way eventually there will be some lawsuit that puts us in the spotlight and the government would step in. I don't think that the jump from the USPA being what it is now to an official regulatory agency would be as hard as everyone assumes.


I don't know, just some thoughts I have on the various things discussed in this thread.

(BTW, if you want to be close minded about what I wrote because I'm only floating around 100 jumps go ahead but I think you miss the bigger picture of life when you do that. Disagree with the content not the person its comming from.)

~D
Where troubles melt like lemon drops Away above the chimney tops That's where you'll find me.
Swooping is taking one last poke at the bear before escaping it's cave - davelepka

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Ron I agree with what your saying, however one thing to think about is the cost of the purchase/hire of these canopies.

Most people would not be able to keep close to the curve by buying a new/used canopy evey 100 jumps or so.

A non-cross braced brand new canopy is $1500 and a used one shouldn't be more than $1000. If you insist on buying new gear in your colors the per-jump cost of downsizing is going to be higher. If you can't afford that used parachutes with reasonable price tags are a better option than skipping sizes.

After the initial hit parachutes depreciate about $1/jump which is insignificant compared to what we spend on jump tickets. If you can't afford to have $700 tied up in a canopy you're not jumping you either can't afford to skydive or aren't staying current enough to safely downside.

[polarbear 1]

Quote

And whats your problem having a slower standard progression that only the people that are able to pass a test are able to exceed?

In general, I don't have a problem with this. My only issue is that such a system could be fair, or it could not be fair, depending on what the requirements and tests are. It could also be effective, or not be effective, depending on what the requirements are. I'd have to see the specifics of such a program to judge it. I've seen some fairly good ideas posted in various forums over the past few days.

I've had friends hurt and killed, too...I've had my close calls...I'm not blind, nor do I desire more carnage. I also believe, however, very strongly in freedom of choice and I believe giving up such freedoms should be carefully considered. I believe if you are going to take part in a high risk endeavour, you'd better be aware of the principles of natural selection, because ultimately it is YOUR CHOICES that will save you, not other's rules.

What this means is, I want to see a system that is fair to people that DO have talent, skill, good judgement, and who understand and accept the risks. I DO NOT want to see a poorly considered, quickly contrived system that is just a reactionary effort to address a recent accident, or to stave off federal regulations.

I also DO NOT believe in a program based SOLELY on overall jump numbers, which is what some people are proposing. Such a system doesn't address the important factors, like actually having to be able to fly a canopy. It doesn't even address all of the fatalities that have already occurred.

"Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

[Ron 10]

Quote

I also believe, however, very strongly in freedom of choice and I believe giving up such freedoms should be carefully considered.

Would you let a guy do a solo jump from 10 grand without an AAD as his first jump?

Personal freedom is great, but nothing is wrong with tempering that with guidance.

Quote

I believe if you are going to take part in a high risk endeavour, you'd better be aware of the principles of natural selection, because ultimately it is YOUR CHOICES that will save you, not other's rules.

And what do you do with the people who DONT see the dangers? And DON'T listen?

Quote

What this means is, I want to see a system that is fair to people that DO have talent, skill, good judgement, and who understand and accept the risks

My plan covered all of that..A Normal progression for those who can't or don't want to push it, and a test that will allow those who have the desire to learn AND the skills needed to do it safely.

Quote

I also DO NOT believe in a program based SOLELY on overall jump numbers, which is what some people are proposing. Such a system doesn't address the important factors, like actually having to be able to fly a canopy. It doesn't even address all of the fatalities that have already occurred.

Like it or not tha fact that a guy has 1,000 jumps means he DOES have more experience than a guy with 500.

While a jump number chart might be short sited...It does work alond with conventional wisdom...I myself would not upport it unless it had a way to test out.

I'm all about the young hotshots PROVING they can handle the cool canopies before they can get them...

Show me a better program and I'll support it...

Remember not everyone wants to hook turn, so you can't use hook turn performance as a guide...And not everyone wants to land with rear risers, carve throuh gates, rip up a pond...So the program HAS to be able to be done BY EVERYONE....The PRO rating program does that.

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

[polarbear 1]

This is not a sport for people who don't see the dangers. This sport is completely intolerant of ignorance. Why do we base the progression and enjoyment of our sport on them? I would ask, is the right course of action to prevent them from jumping small canopies, or jumping at all? Some people just HAVE to find a way to do themselves in...

Quote

Remember not everyone wants to hook turn, so you can't use hook turn performance as a guide...And not everyone wants to land with rear risers, carve throuh gates, rip up a pond...So the program HAS to be able to be done BY EVERYONE....The PRO rating program does that.

Certainly a good point. Not everyone does want to swoop. The problem we are addressing, however, (landing injuries) is BY FAR due to low turns, mostly intentional low turns. If the underlaying purpose of the program is to reduce these injuries, shouldn't the program address this type of landing?

I would also say that most people who understand canopy flight will not get into the higher wingloadings (say maybe 1.6 or higher?) without being a little bit of a swooper. EVERYONE who goes into the really high wingloading range (say maybe 1.9 or higher) is going to swoop. In addition, the canopies designed to fly in these ranges are not well suited to PRO accuracy (yes, I know it can be done, but usually not without either popping up and dropping in, hitting the deck and slidding in, or jumping in higher winds). Doesn't it seem that a swoop pilot wanting to fly a swooping canopy should have to pass a swooping test, if anything?

"Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

[Ron 10]

Quote

This is not a sport for people who don't see the dangers

And yet they are here.

Quote

This sport is completely intolerant of ignorance.

so what should we do? Just watch em bounce?

Quote

Certainly a good point. Not everyone does want to swoop. The problem we are addressing, however, (landing injuries) is BY FAR due to low turns, mostly intentional low turns

Nope, I am trying to reach the hotshot know it alls...People will always screw up...But I would rather they screw up and not die.

Quote

In addition, the canopies designed to fly in these ranges are not well suited to PRO accuracy (yes, I know it can be done, but usually not without either popping up and dropping in, hitting the deck and slidding in, or jumping in higher winds).

Bullshit, I can land a 90 straight in without gaining speed....Besides who said you could not swoop it in?

Bills list of stuff is not swooping...Besides if it is a swooping test...Now you have to have swoopers give it.

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

[relyon 0]

Quote

I would also say that most people who understand canopy flight will not get into the higher wingloadings (say maybe 1.6 or higher?) without being a little bit of a swooper. EVERYONE who goes into the really high wingloading range (say maybe 1.9 or higher) is going to swoop. ...

No, not EVERYONE. There are a small contigent of world competitive CRWdogs that jump shortlined low aspect 7-cells in the 1.6-2.2 load range. These canopies are chosen for their flight characteristics and pressurization, and despite their poor landing performance. Landing one of these can be quite a thrill, but it's definitely not swooping.

Bob

[billvon 2,991]

>What this means is, I want to see a system that is fair to people that
> DO have talent, skill, good judgement, and who understand and >accept the risks.

I agree. Derek's proposal contains a way to "test out" of any and all restrictions; good swoopers are not grounded as long as they are willing to prove they are indeed good swoopers.

>I also DO NOT believe in a program based SOLELY on overall jump
> numbers, which is what some people are proposing.

Again, I agree. Derek's system also contains a way to get out of any and all restrictions by taking a canopy control course, or by the aforementioned demonstration of skill. The people this is designed to catch are the people who are falling through the cracks now - the people who do not even have enough experience to know how little they know about swooping. The value of any regulation is that it will get these people into canopy control courses before they injure or kill themselves. Education, not regulation, is what will save lives; regulation is just a way to get people into classrooms and on coached jumps.