How about this WL restriction

[jdfreefly 1]

You can't cross the 1.5 wing loading line until you can tell a story about how you fucked up and scared the shit out of yourself.

Seems to me, every decent swooper can tell a story about a mistake they made. I made mine under a low wing loading. The mistake gave me a deep respect for just how hard and unforgiving the ground can be. The low wing loading gave me the ability to walk away from it.

When someone wants to down size, ask them what mistakes they have made under their current canopy and what they learned from their mistakes. If they say they haven't made any mistakes, well, then they haven't learned enough yet.

Mistake doesn't mean hooking it in. A mistake can be as simple as misjudging how much room you have on an off field landing and being really scared for a brief second that you were not going to be able to shut it down before you went full speed into someone's tool shed.

I guess what I am getting at, is that an important question to ask people is, "What valuable lessons have you learned under the canopy you are on, and why do you think this new knowledge makes you able to move forward?"

Asking someone how they think they are doing on a canopy is useless, they want to get your approval to down size so they are just going to tell you what they think the right answers are. But getting them to show you they've learned something on that canopy, there is a good indication of a canopy pilot who is paying attention.

Just a thought. Feel free to add your own thoughts and make mine better.

Methane Freefly - got stink?

[GravityGirl 0]

Yup. I hate when I try to offer advise to not downsize yet, and they say, "But all my landings are straight in, and my accuaracy is good because I've never landed off."

Well. Then you're not ready to downsize.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peace and Blue Skies!
Bonnie ==>Gravity Gear!

[Chrisky 0]

Well, i'll go ahead and put myself straight in the line of fire here...

I scared myself twice on my current canopy so far.

Just started to like swooping and did a rather quick toggle turn to final, a little more than 90° left. I figured i would be landing near the Taxiway (on that DZ at the time we would land between Taxiway and Runway) into the landing area. The turn was a bit steeper than i expected and i pulled both toggles, quite quickly but not so fast as to induce a stall. I swooped the Taxiway, but my legs which i had pulled up got a nice solid bump and my but only a slight one before the lift pulled me back up. I walked the rest of the speed off on the grass (wasn't much left)...
A buddy of mine gave me a serious talking to, and i answered (as most of you expected), that i was alright and in control. Later that day i walked up to him and told him he had been right and excused myself, but it took me a while to digest the whole thing and recognize that.
A week later i got to return the favor on a different issue...

The second time i got scared was when i was still actively testing out the canopy and started having fun with its responsiveness (Not that i don't do that anymore). That was when i learned that a canopy with short, strong differing toggle input can twist up if you do it wrong. There i am up in the sky, coming out of a spiral just above my hard deck and pull a toggle really quickly....
Woooops! What the!?!? Two linetwists? I was lucky enough i had let the toggle back up again after things started feeling weird, so the canopy was going quite straight with the twists and not spiraling. So i got to kick them out and do a quite conservative approach.

Apart from these two times, i got a little nervous on different occasions, but they all made me learn more about my canopy. Like it does great flat turns at 150 ft avoiding intersecting flight pathes...

Oh, maybe i misposted because i don't plan of even thinking of downsizing... This thing is so much fun and challenge enough to fully master (nowhere near doing "stunts" with it yet, but don't feel the need either) that i will be flying it for a really long time.

The mind is like a parachute - it only works once it's open.
From the edge you just see more.
... Not every Swooper hooks & not every Hooker swoops ...

[ryand96 0]

Quote

You can't cross the 1.5 wing loading line until you can tell a story about how you fucked up and scared the shit out of yourself.

I can definitely tell a story about how I fucked up. It was a scary downwind landing that I was not ready for. Am I ready to downsize. NO! There have to be a few other criteria here like proving that you can truly fly the shit out of your canopy. Maybe a canopy control course should be required. What about jump number requirements? (I'm not a big fan of this one but there needs to be something for newer jumpers who are not wise enough to make smart wing loading decisions for themselves) I’m sure you had a few other criteria in mind yourself when writing this post. I just know that scaring the shit out of yourself and learning from it can't be the only criteria. I learned a lot from my own mistakes, but I need to learn a whole hell of a lot more before I am ready to downsize.

[kallend 2,026]

So the logic is: the more you fuck up, the sooner you can downsize.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[adamUK 3]

I totally recommend doing a canopy control course. We did Chris Lynch's Wingtips course last week. There were jumpers with thousands of jumps as well as newbies like me. We all got something from the day and the added bonus that i am really getting much more enjoyment out of flying my canopy
cheers
Adam.

[JohnMitchell 16]

It's like the old saying "Good judgement comes from experience, experience comes from bad judgement."

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

It's like the old saying "Good judgement comes from experience, experience comes from bad judgement."

Somewhere in this is a bit of a trap.

The whole point of slowing down or stopping the downsizing game is to keep low timers like me from pushing the envelop and scaring the crap out of ourselves. If it's too successful, we never do.

But yeah, I agree with the notion. Someone who has never had anything go wrong is less battletested. But how to get such experience as safely as possible - I have no idea.

[riddler 0]

Quote

So the logic is: the more you fuck up, the sooner you can downsize.

I think the logic is the sooner you fuck up, the sooner you can downsize.

Let's see, I usually fuck up whenever I jump a new canopy for the first time, so at that rate, I can downsize after every jump

Edit to add - how about this for a WL recommendation? It's not perfect, but it gives newer jumpers something to think about before downsizing.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[billvon 2,989]

>Edit to add - how about this for a WL recommendation?

How the heck do you read that? It looks like a target, but I assume the objective is not to throw darts at it. Is it "stay inside the circle that's defined by your worst radial?"

[DutchSkyCam 0]

The above link points to the Dutch canopy regulations.

Jumpers here are devided in 5 categories.
I: < 25 jumps
II: 25 - 100 jumps
III: 100 - 500 jumps, > 25 jumps last 12 months
IV: 500 - 1000 jumps, > 50 jumps last 12 months
V: > 1000 jumps, > 100 jumps last 12 months

The restricions are
I: WL <= 1.1, size >=170
II: WL <= 1.1, size >=170
III: WL <= 1.3, size >=150
IV: WL <= 1.5, size >=120
V: use your own judgement.

Also all canopies on the market are devided in categories: a few examples:
Cagegorie I: Navigator, Manta, Cruislite, Sabre, e.a.
Categorie II: Electra, Merit, Spectre, Silhouette, e.a.
Categorie III: Sabre2, Safire2, triathlon, e.a.
Categorie IV: Stiletto, Vengeance, Katana, Crosfire, e.a.
Categorie V: Extremes, Velocities, whatever.

The complete list of canopies is here:http://www.parachute.nl/ikbeneenspringer/bvrbb.pdf


At first I did not agree with those regulations, but I do notice people are starting to think about the canopies they jump.

Obviously we have our problems, an electra 170 @ 1.1 is still a handfull for the heavy < 100 jumps student while the category I, 170 @ 0.6 is underloaded for a 100 lbs ferry on a windy day. But overall I think this is a good system.

Hope this clarifies things

Barry

[Liemberg 0]

Quote

I totally recommend doing a canopy control course.

I totally recommend gaining more personal, first hand experience.

What bugs me with the canopy control course as a cure for every disease is that I find it not hard to imagine how 'the kid with an over inflated ego' comes around to tell me that he is perfectly safe under his way too small canopy since he took a course.

You probably get a certificate too at the end?
Peters online canopy control course without a certificate:

Pull left toggle and it goes left AND DOWN
Pull right toggle and it goes right AND DOWN
Pull left/right front riser...
More input = more output and size / weight ratio influences the outcome.

Close to the ground it gets dangerous.

If you make a mistake be sure that you are either under a forgiving canopy or over forgiving terrain.

If not it is strongly recommended to avoid mistakes.

YMMV

"Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci
A thousand words...

[phoenixlpr 0]

Why to make it so complicated?

Im not 100% sure about the Finnish rules, but its something like that:

No own gear allowed for students
No elliptical and WL limit 1.35 under 250 jumps

I think its good enough.

[Liemberg 0]

Quote

Good judgement comes from experience, experience comes from bad judgement."

But if bad judgement leads to experience that is not survived *), for the person having the experience there's no good judgement gained either...

*) doesn't have to mean you kill yourself - crippling yourself in such a way that you can't jump anymore is sufficient because whatever great insight about landing parachutes you gained, for yourself it is of no use anymore...

Quote

But how to get such experience as safely as possible - I have no idea.

Slowly?

"Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci
A thousand words...

[riddler 0]

Quote

How the heck do you read that?

Here's the original thread from a year or so ago. Not a perfect solution, but I think it's a start. There are a lot of pre-A license jumpers that ask me "so when should I start downsizing?" Usually, it's before they've even bought their first set of gear I hand them a copy of that chart and show them how it's used, and point out that it's just a guideline.

Yeah, it's not an easy guideline, but I don't like the simple solutions I've heard. I wish there were an easy "sound-byte" that I could give to students about downsizing, but I think this is one of those times it takes a more complicated answer to get it right.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[mustard 0]

Ya know, I went over and read about the guy at Perris who is now maybe going to walk in 6 months, then came over here to read about WL restrictions.

I will be going to the USPA BOD next month, and I would really like to take something there that makes sense about this WL discussion. But first, let me post my impressions:

Everywhere I look (that's Parachutist, Skydiving, and these threads) the glamour of swooping and high WL and awesome and beautiful feats of derring-do are shown in 3-D and color as being absolutely the Wave of the Future and anybody who doesn't understand this is Old School.

The daring and talented among us will try to do these things because they *are* daring and awesome and all those things, and nothing that I or any other conservative Old School person says will make the slightest difference to them. They say, and they are right, that I don't understand.

What can USPA do to change things? Is there *anything* that will stop mindless downsizing when it is glamorized the way it is? I am unconvinced that USPA is the arena to make change here. It must come from the caring grassroots skydivers who don't want to see their friends kill themselves.

Am I wrong about this?

***
DJan

[WrongWay 0]

First I'd like to say that I agree with you on the fact that it's very "glamorized" and it's the "cool thing to do". However, removing that image would not only be impossible, but it would be shameful to the people that can actually pull that 300 foot swoop.

With all due respect, and I understand and support the good reasoning behind these ideas, but the simple fact remains: To say "we need to stop glamorizing swooping in magazines to save lives" is about as realistic as saying "We need to stop glamorizing sex on tv to cut down on teen pregnancy". It's a good thought, but the odds of that happening are about the same as teaching your rig to pack itself.

Wrong Way
D #27371 Mal Manera Rodriguez Cajun Chicken Ø Hellfish #451
The wiser wolf prevails.

[mickhardy 0]

Quote

<100 jumps and you are under 1.1
100-200 1.1
200-300 1.2
300-400 1.3
400-500 1.4
500-600 1.5
600-700 1.6
700-800 1.7
800-900 1.8
900-1000 1.9
>1000 use personal discretion.

I tried to implement the same concept in Australia quite a few years ago but I stopped at 500 jumps and described it as follows. Exact same concept but possibly easier to remember, which was half the attraction. This solution is so easy to enforce and plus or minus 0.1 gives some reasonable leeway.

< 100 < 1.1
< 200 < 1.2
< 300 < 1.3
< 400 < 1.4
< 500 < 1.5

If this had been implemented world-wide a few years ago, how many broken bones would it have prevented? Sure, it may restrict a few highly skilled jumpers but they can always keep jumping and they will always keep learning. I still think its a damn good solution and use it as my basis for recommendations.

My concept was largely ignored, and quickly forgotten but we don't seem to have the problem at such a high level in Australia. I'm sure its coming though.

Quote

the glamour of swooping and high WL

I don't think the glamour of swooping is a bad thing. It can be a kind of carrot dangling for the young jumpers who stick around.

I dread to think how many times I would have died if the current technology had been available when I was young.

[crutch 0]

I think the problem with the swooping thing is that we only glamorize the "good" swoops. It is like the guys doing the stunts with motorcycles on TV. The no-hand landings, backflips and whatever. What never gets put out there is that very few of those guys can pass through a metal detector. We make a big point of all the inexperienced jumpers getting hurt swooping, but very little of the "known" swoopers and their injuries. I know that when I finally broke a bone, it definitely had an effect at our small drop zone. People began to realize that you can get hurt landing the way he/she does even at that experience level.

blue skies,

art

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

Ya know, I went over and read about the guy at Perris who is now maybe going to walk in 6 months, then came over here to read about WL restrictions.

I will be going to the USPA BOD next month, and I would really like to take something there that makes sense about this WL discussion. But first, let me post my impressions:

Everywhere I look (that's Parachutist, Skydiving, and these threads) the glamour of swooping and high WL and awesome and beautiful feats of derring-do are shown in 3-D and color as being absolutely the Wave of the Future and anybody who doesn't understand this is Old School.

The daring and talented among us will try to do these things because they *are* daring and awesome and all those things, and nothing that I or any other conservative Old School person says will make the slightest difference to them. They say, and they are right, that I don't understand.

What can USPA do to change things? Is there *anything* that will stop mindless downsizing when it is glamorized the way it is? I am unconvinced that USPA is the arena to make change here. It must come from the caring grassroots skydivers who don't want to see their friends kill themselves.

Am I wrong about this?

I hope the USPA BOD will take a good look at the accident data that USPA has collected over the last decade and make a serious attempt to identify the actual problem and actual risk factors.

The WL proposal looks to me like a knee-jerk reaction to a few highly publicized accidents with no real attempt to analyze risk factors in canopy accidents overall.

Jumpers with plenty of experience are also killing and injuring themselves under quite un-extreme canopies.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[polarbear 1]

Quote

I hope the USPA BOD will take a good look at the accident data that USPA has collected over the last decade and make a serious attempt to identify the actual problem and actual risk factors.

The WL proposal looks to me like a knee-jerk reaction to a few highly publicized accidents with no real attempt to analyze risk factors in canopy accidents overall.

Jumpers with plenty of experience are also killing and injuring themselves under quite un-extreme canopies.

I'd agree with this. I've been trying to come up with a polite way to say it, but I can't. There is obviously good logic in what the USPA is trying to do...but there is also an element of this that is pretty reactionary, sometimes emotionally charged.

I think it is important to remember that swooping and small canopies are ALWAYS dangerous...there is nothing safe about it, ever. Good judgement and skill are not just tools you either have or don't have...they are tools you must use EVERY time. Momentary lapses of judgement can occur at any time with dire consequences.

Injuries associated with canopies are not a just simple matter of wingloading vs. experience...an effective regulation will need to be carefully thought out, not a reaction.

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