Bolas 5 #1 June 23, 2004 I was looking at the site for Skydive Coastal Carolinas because I heard they were having a 4th of July beach boogie and saw they had wing loading restrictions: http://www.skydivecoastalcarolinas.com/wing%20loading.htm I did a search here and it looks like Skydive Kansas has an even stricter wing loading restrictions. http://www.skydivekansas.com/policy_lic.htm I'm not in danger of exceeding these wing loading restrictions even when I get my new Lotus 170 so this really doesn't effect me but made me think: * Do other DZ's do this? * Is this a good solution to the rise in the low jump number/small canopy problem? * These DZ's are fairly small, would this work for larger DZ's? * What does Ron think of this idea? Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,006 #2 June 23, 2004 >Do other DZ's do this? Yes, I believe one DZ in Colorado does as well. >Is this a good solution to the rise in the low jump number/small canopy problem? Yes and no. Having different regulations at each DZ makes people gravitate towards the most lenient DZ and tends to make a good progression tougher (i.e. some people will never get to learn how to fly a small canopy because they can't even take a course there on the smaller size.) On the other hand, it will tend to keep people on larger canopies for longer, and that's probably a good thing. >These DZ's are fairly small, would this work for larger DZ's? Depends. If the DZ is large and there is a competing one nearby, the competing one will be able to draw experienced jumpers away with a more lenient policy. If there isn't, then they have the big-dog thing going for them; people won't leave just because of the policy if their option is a one cessna DZ four hours away. If anything, I think it's _more_ appropriate for a larger DZ; it's easier to decide on a case-by-case basis at the smaller DZ's. >What does Ron think of this idea? I may be going out on a limb here, but I think you might just get a reply from the infamous Ron right here on this thread! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WrongWay 0 #3 June 23, 2004 I think it's a great idea. Still, at Kansas, absolute maximum 1.5? Am I reading that wrong or does that include people with over 1000 jumps? Wrong Way D #27371 Mal Manera Rodriguez Cajun Chicken Ø Hellfish #451 The wiser wolf prevails. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #4 June 23, 2004 QuoteStill, at Kansas, absolute maximum 1.5? Am I reading that wrong or does that include people with over 1000 jumps? That includes everyone. This is why I think WL restrictions set by each DZ is a bad idea. If it were a national standard, you could go to any DZ as long as you met the standard. If it varies by DZ, then you would have to check their policy before going to a new DZ, every time. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WrongWay 0 #5 June 23, 2004 I think WL restrictions are fine as long as they don't get ridiculous and limit experienced canopy pilots (like PST guys and canopy coaches) from visiting their dz. I like the idea of "over 1000 jumps, use good judgement". Wrong Way D #27371 Mal Manera Rodriguez Cajun Chicken Ø Hellfish #451 The wiser wolf prevails. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #6 June 23, 2004 QuoteI think WL restrictions are fine as long as they don't get ridiculous and limit experienced canopy pilots (like PST guys and canopy coaches) from visiting their dz. I like the idea of "over 1000 jumps, use good judgement". But that is exactly what is, and will, happen if left up to each DZ. There should be a national standard. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Daskal 1 #7 June 23, 2004 Even if you had a national USPA Wingloading BSR, there would be nothing preventing a DZ from setting a policy stricter than the BSR at the DZ. The only way would be to include a preemption clause in the BSR that would prohibit group member DZ's from implementing any wing loading rules beyond what is specified in the BSR. For example my home state, Florida has a state law that prohibits cities or any local governments from passing any firearms restrictions; gun laws are uniform throughout the state. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #8 June 23, 2004 QuoteEven if you had a national USPA Wingloading BSR, there would be nothing preventing a DZ from setting a policy stricter than the BSR at the DZ. Of course, this is true for any BSR, but if there is a national satandard, DZ's won't have to make their own and would be moe likely to follow the national standard. Same thing for pull altitudes. A DZ could raise the minimums, but I don't know of any that do. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,006 #9 June 23, 2004 > Even if you had a national USPA Wingloading BSR, there would be nothing >preventing a DZ from setting a policy stricter than the BSR at the DZ. Agreed, but it probably wouldn't happen. How many DZ's have 4000 foot minimum pull altitudes, or two mile cloud clearance requirements? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
