New USPA Downsizing Chart proposal

[davelepka 4]

Quote

I did that. Oddly, you never commented. Well, no, not odd at all. The fatalty reports do not support you. The non existent femur reports might.

It's not odd. I don't read every post. You are right about the non-existant incident reports that do support the Wl chart.

All of that aside, the actual numbers from the reports are not relevant. I don't care if '04 had a couple more than '05. The point is that in any case, there are far too many. In comparison to the days when canopies were larger, slower, and lamer, there are far more open canopy fatalities.

AGAIN: This is not a nit-picky issue, and you need to learn to look beyond your own situation. I'm sorry if it will cramp your style to adhere to a WL chart, but your temporary sacrifice is very small in comarison to the benefits of safer, more informed skydivers in the future.

Don't want your Wl to be restricted? Get off your ass and become an expert skydiver capable of jumping at any WL. Problem solved.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

AGAIN: This is not a nit-picky issue, and you need to learn to look beyond your own situation. I'm sorry if it will cramp your style to adhere to a WL chart, but your temporary sacrifice is very small in comarison to the benefits of safer, more informed skydivers in the future.

And if you bothered to read my research, you'd see that you're spinning a fantasy here.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

And if you bothered to read my research, you'd see that you're spinning a fantasy here.

OK, if I had my way, every jumper would have a one hour classroom session, and a few hop-n-pops required for each license they want. They would also have some limits to what size, and type of canopy they could jump up to a certain level of experience.


How does a more informed skydiver on an appropriate canopy not equal a safer skydiver?

[davelepka 4]

Here's another point to keep in mind. Everything you were taught about skydiving, everything that is considered 'standard practice', was all made up by someone at some time.

Your impression of what's safe and what's not is a reflaction of what you were taught, what you witnessed, and where you started to jump.

As an example, many DZ's tend to lock onto one type of container. The staff will all have them, many fun jumpers, and the gear store reccomends them. Bingo, instant preference for a container. Thats not to say that you won't later change your mind, or that oen container or another is better, just that when you start jumping, you are a blank slate, and what you are taught goes along way toward who you are as a skydiver down the line.

Along the same lines, if a student is taught the importance of canopy control early on, and they see good practices from other jumpers, and CC course being held with full attendence, now you have a jumper who places importance on CC, and takes it seriously.

Ditto for the WL situation. I know for a fact that on a DZ where the new jumpers are closely monitored in what they buy, and what they jump, the climate is such that those jumpers have no desire to downsize quickly, and are respectful of the reasons why. Futhermore, I have seen this system produce some extremely talented canopy pilots, well beyond what their experience would indicate.

The point here is that skydiving is whatever we make it to be. Who in their right mind would dress in head-to-toe neon colors? The answer is every skydiver in the late 80's/early 90's. Every new jumper back then who ordered a jumpsuit, and went with neon gren over neon pink would have never thought to wear those colors until they started jumping, and saw that that's how a jumper dresses. They simply went along with whatever they saw.


This is why every new jumper will have the right attittude toward CC and WL provided they are taught that way, and they see it in practice.

The overall resistance to change is astounding. We would have none of the gear we did if Bill Booth or John Leblanc just looked around and figured, "Thats the way it is. Must be right".

It was only by looking beyond the status quo, and asking 'what if', were they able to produce the products that we have, and use every jump.

It's time to say,"What if we can reverse this trend with open canopy incidents".

I mean, really, we tell newbies that saying the word 'first' means they have to buy a case of beer. There's no connection between what they say, and some obligation to buy beer, but they buy into 100% just becasue we said so.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

OK, if I had my way, every jumper would have a one hour classroom session, and a few hop-n-pops required for each license they want. They would also have some limits to what size, and type of canopy they could jump up to a certain level of experience.

I have few objections to the general concept.

The problem lies is setting those maximum limits for the least common denominator rather than say a 85% as we do with speed limits. I think regulation should cover obvious danger, not every potential one. We know the latter is impossible.

BTW, none of these proposals will affect me, or my intended downsize to a 190 next year, so forget the notion that I have any more direct a stake in it that you do.

Quote

How does a more informed skydiver on an appropriate canopy not equal a safer skydiver?

How do charts promising BLACK DEATH for wingloadings over 1.0 lead to more informed skydivers? They don't, because anyone can see it's bullshit, and that leads to low acceptance of the concept.

[davelepka 4]

OK, let me ask this, are you opposed to A chart, or are you opposed to THIS chart?

I'm all for reasonable WL's, and having fun with your canopy, but the current climate of 'anything goes' sinply cannot stand.

[justinb138 0]

Quote

I'm all for reasonable WL's, and having fun with your canopy, but the current climate of 'anything goes' sinply cannot stand.

I guess I'm not used to this "anything goes" thing with canopies.

If I showed up at my DZ with a Stiletto 170, they'd first laugh, and then slap me around a bit.

I've been demo'ing alot of canopies lately, and hanging a few up at the DZ to put them on risers, etc, and honestly I can't think of one of those times where an instructor/experienced jumper didn't ask what it was I was hooking up.

I guess I've just always assumed people looked out for each other when it comes to this stuff, which is why the whole chart thingy never made much sense to me.

[beowulf 1]

come on Justin you know you want to try out Bruno's 55 sft VX

[justinb138 0]

Quote

come on Justin you know you want to try out Bruno's 55 sft VX

Nope. I like my legs the way they are.... attached.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

I guess I'm not used to this "anything goes" thing with canopies.

If I showed up at my DZ with a Stiletto 170, they'd first laugh, and then slap me around a bit.

Thats your DZ. Go somewhere else you'll be treated differently. Go to a third DZ, and they won't even ask what you're jumping.

The way it works now, each DZ can deciede to A) have some sort of limits, and B) what those limits should be.

Just because your DZ has set reasonable and safe limits, doesn't mean the one down the road has done the same. We know that some jumpers are making (very) poor choices for what canopies to jump, and we know it's not happening at your DZ, but the jumpers are out there, so it must happening somewhere.

The current system just isn;t cutting it. Too many jumpers are slipping through the cracks, and paying a high price for it in the end. For the record I think that a broken ankle is a pretty high price.

[SwampGod 0]

Guidelines are great. Well thought out guidelines even better. I'm hoping that this is but a part of a broader plan on canopy instruction, as alone it doesn't seem to tell the whole story.

If I understand correctly, it seems ANY chart is subject to limitations. Not all canopies of the same size act the same. Not all individuals with 100 jumps have the same amount (or same type) of canopy experience under their belts. I learned as much in one CRW jump as I did in 50 standard canopy flights (and contact is not necessary to learn with CRW!)

I asked my DZO about his downsizing suggestions for me, and he replied that once I was able to land my current canopy 10 times in a row on targets spread throughout the drop zone I was ready to downsize. He felt knowing how to land in a variety of situations (sinking it in, etc) kept me safer in the event of on and off-field landings. I don't know that the "10 in a row" PRO-ratingesque mandate is quite appropriate, and I did downsize before totally fulfilling that guideline... but the spirit of the suggestion has always impressed me.

I guess I'm wondering if there's a way to tie a chart like this together with some performance objectives (more than simply doing 90 degree turns on rear risers at 2500 feet).

I'm confident that the people working on this chart will come up with some very informative benchmarks for canopy progression. I learned more in one weekend of Brian Germain's canopy seminar then I ever did reading books or posts. And did I mention CRW? I do love how much one can learn about canopy flight in that manner....

-eli

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

OK, let me ask this, are you opposed to A chart, or are you opposed to THIS chart?

I'm all for reasonable WL's, and having fun with your canopy, but the current climate of 'anything goes' sinply cannot stand.

You know the answer to that question - I presented a KISS proposal in February when this topic was at the top of everyone's mind. Essentially Brian's old chart with a fudge factor added, and no exceptions.

http://dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=1497371;page=1;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25;

I see the value in keeping 200 jump wonders off stilettos at 1.5. Don't see the value banning what would be considered mildly aggressive (or plain average) wingloadings.

[Ron 10]

Quote

It's time to say,"What if we can reverse this trend with open canopy incidents".

I mean, really, we tell newbies that saying the word 'first' means they have to buy a case of beer. There's no connection between what they say, and some obligation to buy beer, but they buy into 100% just becasue we said so.

Perfect post.

Make the WL limits a BSR and let the people who bitch about it fade away just like the folks that bitched about min pull altitudes.

Back 25 years ago you were a pussy if you pulled higher than 2 grand. Now its common to here people pulling at 3.5 or even 4 who are expereinced.

Yes the equipment has gotten better/softer. But with the performance of the canopies getting better something needs to be done. I doubt anyone thinks that education is not the best answer, but even on this thread we have had two people from the same DZ (Chicago) say two totaly different things about the canopy classes they got.

So its quite clear that while education is best, that it also is the one that is the most difficult to make 100% accross the board....I mean if two students fro the SAME DZ have two totally different views on the same subject, how do you expect ALL the DZ's in the world/US to do the same thing well?

Also, a WL BSR hurts NOONE. Some will cry and claim that it "Holds them back"....Well BS. Every WL rule I have supported has a test out option. The only people that can bitch about having to prove what they can do to do what they want are:
1. Those that can't do it, and should not be allowed.
2. Those that are gonna bitch at anything.

Just like the neon gear issue, or the beer rules...A WL rule will be accepted by the new jumpers since they will not know anything other than the new rule. It might be too late to help the guy that is gonna femur this weekend, but the guy that has not made his first jump yet we might be able to save.

A WL Rule with a test out option should be done.

Can't pass the test? Shut up and get some skills till you can.

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

[Ron 10]

Quote

I guess I'm not used to this "anything goes" thing with canopies.

If I showed up at my DZ with a Stiletto 170, they'd first laugh, and then slap me around a bit.

Not all DZ's are like this....If they were then there would be less accidents and no need for a rule/chart.

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

[SwampGod 0]

Quote

A WL Rule with a test out option should be done.

Can't pass the test? Shut up and get some skills till you can.

Is the test out option for gifted pilots to advance at their own level? Or do you mean someone would have to pass the test AND have enough jumps?

[Ron 10]

Quote

Is the test out option for gifted pilots to advance at their own level? Or do you mean someone would have to pass the test AND have enough jumps?

I have always wanted to see a rule with a chart that shows a "normal" progression. Just for example lets say Brians old chart (which I always liked):

0-100 under 1.0
100-200 1.1 max
200-300 1.2 max
300-400 1.3 max
400-500 1.4 max
500+ discretion

Now lets take Joe Hotshot with 300 jumps. He can only jump a 1.3 max UNLESS he passes a test out.

For the test out lest use my personal favorite, the PRO test. 10 jumps pre declared in a 30 foot circle standing up in row...Miss one and you start back at #1.

When you pass that test (and it could be any test) you may go up one level...So Mr. Hotshot could now jump a 1.4 max....Until he passes the test again with the new canopy.

Truely skilled pilots will be able to jump what they can prove they can handle safely. People who just think they have "mad skills" will not be allowed to progress faster than the "norm".

As for who it should effect. My opinion is that we should start with the new jumpers. Yes, we will lose some folks who are currently jumping, but the next generation will be better prepared. And nothing would make me happier than to not need this rule...But its a simple thing to do, and once the skill level and education of the average jumper is high enough...then we can just make it go away...Kinda like how Birdman suits were one time banned by the USPA, then you needed 500 jumps, now I see some people with 100 jumping them safely.

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

[SwampGod 0]

Quote

Now lets take Joe Hotshot with 300 jumps. He can only jump a 1.3 max UNLESS he passes a test out.

I can see allowing people to test out, as it rewards gifted and/or fast learners. But what about the slow learners? Will a stand-alone chart give them false security that they're ready to downsize, simply because they completed their 300th jump?

I'm not one for more rules, but even a self-imposed skills test that has been created by professionals might help people decide when they're ready. That way, you can look at the chart, see that you're ready to give yourself the test, and if you pass.... fly, baby, fly.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

.... Ditto for the WL situation. I know for a fact that on a DZ where the new jumpers are closely monitored in what they buy, and what they jump, the climate is such that those jumpers have no desire to downsize quickly, and are respectful of the reasons why. Futhermore, I have seen this system produce some extremely talented canopy pilots, well beyond what their experience would indicate.... It's time to say,"What if we can reverse this trend with open canopy incidents".... I mean, really, we tell newbies that saying the word 'first' means they have to buy a case of beer. There's no connection between what they say, and some obligation to buy beer, but they buy into 100% just becasue we said so.

Nicely Put Dave - This is directly analogous to the minimum pull altitude BSRs. We can choose to set the culture and the bitchers will evolve away.

If all the DZs can't do this consistently now, then maybe "General and Smart Guidelines" like Brian's chart, provided to everyone, will encourage that behavior. If that isn't good enough, then it should be a BSR/requirement instead of just a guideline/encouragement.

I like Ron's acknowledgement that some low timers do get training and have good judgement in this area - just not as many do that 'THINK' they do. But in that case, they should do a practical "test out," not just get a free unsupervised pass (everyone gets a medal). Because they would be the exception, not the rule. And those that falsely "think" they are the exception are theones most likely to get hurt. I would only worry that the 'test out' might not be enforced and anyone that pays the fee automatically passes even if they aren't ready. It would have to be administered by someone from a different area than the tester, that takes this stuff seriously.

Or, we can just let Darwin take care of the problem and decide to live with those fatality numbers. Just label them differently - we can call them "Human Species IQ Correction Activities"

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

as it rewards gifted and/or fast learners.

Hardly a 'reward' to fly tiny with low experience, but if they show the judgement and ability to be allowed the "option" to downsize early, at least it's better than some newbie with little judement making that call based his ego and what his friends are doing.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[davelepka 4]

Quote

Or, we can just let Darwin take care of the problem and decide to live with those fatality numbers. Just label them differently - we can call them "Human Species IQ Correction Activities"

I know that was a joke, but remember that not every open canopy incident is the result of a jumper being too aggressive with a canopy. Many times it's just jumpers who don't know any better, and who would be more than happy to abide by a WL chart, and take CC courses.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I know that was a joke, .

Sort of a joke, Dave, but really, if we don't do something, then we are, in fact, approving of people hurting themselves this way. Brian is offering

Quote

but remember that not every open canopy incident is the result of a jumper being too aggressive with a canopy. Many times it's just jumpers who don't know any better, and who would be more than happy to abide by a WL chart, and take CC courses

Good point, when it's really not handled correctly, newbies might think that a dangerous progression is normal. Something standard there would be useful.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Ron 10]

Quote

I can see allowing people to test out, as it rewards gifted and/or fast learners. But what about the slow learners? Will a stand-alone chart give them false security that they're ready to downsize, simply because they completed their 300th jump?

The chart should be on the safer side knowing that the agressive canopy pilots will test out of it. If that means the hotshots need to get instruction and work on the test to pass it??? Great, thats the idea. I like the idea of a guy working and learning and moving up. What I don't like is a guy that only *thinks* he has the skills and can run out and get a VX-90 with 100 jumps.

Quote

I'm not one for more rules, but even a self-imposed skills test that has been created by professionals might help people decide when they're ready. That way, you can look at the chart, see that you're ready to give yourself the test, and if you pass.... fly, baby, fly.

The problem is this.....The people who need to be held back or study more are not the ones that would use the test unless it was required.

I never worry about the guy who is scared to do a 100 way and works his way up by doing 10,20,30,40,50,80.....Ect. I worry about the guy that has only ever done a 20 way and wants on the 400 way.

There are several young hotshot canopy folks that don't worry me at all. They take gradual steps and learn valuble lessons on the way. I worry about the guy that sees the hotshots and thinks its the canopy that makes them good, not their skills. Those people will not "self test". They will just buy the canopy.

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

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

Nicely Put Dave - This is directly analogous to the minimum pull altitude BSRs. We can choose to set the culture and the bitchers will evolve away.

One difference is that nobody can test out of the minimum pull BSR, and no number of jumps can get you beneath 2000' as a required minimum. Are we now proposing a hard maximum WL?

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

[davelepka 4]

Quote

Nicely Put Dave - This is directly analogous to the minimum pull altitude BSRs. We can choose to set the culture and the bitchers will evolve away.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One difference is that nobody can test out of the minimum pull BSR, and no number of jumps can get you beneath 2000' as a required minimum. Are we now proposing a hard maximum WL?

It's directly analogous in the sense that if we set a precedent, sooner or later it will become the accepted standard practice.

Those who haven't begun jumping yet will begin the sport with the understanding that things are done a certain way.

Experienced jumpers who bitch about the change will, in time, either get over it, gain enough experince to no be affected by it, or simply stop jumping. Either way, the end result is a new standard, and a lack of bitching.

When was the last time you heard a jumper complaining that 2000' is too high to pull and not been joking, or on drugs?

[SwampGod 0]

Quote

The problem is this.....The people who need to be held back or study more are not the ones that would use the test unless it was required...

Does this imply there should only be a test if it's a requirement?

I understand that some will ignore the rules, no matter what they are. But just because there are people who will ignore good advice doesn't mean the good advice shouldn't be given to the rest of us.

While a stand-alone chart would give me a guide based on universal trends, it would do little to confirm that I am actually on pace with that trend and ready to downsize. If the only tool presented by the experts is a chart, why would beginners feel there is anything more to the story?

We use jump numbers as minimums for license requirements, but we also add skill and experience objectives. Why would this be different?

I'm not asking about this only for other students, I'm saying as a student myself (at 400+ jumps), I would LOVE to see a skills test put together by people more qualified than myself. The only skills test I've ever had suggested to me is the PRO-ratingesque 10-in-a-row test.

I can see using the chart as a guide, maybe even a minimum requirement if it comes to that. As it stands now, I will downsize when my skills say I'm ready, not my jump numbers. I'm just asking for help in assessing my skills.