New USPA Downsizing Chart proposal

[faulknerwn 38]

Its not fast compared to the 150 - put put a 120 lb girl under a 120 and I guarantee you you'll leave her in the dust.

Its interesting - having spent almost 2000 jumps doing CRW under Lightning 113's - I've seen a lot of things. In recent years, we've gotten _very_ good about keeping the wing-loadings very similar.

I am religious about waiting out in the front (and side) of the formation and make sure all my other small folks know to as well. 143's aren't as bad, and 113's are the worst, but the formations normally outrun me. If I get behind a formation - even on front risers the formation is often outrunning me.

There was one 16-way I was on where we were doing run-backs. That means after the first formation is built, we break, the pilot runs back several hundred yards, dives down and we rebuild. On these runbacks - with 160's up top, the formation would be above me and past me (without me doing anything) by the time it came my turn to dock. They were impressively fast.

Look at the pictures of the big ways - it was designed with the big canopies up top and down the middle. Normally the outsides want to cup forward because they are the only part of the formation which have a free end-cell - everyone else has 2 grips taken on them - the outsides only have 1 so they tend to want to outrun the formation... We arranged to have bigger canopies down the center line, and we actually have the opposite affect - the outer wings are almost being drug backwards. The 81 way was flying as fast as I was - which was amazing. They normally slow down.

The big canopies are definitely solid as a rock - they don't turn very fast and are not as twitchy - but they frigging fly fast forward..

[NWFlyer 2]

Quote

Oh I understand that part of it, what Im curious about is if I could tomorrow just go out and downsize to a 170 since according to the chart it is still a safe size for my weight? I doubt it is, but Ive wondered this often

You and your mentors know your canopy skills and comfort better than any chart. If you don't feel ready to downsize safely, don't.

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

[lisamariewillbe 1]

Oh I dont plan on it, it was more hypothetical (sp)

Sudsy Fist: i don't think i'd ever say this
Sudsy Fist: but you're looking damn sudsydoable in this

[MB38 0]

See, charts like this raise questions for my own downsizing. If I were following it, I'd still be under a 230, the same size canopy I used on my first jump. And yet with direct recommendation and permission of my instructors, I'm just getting under a Pilot 188... about 100 jumps ahead of myself per the chart. The low-timer jumper who's under a canopy that might be too small!

I've stood up every landing except for jump two and a downwind landing [winds shifted at about 100 feet... and i goofed up a braked approach]. Now I'm not asking if I'm under the right/wrong canopy, as I have to assume that my instructors would not have put me under something that they didn't feel I was ready for. I know I'm comfortable with it, yadda yadda yadda. The low-timer jumper who thinks he can handle his equipment's typical answer!

I also know that a bad decision or a low turn could put the canopy into the ground before me. Not wanting to gift-wrap myself, I heed to the advice of those who trained me and those who I respect. Something tells me that Brian Germain knows a thing or two more about canopies than my instructors... but my instructors know a thing or two more about me. The low-timer jumper who doesn't know whether to trust the people he knows or the people who make the equipment!

So this isn't me wondering or worrying. I've been around the sport for almost 10 years now, even though I've only been jumping for about 6 months. I've seen three people die from poor decisions under canopy. This by no means makes me more experienced than any other low-timer. I do not wish to separate myself from them in the least, because I am a thoroughly inexperienced jumper who barely knows the first thing about this sport. I just know the powerful results that moving my hand 12 inches at the wrong time can do, particularly under something this size with my lack of experience.

I'm not wondering or worrying because I know that when my next Saturday rolls around, I'll be under the same canopy. It's the one I know, the one I'm learning and the one I'll probably buy. I know I'm not gonna be under a 168 in 8 more jumps; this is the time to plane out my downsizing.

But the point of this post is that things like this can be confusing, particularly to low-timers who don't know their own abilities... or lack thereof. People can debate the appropriate size of canopies until the cows come home, but until something like this becomes a BSR, instructors and mentors will just keep on doing what they do. And we'll probably keep having the occasional student dig a hole.

I don't really have a conclusion here, it was mostly just me writing what the chart brought to my mind. I just hope somebody can pull something logical out of this post... and that I'm not turning myself into a 31-jump wonder.

I really don't know what I'm talking about.

[grue 1]

Brian, is this being pushed to be a BSR, or just a recommendation?

Will current jumpers be grandfathered in, if it's a BSR?

cavete terrae.

[crotalus01 0]

i am in the same situation as MB38. i am on a Sabre 190 loaded at 1.26 or so with 48 jumps. according to the chart i am about 270 jumps ahead of schedule...
at any rate, this is the canopy size that was recommended to me by my instructors. i am in no rush to downsize, but i really like the way my canopy flies so i do not want to go up either (not to mention the cost involved). if this chart was adapted by USPA into the BSRs would it be grandfathered in, or a way to test out so i could continue jumping my canopy? just curious.

As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD...

[MakeItHappen 15]

Quote

How's this?

I don't know how else to say this about these guidelines - today they are ARBITRARY borders - drawn by a few people here and there.
See attached graphic of Brian's data.

What we need to do is make these guidelines based on the physics of the problem, not arbitrary limits. That way the young whipper-snappers *might* believe what we are saying.

I guarantee that the 'too kool to bounce sector' will NOT listen to gospel handed down by Moses, USPA or even Brian Germain.
They will listen to physics. Those laws can't be changed - even by the most spectacular swooper.

The missing pieces of data are the lift and drag coefficients. Once you know that you can create all sorts of contour plots to show progression or equivalent performance, weight and size dependencies. A nice to have would be the turn rate coefficients too. But we could start with Cd and Cl.

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[faulknerwn 38]

Yeah - I'd love to see some numbers - but its definitely going to be hard. Even among the same sized canopy - some manufactures like to trim their canopies with a very steep trim, and some with a very flat trim. And that could dramatically affect how well a canopy might recover from a panic turn for example. And heck - some canopies are known for their more challenging openings - Spectres have a lot more consistant openings than Stillettos. Especially for young jumpers who haven't had a cutaway - moving to certain styles of canopy can dramatically increas the risk.

I know the Dutch (I think) not only have canopy size limitations, but canopy class categories. Which makes sense in a lot of ways. While someone with 100 jumps might be ok at a Spectre at 1.1 to 1 - we probably don't want them on at a Stilletto of identical size. It would have to be a continual process - they seem to be coming up with new sorts of parachutes all the time.

[kelpdiver 2]

Brian - what were the sorts of thoughts that drove you to this chart from your former one? By just having sizes, this chart masks the reasons behind the decisions, and there's more boxes than I want to convert!

This one seems so much more complicated, without gain, and perhaps a false sense of precision when you have 20 jump increments. Differences in canopy design would seem to be more significant.

Liked the old one better. BTW, does this chart mean we'll see a Lotus in the 210 size?

[tbrown 26]

I'm not going to bash it, this is an area where a lot of people are in general agreement unless it applies specifically to them.

But I would like to point out that this proposal would not have prevented a fatality last year at Perris, where a lady with about 1100 jumps died after attempting to swoop with a toggle turn at a 1420 ft field elevation. Coaching could have prevented her death, but her jump numbers would have left her untouched by any of this proposal.

This is not to discourage you, something's got to be done and I'm happy to see YOU Brian, putting something real out there for debate.

Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !

[Eule 0]

Quote

Quote

How's this?

Since Thursday 15 Dec, this chart has been posted five times. As
far as I can tell, the first three are identical. The fourth one picked
up the "individual ability" bullet and the fifth one had some changes
to the left column and bottom row. Since this document is flying
around and getting emailed and reposted, it might be very helpful
to at least put a "last revised on: date/time" at the top. Maybe
also include a sentence or two about what's different: "added 'ability'
bullet point" or "changed figures for 110 lb exit". Another step is to
turn on the "track changes" option in Word, but this doesn't always
work very well with large tables, and isn't always portable to people
who have to look at this chart in PDF or JPG or something that's not
MS Word.

Quote

What we need to do is make these guidelines based on the
physics of the problem, not arbitrary limits. That way the young
whipper-snappers *might* believe what we are saying.

This was the basis for many of my previous comments. I've got less
than 40 jumps, so I can't make very many useful comments on
the _absolute_ numbers in the chart. But I feel somewhat justified in
analyzing the chart to see how the numbers that are in it relate to one
another, and pointing out what I see as inconsistencies. IMHO, even
if somebody doesn't understand the aerodynamic problems, they are
more likely to accept the limits in the chart if it is internally consistent.

Even with my limited knowledge, I tend to agree that an 0.9
wingloading on a 120 is not the same thing as an 0.9 wingloading on
a 190. But so far there hasn't been a quantification of this difference.
MakeItHappen has posted a couple of times on the kinds of
information or curves that need to be included.

There seems to be a spectrum of ways to decide what canopy to
jump. It probably ranges from "talk to your instructors and more
experienced jumpers, consider your own ability, and Do The Right
Thing" to "here's a chart in the BSRs that you must follow, and you
must step on the scale and prove you're within the limits each time
you get on the plane."

People with more experience than me have argued that the former
way (DTRT) is not working. Other people argue against the latter
("hard" mandated limits). I think that having some kind of chart is a
good idea, but for it to be accepted, all of the thinking behind it should
be spelled out somewhere.

I might get flamed for this, but:
At a higher level, this is the same process that every organization
goes through. Ferinstance, 200+ years ago, the entire law of the
United States fit on about three or four pieces of paper, and set
down some basic rules and some guidelines. Since then, some
people have had honest debates about what the guidelines mean,
and others have tried to "get away" with whatever they thought they
could. This has gotten us to the point where you'd get a hernia if
you tried to lift the entire printed Code of Federal Regulations.

An even longer-term example - a couple of thousand years worth - is
a guy that walked around with a simple message of "Be kind to each
other", and how that turned into N versions of the New Testament
and N different denominations with N^2 different sets of rules, often
because people wanted to split hairs about what "Be kind to each
other" means.

Eule

PLF does not stand for Please Land on Face.

[Eule 0]

Quote

How's this?

Here's my spreadsheet from yesterday, but with this revised data
instead.

I have also attached the same analysis for the Hungarian canopy
size limits that phoenixlpr posted in the other thread yesterday.

I think it's interesting that the Hungarian wingloadings are "notchy"
just like the proposed USPA ones are. Their chart is also a lot smaller -
it goes mostly by license levels, with a few "upgrades" for higher jump
numbers within a license. (I think - I can't read Hungarian.)

For those that may not be able to see Excel files, I have included
screen shots of the wing loading tab from each spreadsheet.

Eule

PLF does not stand for Please Land on Face.

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

a lot of people are in general agreement unless it applies specifically to them.

Of course, you can turn that around. A lot of people do not trifle with things that don't impact them.

It's particularly evident to me when people propose greasing this one through by grandfathering people under their current licenses or canopies, and screwing up only those people who aren't around to express their displeasure--and who may not stay around long enough to reverse it.

Several people have independently told me this is a problem that plagues SCUBA divers in the US.

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

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

Brian - will there be more than just the chart released?

I'm thinking the same thing. It seems to me that at some point, there should be some kind of proficiency requirement so that past a certain point pilots have actually demonstrated certain skills in addition to number of jumps.

[tbrown 26]

Quote

Quote

a lot of people are in general agreement unless it applies specifically to them.

Of course, you can turn that around. A lot of people do not trifle with things that don't impact them.

It's particularly evident to me when people propose greasing this one through by grandfathering people under their current licenses or canopies, and screwing up only those people who aren't around to express their displeasure--and who may not stay around long enough to reverse it.

Several people have independently told me this is a problem that plagues SCUBA divers in the US.

Oh there would be a lot of pressure for exceptions & grandfathering, until you could drive a truck through the thing. But even if it only applied to the newest newbies in FJC it would eventually have a growing and positive effect.

I'm borderline myself really. Although I have over 700 jumps, the first 566 were under rounds and early generation squares (Viking Superlite, Crusair, etc.) that don't compare with anything nowadays. I'm a big heavy guy too and my 210 Pilot is as big as they make that canopy - and no thank you, I'm not interested in a 230 ft Spectre or Sabre2. Besides, on my budget I'm lucky to jump at all and selling one "large" canopy to afford a larger one doesn't interest me in the least. I'm doing quite well with the 210 really and with a little real coaching I should be able to contemplate a 190 before much longer. So I'd probably take the legalistic way out and stick to my lifetime 700+ jumps and say "leave me alone, this doesn't apply to me".

Not that I don't take the issue seriously and not that I'm not already marginally okay, even under this chart. But I would hate to have somebody enforce this on me and not let me pursue some coaching instead.

Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !

[MakeItHappen 15]

Fiddle with WL Limits

Here's a simple model to allow anyone to easily fiddle with WL limitations.
You won't get a headache by looking at a gazillion numbers in a table either.

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[no7rosman 0]

I read through the threads and didn't get a clear understanding as to the intentions of the chart.

Is it being created and perfected to be used as a reference tool, or are the intentions for the USPA to enforce this chart?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Of course, you can turn that around. A lot of people do not trifle with things that don't impact them.

It's particularly evident to me when people propose greasing this one through by grandfathering people under their current licenses or canopies, and screwing up only those people who aren't around to express their displeasure--and who may not stay around long enough to reverse it.

Several people have independently told me this is a problem that plagues SCUBA divers in the US.

What do you mean, in regards to diving? In nearly all regards, the certification courses have gotten easier over the past 3 decades, so there's no need to worry about grandfathering. But the current training is so lacking that many tourist spots have starting requiring an 'advanced' c card, even though that course is more about selling something of marginal value, and used to be part of the classic open water training already.

I don't like the grandfathering because it allows people to ignore thinking about it and just let it happen, since it won't hurt them. The stated intent about not hurting people financially is valid, but someone that can't get into compliance within a reasonable time (12 months?) is supposedly at great risk of being hurt, the whole reason the chart has been proposed.

----

BTW, it seems like 2005 continued the trend in 2004 where the low timers weren't dying in the numbers seen at the beginning of the decade. This could be merely a trough that will rebound without the reminders of accidents, or perhaps all the discussion and the increasing availability of canopy training is paying off. Brian passes through the Bay Area once or twice a year, and Elsinore has been really pushing their programs this year.

[Orange1 0]

Quote

Brian, is this being pushed to be a BSR, or just a recommendation?

And following on from that, would visiting jumpers from other countries potentially be forced to upsize to jump in the US? (not that I'm planning on going over recs... just hypothetically...)

Skydiving: wasting fossil fuels just for fun.

[riddler 0]

I notice quite a few canopies on the top-right portion of the chart that are 210 sq. ft. and larger. I'm new enough that I remember buying my first rig about four years ago. There aren't enough used rigs with 210's (and higher) that many newer jumpers will be able to buy one that fits their needs. If this chart is made mandatory, it will result in a lot of new canopy (and container) sales, because there aren't that many used ones of those sizes. But I'm sure you're not against that too much

The chart is conservative. I agree with being conservative, although I followed a faster progression for my first two years of jumping, just because I couldn't easily get anything larger. For the last two years, I've been right in line with your chart, and I consider myself conservative with canopy progression. I just think it's going to make it harder for jumpers in their first two years to buy used rigs. At least until everyone else is doing it. The end result will be fewer people that can cost-justify skydiving.

We lose a lot of jumpers in the first two years. Many of them because they figure out just how darn expensive our sport is, and they can't justify it. New rigs can cost six thousand USD or more. We have to give newer jumpers more options, not less, if we want to keep them in the sport.

Edit - I need to add that my first (used) rig had a 190 main, because there seemed to be enough of them that I could pick a rig with a good fit. 190 seems to be the largest size that has a good presence in the used market.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

What do you mean, in regards to diving?

I wasn't thinking so much about grandfathering so much as the cost of overregulation on people who have yet to join the sport.

At least three people I can think of in the last 5 years have told me they abandoned SCUBA (in the US) at least in part due to the hassles of upgrading and keeping their licenses current. It's by no means a scientific measure, but it inspires me to think of how we could avoid overregulating this sport.

I did a cursory search on the internet for facts & figures about the SCUBA business, unfortunately I found nothing...would you happen to know if there are any good references, online or off?

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

[NWFlyer 2]

Quote

We lose a lot of jumpers in the first two years. Many of them because they figure out just how darn expensive our sport is, and they can't justify it. New rigs can cost six thousand USD or more. We have to give newer jumpers more options, not less, if we want to keep them in the sport.

Is it better to lose them from the sport or lose them, period?

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

Is it better to lose them from the sport or lose them, period?

That is a false choice. Several of us posting in this very thread have exceeded this proposal and haven't been killed or injured. Some of us were being conservative, and acting with the advice of our instructors when we did it.

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

[NelKel 0]

There is a BSR which allows a USPA Instructor to waiver the use of an RSL for students for a jump or a series of jumps. IF the USPA makes this chart manditory I would ask for the USPA to also include the same. Giving the Instructor the ability to make an informed decision on a case by case situation. It would also allow for thoes who are asking about grandfathering to get a second look by there instructor who could decide based of your proficience under the canopy you are currently using. I know of two DZ's that would have to adjust the current size of the mains they are using now, or drop their GM. I wonder....if a DZ is not a current GM through the USPA do they have to follow this chart if addopted, and where would that leave the USPA Instructors who work there?
This chart is good for new jumpers to see what "we" consider safe for them to use, but I always have felt teaching the student to calculate there wing loading plants this fact home, lets not get lazy if this chart is addopted, it is not a fix all. This chart is more usfull to newly licensed jumpers as than for students who realy can't make thoes decissions for themselfs yet.

_________________________________________

Someone dies, someone says how stupid, someone says it was avoidable, someone says how to avoid it, someone calls them an idiot, someone proposes rule chan

[NWFlyer 2]

Quote

Quote

Is it better to lose them from the sport or lose them, period?

That is a false choice. Several of us posting in this very thread have exceeded this proposal and haven't been killed or injured. Some of us were being conservative, and acting with the advice of our instructors when we did it.

Sorry if my desire for the good one-liner obscured my point. I was trying to make the point that I disagreed with Riddler's idea that the cost of new larger mains/shortage of larger mains in the used market should be an argument against Brian's proposed guidelines.

There may very well be some valid arguments against the proposal, including yours; I tend to agree that any "one size fits all" proposal may cause more problems than it solves. I've chosen not to comment up till now because I'm still very new in this sport and there are many people with more experience than me who have spent a lot more time thinking about these issues.

I do, however, think that "it's too expensive so they're just going to quit" is NOT a valid reason to dismiss Brian's proposal.

(For the record, I'm jumping a 230 that I bought used. I know from first hand experience that there's not a very good market for mains above 190. I spent more for my used main than others who bought similarly-aged canopies of smaller sizes. However, it never occured to me to say "Well, I'll just buy a 190 because it's cheaper.")