Hope you rookies are ready for this?

[Designer 0]

Canopy Coaches!Something that will be a requirement by USPA in the near future.Something I,ve been screaming for for a very long time now.Will it be for just C and D license holders?Will it be when you buy your first "Elliptical"?Anyway it's gonna cost ya!There is too much skill and knowledge lost from us old school guys.Thoughts?

[gus 1]

I think you only have to look at the fatality stats to see that this is a good idea, I hope the BPA follows suit.

Gus

OutpatientsOnline.com

[velo90 0]

Canopy training should start with the very 1st jump and continue forever. How much one should pay for such tuition/coaching/advice/training is a matter of debate.

[skyyhi 0]

As a newbie, I believe that canopy coaching should be a requirement. I would even venture to suggest that it become part of the AFF or A license requirement. HOWEVER, I know I will get flack from those who think there should be LESS regulation in this sport and not more, but that's okay. I am one who has trouble landing my canopy and would benefit from some training. I plan on taking a canopy control course as soon as I complete my A license requirements. This is just one way for me to ensure my safety in the sky and the safety of those around me. It is a simple requirement and one that, if implemented, will save lives. . .

Just this newbie's 2 cents worth. . .

________________________________________
Take risks not to escape life… but to prevent life from escaping. ~ A bumper sticker at the DZ
FGF #6
Darcy

[MarkM 0]

Probably not a bad idea. I know the canopy control seminar Brian Germain gave up at the SOBE boogie helped me understand the physics of what's going on in a canopy flight a lot better. The stuff isn't obvious and the knowledge isn't always passed on.

On the down side this will mean that the sport will be even more expensive to get into.

[mr2mk1g 10]

In England we have a post licensing quilification called IC1 (individual canopy 1). There is not a great deal to it. I would support a bid for IC2 - which would be a more advanced qualification aimed at canopy control and safty.

[benny 0]

Good idea, cost scares me though. It's expensive enough to get into this sport as it is. I don't know if I'd make it if someone were to tack another grand on to it. Definitely don't want to be unsafe, but hopefully I can get in under the wire. Not that I wouldn't love to take a canopy course, but be forced to take one? I am and everyone else should be learning under canopy every time they jump. I've completed more canopy skills than freefall skills I think and I'm moving on to AFF 7 soon.

Never go to a DZ strip show.

[skybytch 273]

Quote

I don't know if I'd make it if someone were to tack another grand on to it.

A grand??? Why would you think it would cost that much?

I did a canopy control course in December. Cost was $75 plus the cost of the jumps.

Best money I've spent on skydiving since the day I paid for my first jump.

[mr2mk1g 10]

I like the idea of the IC2 qualification (not mine I hasten to add).

For one, there is no requirment to spend any money. All you have to do is demonstrate certain skills - how you obtain those skills is up to you. If you want to pay for them, go ahead and talk to Scot miller or Chris Lynch. If you've hung arround on the DZ for 2 years and know those skills and can demonstrate them then you get the qualification too.

The downside is that as a qualification it is not mandatory or even nessaserily encouraged to any real degree. Perhaps if you had to have IC2 to say swoop or to load a canopy above 1.2:1 then people would put in time to learn the skills. Again, no requirement to expend money, just a requirment to have skills - its up to you how you gain those skills.

[skyyhi 0]

Quote

I don't know if I'd make it if someone were to tack another grand on to it.

A canopy control course at Elsinore costs just under $300. I will probably take it each time I downsize just to make sure I am not picking up any bad habits. I do not have lots of money to spend on jumping but to me, this is money well spent in keeping me alive. Yeah, this sport is expensive to get into and can be daunting for those with very little cash flow - HOWEVER, if I want to do my part to make the sky safe for me and others - I do my part by making ABSOLUTELY SURE I know what I am doing when I go out there. . .canopy control courses can only help.

Edited to add: The cost of the course INCLUDES jumps and video.

________________________________________
Take risks not to escape life… but to prevent life from escaping. ~ A bumper sticker at the DZ
FGF #6
Darcy

[CanuckInUSA 0]

I'm likely not qualified yet, but in the future I would like to be a canopy control coach and it would be nice to see the USPA add this rating (if that's what you want to call it) to their collection of coaching ratings. I don't think it should be too expensive on the student and it would be nice if some sort of standard was set across the country. But before I start saying that I can be coach, maybe I should spend sometime with the Scott Millers of this world (I have taken a canopy control course from Hooknswoop around this time last year, but I am a different skydiver than I was back then).

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[meltdown 0]

I agree. Canopy control is critical to safe skydiving. If everything else goes right, you have a 100% chance of hitting the ground under a canopy. You should know how to fly it.

[Zoter 0]

Agreed.....In the BPA system you have to display an absolute minimum of CC skills in order to progress through RAPS/AFF.
In fact in my opinion...it only highlights individuals whose CC skills are so bad that it demonstrates a fundemental skills learning problem.

Sure there are plenty (me included) who can 'get' better with practice....but in the current UK licencing system it can be painfully slow and totally reliant on observation and 'should have done this...' rather than a skills/knowledge structured ,orientated programme.

This was brought home to me ....markedly...by someone close to me who despite having progressed through SL/RAPS system and having 30+ jumps...has NEVER been shown a basic landing pattern ( Down, Cross/Base/ and 'into' wind) they were just told...make sure you land 'over there'.....which Im sure was to keep it simple whilst <10 jumps but c'mon !

IC1 needs to be beefed up........and roll on IC2...the harder the better.
I fully support ANY BPA programme that would make us newbies demonstrate adequate control skills prior to jumping ellipticals or 1.3+ wing loadings

[Casurf1978 0]

Quote

Canopy Coaches!Something that will be a requirement by USPA in the near future.Something I,ve been screaming for for a very long time now.Will it be for just C and D license holders?Will it be when you buy your first "Elliptical"?Anyway it's gonna cost ya!There is too much skill and knowledge lost from us old school guys.Thoughts?

A canopy class/seminar is the first thing on my list once I get my 'A'. I want to know as much as I can regarding canopy control, aerodynamics, etc.

[benny 0]

Quote

Quote

I don't know if I'd make it if someone were to tack another grand on to it.

A grand??? Why would you think it would cost that much?

I did a canopy control course in December. Cost was $75 plus the cost of the jumps.

Best money I've spent on skydiving since the day I paid for my first jump.

It was more a gut response to the original post in the thread saying it's gonna cost ya!. Sorry, 75 bucks sound fine to me!

Never go to a DZ strip show.

[karenmeal 0]

So what exactly is the USPA going to require? Coaching at c or d level from a canopy-coach?

huh?

Did I miss something.. It seems to me if the USPA were going to require canopy coaching they would want to require it before a C or D liscense....
What would be the reasoning to wait that long?

"Life is a temporary victory over the causes which induce death." - Sylvester Graham

[sammer 0]

What makes you think this is going to be a USPA requirement anytime soon?

Not that I don't think it is a good idea...I'm just curious.

[bsoder 0]

What should be included in a BASIC canopy control course? I'm not talking about something that would involve all aspects of canopy flight - just something that would be reasonable as part of the A license progression.

I think adding perhaps $100 to the overall cost of getting to your A is reasonable - but $300 is too much. Figure $100 for perhaps a three hour class on canopy flight, low turn avoidance, flat turns, etc. then mabye a couple coach jumps where you both have a radio in the air and they can actually fly with you a bit? Not sure about that part, how reasonable that is.

[Jib 0]

Quote

What makes you think this is going to be a USPA requirement anytime soon?

Not that I don't think it is a good idea...I'm just curious.

Me too!

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

[sammer 0]

Maybe I should start saving now...then I can get me a X-braced in time to be grandfathered in

[aber_aos 0]

I too like the ideas behind an IC2 rating, and I think your suggestion of a 'demonstrable ability' rating, rather than a requirement to attend a paid-for course is good.

I do wonder what would be in an IC2 rating requirement though. The canopy control side of IC1 requires 5 designated landings within 10 metres of a target, and the ability to 'control the canopy using the risers'. I'm not sure that these can usefully be made stricter for IC2. Would landings within, say, 3metres of a target make the sport safer? Possibly, but I'm not sure that this is a major problem. (Though I'm inexperienced, and will gladly defer to a reasoned argument.)

From reading this forum it seems that far too many people are killed or seriously injured by hook turns. Some of these are planned, but performed at the wrong altitude, and some are accidental as the pilot tried to avoid a perceived obstacle. What IC2 requirements could we put in place to stop people making low turns?

At the BPA AGM the person giving the canopy control seminar mentioned a list of manouvers you should be able to perform on any canopy before you considered downsizing. (If anyone has this list I'd love to see a copy). Maybe these could form a large part of IC2? Maybe you should have to demonstrate these skills on a semi-elliptical before being able to jump an elliptical, and again before moving to a cross braced canopy. Then again, some argue that there are too many regulations already. However, I'm not convinced that any normal amount of skill at set manouvers would necessarily stop people making mistakes in the heat of the moment and dying under perfectly good canopies, though God knows I wish it would.

What do other people think should go into an IC2 rating? Would it need repeating for different canopy tyes, or be a one off? If it was a one off I could show good skills under a 230ZP and never be tested again (except by the planet) which might not mean too much in future were I to fly a cross braced canopy. On the other hand, if we needed to repeat the rating under each new canopy we might end up with a list of IC2 ratings longer than our (combined) arms.

I feel there should be an IC2, I'm just not sure what should go into it.

[mr2mk1g 10]

The list you refer to - or at least one version of it, is here: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/safety/detail_page.cgi?ID=47

Perhaps IC2 should include the very manouvers this document adresses? There is certanly a great deal more about canopy control that one can demonstrate than simple landing accuracy, and you're right, the ability to land within a smaller circle is not nessaerly going to save lives - its the other things people need to learn and be tested on.

[vt1977 0]

IMHO all IC1 teaches is the barest basics of using risers before getting people to do the 5 consecutive pre-declared landings. I know of far too many people who have hurt themselves (none seriously – yet) on that 5th jump when they thought they might miss the target and have to start all over again…

Having said that, the quality of teaching for IC1 does appear to massively vary between DZs and individual instructors.

I agree that the accuracy part is important (but would question the consecutive part, as I think that just encourages target fixation) but would also like people to be taught far more about basic survival skills and getting themselves out of trouble – flat turns etc. Also teaching people a bit about flying in traffic is vital – not just about flying a nice predictable pattern but also about keeping their eyes wide open.

Just my thoughts!

Vicki

[SkydivingNurse 0]

If it helps make me a safer skydiver and more likely to stay out of the hospital, I'm all for it. Adding it to AFF seems like it would be a pretty good idea. As a still-on-AFF person, I'd rather learn good canopy piloting habits from the start than trying to "unlearn" any bad habits I have.

[riggerrob 643]

Quote

If it helps make me a safer skydiver and more likely to stay out of the hospital, I'm all for it. Adding it to AFF seems like it would be a pretty good idea. As a still-on-AFF person, I'd rather learn good canopy piloting habits from the start than trying to "unlearn" any bad habits I have.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Good points.
First of all, the first minute in an ambulance will negate any money saved on training.
Secondly, learning to fly a parachute is a long process. To that end every student dive should include a new exercise to practice under canopy. For example - during the PFF Program we introduce students to both toggle and rear riser turns and stalls. Once they have mastered those skills, we challenge them to try front riser turns, etc.
Whether we are willing to admit it, most of us could use some refresher training every time we down size and every time we come back from a lay-off, even if the lay-off was just for one winter.