Small or aggressive canopy, no experience, grounded.

[base698 19]

Quote

I for one dont want to be in the air with people like this, because they are not only dangerous to themselves, but also to everyone in the air with them.

That is really my concern with wing loads. I don't much care about the person smacking themselves in issue. I've too many times been setting up at 800 ft when I knew someone was 500 ft above me a bit earlier pass 100 ft below me. Its been my experience people with low jumps and high wingloadings do not know how to hold in brakes and yield to the lower person. Because of this I typically will not go out before people like that. I'd rather be high and in brakes, waiting for someone to land, then have to worry about them blazing by me at a really inconvienient time.

[Trent 0]

Well, someone could always start a poll that puts that into consideration... Yes, Regulation=good, <300 jumps, No, Regulation=bad, <300 jumps, etc. I don't know how to make it happen, but it would be interesting.

But I DO seem to notice that the most vocal opponents to the regulation are the people that have lower jumps and consider themselves to be "special". Do a search, it's been done time and time again.

Oh, hello again!

[billvon 3,006]

>Why did you need a guide before you would ground him? That
>doesn't make any sense to me, none at all.

Because:

1) Skydivers scream loud and hard when they are treated unfairly (in their opinion.) They often slam the dropzone, the S+TA, the DZO etc in their attempts to let the world know of the injustice done to them. I've been in the middle of more than one such pissing contest, and they have on occasion included threats of violence. Often people want to avoid such scenes.

2) There is no commonality in DZ canopy restrictions, so an S+TA that prohibits a jumper from jumping a given canopy often knows that he'll just go down the road and try again there. Will he run out of DZ's before he runs out of luck? Usually not; we see these people in incident reports all the time.

3) Many S+TA's are not canopy gods. I was an S+TA for two years and the smallest canopy I jumped regularly was a Stiletto 135. When people jumping tiny canopies told me "You don't know anything about really high loadings!" they'd have a point.

4) Many S+TA's believe more in giving advice than grounding people. Personally, I grounded very few people, and generally only those I was pretty sure were going to die. The other people - well, they understand the risks.

[kaerock 1]

Okay, assume the guy was under a 190 or a 210 and hooked it in, is that still smart? I'd venture to say that he'd probably biff in just as nicely under something larger.

I think people are trying to reduce this issue to a jump number/wing loading issue. There are way more (important) factors that people seem to be ignoring.

Training is one. Someone that is getting close attention and intensive training is far more likely to be able to handle more emergencies and also be able to fly the canopy better in general that someone that is left to old-wives tales and speculation.

The individual is another issue. Reflexes, reaction time, decision making abilities, confidence. All of these vary from person to person, and while it's easy to generalize, I think it's the wrong way to go about it.

Using a wing-loading chart is good as a rule of thumb, a ball-park, but when when you enact it as law, you are being narrow-minded and ignorant. If a low-time jumper doesn't know better, and doesn't understand the consequences of what they're doing, they should rely on the chart, definitely. But for those that progress quicker than the norm, these regulations become a hindrance. Blindly enforcing these regulations is just simply draconian and doesn't take into account the individual, that's POO.

I was lucky, I had instructors that actually paid attention to my progression and educated me about down-sizing and flying higher performance canopies. Why don't people take the time to mentor people rather than spread FUD about progressing?

Using a wing-loading chart as an end-all absolves the DZ, its instructors and senior jumpers of any responsibility, I think it's lazy. I think more people should take more responsibility and *help* low-timers with *constructive* criticism rather than beating an idea into their head that they are inadequate.

-R

Quote

You don't need a guide to know that 230 pounds under a 105 with 200 jumps is not a good idea.

Repeat after me: "Sorry Bob, you will not jump that canopy here"

Easy as pie really.

But my point is that I agree with this chart, and I bet we will see many more DZ's get one until the USPA adopts one.

But (and I have not seen the chart) most rules should not have jokes on them or in them. It clouds the issue.

Where is this DZ anyway? I will gladly jump there. They are taking steps to insure the saftey of the sport.

You be the king and I'll overthrow your government. --KRS-ONE

[SkydiveNFlorida 0]

Quote

4) Many S+TA's believe more in giving advice than grounding people. Personally, I grounded very few people, and generally only those I was pretty sure were going to die. The other people - well, they understand the risks.

I think this is how it should be. People should be made aware of the risks of whatever they're doing, rather than being prohibited (in most cases). Of course, this does not hold if it is something very dangerous where they feel the person would die. i.e., someone with 50 jumps on a crossbraced sub-100sf skyrocket or someone who spirals down to 400sf every jump w/o regard for others, before planing out and reading the flags then turning on final.

I also think more dzs should have canopy coaching available on-site. I think that Derek's idea about canopy instructor ratings is a good one. And, every dz should hire one. Many times, ime, S&TA, instructors, or whoever are not the most proficient canopy pilots themselves and it would seem beneficial to both the jumpers, and the staff, to be able to have someone on site who is more qualified to critique skills and advise on canopy choices and/or give training to those who need it.

Angela.

[billvon 3,006]

>Using a wing-loading chart as an end-all absolves the DZ, its
> instructors and senior jumpers of any responsibility, I think it's lazy.
> I think more people should take more responsibility and *help* low
>-timers with *constructive* criticism rather than beating an idea into
> their head that they are inadequate.

And I think low-timers should make more of an effort to learn about how to fly a canopy that THEY choose to jump. I've given advice until I'm blue in the face, generally I get "Don't worry, I'll be fine, I stood it up last week" or something like that. Then I get to watch them break their femurs, or pelvises, or backs. After a few go-arounds like that you start to think that maybe there's a better way.

The good thing about WL limits (especially waiverable ones) is that it puts the responsibility on the jumper's head. Want to jump a 99 sq ft canopy at 200 jumps? No problem - but you better be able to prove you _can_ land a parachute first. And if you can't? At least you found that out on a canopy that's less likely to kill you when you screw up.

[billvon 3,006]

>I also think more dzs should have canopy coaching available on-site.

I agree, but:

>I think that Derek's idea about canopy instructor ratings is a good
> one. And, every dz should hire one.

Very few DZ's "hire" instructors. They pay them per jump. The danger of a canopy instructor on-staff is that, if he's there to work, he'll be doing tandems or AFF's all day. Those are big moneymakers for the DZ (and for the I) so they are going to get priority over someone who needs canopy coaching.

Put yourself in that situation. You're a skilled professional skydiver. You can train people to skydive who have never jumped before and make $100-$300 a day teaching FJC's and JMing. Or you can coach a 4-way team and make some money, and make a bunch of jumps a day. Or you can wait around to see if a jumper a week needs canopy coaching. Which one would you choose to do?

That's another reason I think a waiverable BSR is a good idea. Without one, it's easy for a new jumper to say "Hey, that Tom Allen is a great canopy coach, but he's coaching a 4-way team today, so I'll just jump on my own." With one, the jumper has to make the time to get with Tom and get the coaching before he can jump his new small canopy.

>Many times, S&TA, instructors, or whoever are not the most proficient
> canopy pilots themselves and it would seem beneficial to both the
> jumpers, and the staff, to be able to have someone on site who is
> more qualified to critique skills and advise on canopy choices and/or
> give training to those who need it.

I agree, but working out how they do that with all their usual obligations is the trick. It's definitely doable, just takes some planning.

[PhreeZone 20]

>I also think more dzs should have canopy coaching available on-site. I think that Derek's idea about canopy instructor ratings is a good one. And, every dz should hire one.

Wanna pay for it in your jump tickets? DZ's don't "hire" anyone that is not going to make them money back. Lots of the people on staff at DZ's do it more for the love of the sport then for money, hense the low or nonexistant pay for people that don't make the DZ money.

S&TA's are an unpaid job at a DZ but people step up and take the role since they want to help others. At small Cessna DZ's a lot of the jumpers have their SL or IAD ratings just since that way they get to help out their family.

At my DZ we've got 2 medalist in Accuracy and 2 more that placed just out side the medal range. These people have better slow speed canopy skills then anyone else on the DZ, but none of them can do a HP approach or landing. I can do HP landings but could'nt stomp the disk if I had to. Put both groups together and in front of a new jumper and the new jumper will be light years ahead. Canopy control is not just about speed, its about slow speed too.

I've got inquires in right now to bring a canopy coach to my DZ next spring to do a course. I'm going to pay the cost out of my pocket and hope enough people are intersted and sign up for the course to make it so I'm not paying $1000 for myself. Its hard for DZ's to spend $1000's of dollars to bring in a canopy coach for a few weeks or what ever when the money could be spent on the bills.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[SkydiveNFlorida 0]

No, I do not want to pay for it in my jump tickets. Tho, I could see paying for at least a couple coached canopy lessons every couple weeks myself. Maybe there are others out there who feel the same. Maybe dzs should make a point to employ, in whatever way they do, some coaches, or other staff, that are also skilled canopy pilots. And offer them for canopy coaching as well. Tho, I guess I see what you're saying in that if there is a tandem, they'll make more doing that, and won't want to help someone who wants canopy coaching. I suppose even with appointment, a canopy student would likely get bumped for a more prosperous tandem jump.

Well, it was a nice thought I suppose.

Angela.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

But I DO seem to notice that the most vocal opponents to the regulation are the people that have lower jumps and consider themselves to be "special". Do a search, it's been done time and time again.

That wouldn't actually surprise me, even with the belief that the correlation is a mild one. Veterens may think the change is silly or a dumbing down of the sport, but not being affected by it, they have other matters to focus on. Nor are they being told they're not as smart or "special" as they think - which can lead to an emotional response.

I'm not going to take offense at it myself, but if the regulations seem too silly and increase the costs of jumping, I'll just go do other sports. I do find the simplification of the matter to a single number a bit much - ignoring the canopy choice strikes me as lazy. And when proponents talk about it, the examples are always the 200lb'er on the 135. I think the impact of these regs would be more in the realm of 1.2 versus 1.0 for low jumpers, and 1.5 versus 1.3 for novice. At those barriers, is the .2 a bigger deal than the type of chute?

[flyangel2 2]

Quote

No, I do not want to pay for it in my jump tickets. Tho, I could see paying for at least a couple coached canopy lessons every couple weeks myself.

I've never understood this thinking? People want, want, want, but aren't willing to pay for it.

Did you pay for your first jump class?
Did you pay for the jumps following your first jump in order to get off student status?
Do you cover coach slots if you want to learn something new or to improve yourself?

Gee, how much could it cost to go to a canopy control class? The life you safe may be your own? So you give up a few jumps every other weekend to cover the cost. What's the big deal?

May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view. May your mountains rise into and above the clouds. - Edward Abbey

[SkydiveNFlorida 0]

Quote

Quote

No, I do not want to pay for it in my jump tickets. Tho, I could see paying for at least a couple coached canopy lessons every couple weeks myself.

I've never understood this thinking? People want, want, want, but aren't willing to pay for it.

Did you pay for your first jump class?
Did you pay for the jumps following your first jump in order to get off student status?
Do you cover coach slots if you want to learn something new or to improve yourself?

Gee, how much could it cost to go to a canopy control class? The life you safe may be your own? So you give up a few jumps every other weekend to cover the cost. What's the big deal?

Whoa, chick. I didn't say I didn't want to pay for the instruction. I said I didn't want to pay for it in my jump tickets when i'm not getting instruction. I will gladly pay when I want the instruction. But, suppose for a minute that I am a skilled canopy pilot with 2000 jumps, why the hell should I pay an extra 2$ a jump at a particular dz so that some 25 jump student can learn his canopy? I shouldn't and i'd just as soon find a dz that doesn't have these unreasonable jump fees. And, that's what anyone would do. The people who want the instruction pay for it. Just like I don't help pay for people's AFF or tandems.

of course I paid for AFF. But, as far as coach jumps, I would rather not pay for those, i'd rather fly with people who offer to fly with me and learn that way. I hope to help others out when i'm good, too.

Angela.

[flyangel2 2]

Sorry, misunderstood.

May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view. May your mountains rise into and above the clouds. - Edward Abbey

[SkydiveNFlorida 0]

Quote

Sorry, misunderstood.

Angela.

[Ron 10]

Quote

Okay, assume the guy was under a 190 or a 210 and hooked it in, is that still smart?

Nope still stupid.

Quote

I'd venture to say that he'd probably biff in just as nicely under something larger.

Maybe. But the canopy will react slower so maybe not...I doubt you think that you can't handle your 120 at 1.67, but how would you feel under a 69 at 2.9? I bet you would notice the difference. Just as there is a difference between a 150 and a 120.

And if you do crash under a 190 or 210 you will do much less damage at around a 1 to 1 WL than at a 1.67 WL.

Under which canopy would you rather hit under? A 1.6 Stiletto, or a 190 Stiletto?

Plus due to the slower flight of the 190, and the recovery arc...You may not even hit.

Quote

I think people are trying to reduce this issue to a jump number/wing loading issue. There are way more (important) factors that people seem to be ignoring.

Training is one. Someone that is getting close attention and intensive training is far more likely to be able to handle more emergencies and also be able to fly the canopy better in general that someone that is left to old-wives tales and speculation.

Yep and under every BSR and rule I have sugested if you could PROVE you can fly at a higher WL you would be allowed...If you can't pass the test, then you have to stay within the chart.

So the chart would be for those that are unwilling to get that instruction, and be able to put it into practice.

Quote

The individual is another issue. Reflexes, reaction time, decision making abilities, confidence. All of these vary from person to person, and while it's easy to generalize, I think it's the wrong way to go about it.

We don't test peoples skills and let them skip levels of AFF....I didn't show up at the DZ where I did SL and they didn't look at my history of flying (knowledge or air and flight), martial arts(knowledge of what my body is doing) and say...Well lets just skip the Static lines and put you on Freefall.

Again if the person is truely gifted (and how many skydivers don't think they are?) Then they should be able to pass a well thought out canopy flight test right? And if they can then they can fly at a higher WL than the chart says.

Quote

Using a wing-loading chart is good as a rule of thumb, a ball-park, but when when you enact it as law, you are being narrow-minded and ignorant. If a low-time jumper doesn't know better, and doesn't understand the consequences of what they're doing, they should rely on the chart, definitely. But for those that progress quicker than the norm, these regulations become a hindrance. Blindly enforcing these regulations is just simply draconian and doesn't take into account the individual, that's POO.

Again, if they really are "The Shiznit" under canopy, then they could test out.

Quote

I was lucky, I had instructors that actually paid attention to my progression and educated me about down-sizing and flying higher performance canopies. Why don't people take the time to mentor people rather than spread FUD about progressing?

Well you were lucky to have not only the people who cared, but who also knew what they were doing...Not every DZ has a swoop god. Yes, there are some DZ's where people THINK they are swoop gods...But thats not the same.

And mentoring is sometimes not letting people do what they want.

But also a large number of people don't want to listen to you when you give advice...Look at the incident reports many of the dead were warned and talked to...They didn't listen. So insted of asking me why I can't mentor (which I do)...Ask yourself why some folks don't listen to people when they do.

Quote

Using a wing-loading chart as an end-all absolves the DZ, its instructors and senior jumpers of any responsibility, I think it's lazy. I think more people should take more responsibility and *help* low-timers with *constructive* criticism rather than beating an idea into their head that they are inadequate.

Agin look at the incident reports..Most of the dead canopy pilots where talked to..They didn't listen.

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

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

***
He had going on 300 jumps and was jumping a Stilleto 135 on which he had about 60 jumps... ok small HP canopy I hear you say. But he is a skinny fuck and loaded this thing less than 0.9:1

Dude... that would mean your friend was about 120lbs out the door or about 95 lbs...


When I said he's a skinny fuck I really ment it. I remember joking with him that I loaded my student 210 more than him on his 135. He's such a skinny bitch he's had two collapsed lungs for no particular reason and I aint even joking. Thats why it was so pissing funny when the CCI told him he was "not the lightest of guys".