Ron 10 #51 June 24, 2003 Quoteou said it would put too much work on S&TAs but you still have that "prove it" aspect in there. Who would they prove it to? I'm guessing it would be the S&TA. So you already have that option there. Why not make it the only one. Simple not everyone will try to jump a higher WL than BSR would state. So the S&TA would only have to waiver the ones that want to go past it...Not EVERY jumper. The recomendations are both fair, and safe. Yes, there are not fair to everyone..which is why there is a way to test out....And they are not safe for everyine either, but as some people have said...stupid people sometimes just have to die to learn. I would rather they just get hurt, or get hurt less. A lower WL with the same stupid mistake is much more survivable than a high WL. QuoteFor example, for a long time I was flaring way too late. I was punching my flare at the last second on every jump. I got to the point where I did it well and had some nice little, modest surfs doing that. But every nth jump I wouldn't punch it fast enough, or punch it too hard and have a nasty landing. If I hadn't received training, I never would have broken that habit, or at least not for a while. So I would have even more jumps practicing a dangerous maneuver. Then when I downsized the problem would be exacerbated. How many people do you see with a few hundred jumps that don't stand up the majority of their landings? I see a lot of them. But there are guys out there with this same problem and others...And they are downsizing anyway just cause they can. Quote I don't think requiring a certain number of jumps, or to put it another way, allowing downsizing because of a certain number of jumps, will make that much difference. Its better than just letting them do it whenever they want. I asked Bill Booth about a WL BSR... He wrote: Quote "Rules" usually come from fatalities...auto, airplane, or skydiving. Their purpose is to keep others from dying the same way. I would think that by now we have had quite enough canopy related fatalities for some firm rules to be in place. I'm glad to see the current trend to at least propose some common sense guildlines to stop the carnage. Now, if we can just get skydivers (who as a group hate rules) to obey them. I respect this guy a lot...He sees then need for rules. Ron"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #52 June 24, 2003 Quote"Rules" usually come from fatalities...auto, airplane, or skydiving. Their purpose is to keep others from dying the same way. I would think that by now we have had quite enough canopy related fatalities for some firm rules to be in place. I'm glad to see the current trend to at least propose some common sense guildlines to stop the carnage. Now, if we can just get skydivers (who as a group hate rules) to obey them. I agree. I don't agree with you on what those rules should be. I think we've both made our points and aren't going to pursuade each other. Let's just agree to disagree. If I think of a viable alternative to what you proposed, I'll let you know. I'm just hoping you won't stop at what you proposed but maybe try to come up with something that more of us can agree with. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Steel 0 #53 June 24, 2003 young males are the real cause of the problem. Maybe we should restrict males under 30 to 1:1 WL. _________________________________________________ you can pass this policy after November of this year. I will totally support you on this starting December,2003If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass. Can't think of anything I need No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound. Nothing to eat, no books to read. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #54 June 24, 2003 Quote "Rules" usually come from fatalities...auto, airplane, or skydiving. Their purpose is to keep others from dying the same way. I would think that by now we have had quite enough canopy related fatalities for some firm rules to be in place. I'm glad to see the current trend to at least propose some common sense guildlines to stop the carnage. Now, if we can just get skydivers (who as a group hate rules) to obey them. I respect this guy a lot...He sees then need for rules. Ron But see Booth's Law #2 "The safer skydiving gear becomes, the more chances skydivers will take, in order to keep the fatality rate constant." aka risk homeostatis, as already discussed here recently.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #55 June 24, 2003 QuoteBut see Booth's Law #2 "The safer skydiving gear becomes, the more chances skydivers will take, in order to keep the fatality rate constant." And we have said before that if we reduce the # of people hooking it in that the number of people trying to do something like land a Wingsuit will even out the fatalities. True. I agree. And if they try to start landing wingsiuts then we will lok at that problem when it kills as many as this. And besides the wingloading on the wingsuit would be VERY high and you would need atleast 500 jumps to try it. So you think that means we should not do anything? I think that is a poor choice of action picked by the lazy and uncaring."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #56 June 24, 2003 QuoteQuoteBut see Booth's Law #2 "The safer skydiving gear becomes, the more chances skydivers will take, in order to keep the fatality rate constant." And we have said before that if we reduce the # of people hooking it in that the number of people trying to do something like land a Wingsuit will even out the fatalities. True. I agree. And if they try to start landing wingsiuts then we will lok at that problem when it kills as many as this. And besides the wingloading on the wingsuit would be VERY high and you would need atleast 500 jumps to try it. So you think that means we should not do anything? I think that is a poor choice of action picked by the lazy and uncaring. That isn't what I said or meant. I think we should do the RIGHT thing, at at this point I don't know what the right thing is. You think you know, but I'm not sure I believe you.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #57 June 24, 2003 QuoteThat isn't what I said or meant. I think we should do the RIGHT thing, at at this point I don't know what the right thing is. You think you know, but I'm not sure I believe you. and what is the cost of doing the wrong thing if it makes people safer? Do you think that making people who want to fly high WL take a clas and prove they can do it is a bad thing? Do you think that keeping people that don't take the class, and are not able to prove they can handle it is unsafe? Ron"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #58 June 24, 2003 Quoteand what is the cost of doing the wrong thing if it makes people safer? It could alienate some jumpers and weed out those superstars in the sport who bring positive publicity and inspiration. QuoteDo you think that making people who want to fly high WL take a clas and prove they can do it is a bad thing? Not at all. I think saying that they're automatically as safe and knowledgable as someone who's had training just because they hit some magical jump number is. You may not mean to say that, but it will be interpreted that way by many. QuoteDo you think that keeping people that don't take the class, and are not able to prove they can handle it is unsafe? Relatively, yes. But so is skydiving in general. CReW is a lot more dangerous than solo straight in approaches. Boarding is more dangerous than freeflying. Freeflying is more dangerous than flat flying. Big ways are more dangerous than small ways. Should we set up regulations around all of these different disciplines related to jump numbers? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #59 June 24, 2003 QuoteRelatively, yes. But so is skydiving in general. CReW is a lot more dangerous than solo straight in approaches. Boarding is more dangerous than freeflying. Freeflying is more dangerous than flat flying. Big ways are more dangerous than small ways. Should we set up regulations around all of these different disciplines related to jump numbers? If lots of jumpers with a low number of jumps are getting killed on big ways...yep. If low jump number people are getting killed on FF jumps...yep. Basicly if almost half of the fatalities are due to ONE thing...and most of the people that die doing it have X number and below jumps...While the people with X number and above seem to be fine..Then yes. Ron"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #60 June 24, 2003 QuoteIf lots of jumpers with a low number of jumps are getting killed on big ways...yep. If low jump number people are getting killed on FF jumps...yep. Basicly if almost half of the fatalities are due to ONE thing...and most of the people that die doing it have X number and below jumps...While the people with X number and above seem to be fine..Then yes. Why isn't that happening? Because noone is going to let the unproven newbie on a big way, or give them a board, etc. In other words, self policing and education work without added procedures/restrictions. I'll bet the fatality and accident rates were higher for every one of those disciplines when they were new. You were around, you tell me? I'm just going by back issues of parachutist and discussions by jumpers with lots of experience. Small HP canopies are still relatively new. I think that education in general, particularly of DZO's, S&TAs, and other "authority figures" on the dz can mitigate the accidents occuring under good canopies just like it has for every other new discipline that's come along. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #61 June 24, 2003 QuoteWhy isn't that happening? Because noone is going to let the unproven newbie on a big way, or give them a board, etc. In other words, self policing and education work without added procedures/restrictions. I'll bet the fatality and accident rates were higher for every one of those disciplines when they were new. Nope.... Big ways. They were only done by the already very skilled. When they were being done everyday, and the lower timers started getting on them...Then the accidents started to happen. As for boards....well most of the best are dead, or don't jump them anymore...you do the math on that one. Here is some info for you. Back in 1993? The Stiletto came out. You had to sign a waver to get one...If you wanted a 107 or 97 you had another waiver to sign. If you had 300 jumps you could not even get a 1.1 loaded one...They wanted 500-1000 jumps before you could get one. The Batwing PA wanted you to have 500 jumps to get one. Well people didn't know how these things flew, and people tried new and cool things...And several died. Now these people were the ones with 1,000's of jumps...Why? Becasue they were the only ones that could get them, and the education was not good enough. Now, as time passed the Stilettos and cobalts crossfires..ect became MUCH more common the waivers disapeared and in relation to the new Xbraced canopies they were not *AS* high performance. So many people stoped thinking of the Stiletto as HIGH PERFORMANCE (I mean they are nothing next to a Velocity right?) So, people with 800 or so jumps could get them *at light loadings*...Well, these guys started to get hurt/killed. Now guys with 300 jumps can get them, and even on guy CobaltDan says that a Cobalt can be used with students. Now guys with 300 jumps start loading them, and guys with 100 jumps try to get Stiletto 97's (well its not a high performance canopy right? I mean its not like he tried to get a Velocity) So the canopies are becoming more available to the less experienced jumpers. Its not new that these are the people that are going to die at a faster rate...The first of each group to get these canopies are the ones that die. Now it says a lot about education that a guy with 300 jumps does not die every day today...The blood of the people before him has taught a little. Now...Have the physics of the world changed since 93? Have the Stilettos changed since 93 (Yeah I know some people think they have..but lets stay basic here)? No, and no. So the Stiletto is still as HP as it was when it came out...Only our way of looking at them has changed...And only for those that were not around to see them when they came out...I have had guys with 100 jumps tell me that a Stiletto is not a HP canopy. The same thing is happening with FF....Years ago I could not get on a FF jump with 200 jumps...Becasue I did not have enough experience...Now guys with 50 jumps are jumping FF together...And the accident rates are rising there as well. Same thing with big ways...as more people with less experience do more...the fatalities wil increase for that group... It has been said that the #1 killer of skydivers is skydivers doing new things. As it is to get on Big ways you still need to prove yourself....You don't go from having 300 jumps the largest being a 4way to a 100 way...You have to do 20ways,40ways,60ways...ect. Why is that not the case with canopies? Ron"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,070 #62 June 24, 2003 >Why isn't that happening? Because noone is going to let the > unproven newbie on a big way, or give them a board, etc. In other > words, self policing and education work without added > procedures/restrictions. Uh, no. Self policing would be if newbies voluntarily did not do big ways. Instead, they are prohibited by the organizer unless they prove themselves to him/her, or they prove themselves at someone's big way camp, or they have other qualifications (i.e. they have 360 jumps but are an AFF/I.) That's exactly what I'm proposing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
craddock 0 #63 June 25, 2003 QuoteBack in 1993? The Stiletto came out. You had to sign a waver to get one...If you wanted a 107 or 97 you had another waiver to sign. If you had 300 jumps you could not even get a 1.1 loaded one...They wanted 500-1000 jumps before you could get one. The Batwing PA wanted you to have 500 jumps to get one. Wow, I did not know it was that bad back then. I started jumping in 1998. My first canopy was a PD190. I put about 40 jumps on it and put some jumps on a friends Sabre. Broke my leg again(not skydiving-I have broke many bones but never in skydiving. This sport is safer than my other sports) During the six weeks I had to heal I bought a Stiletto 107 and loaded it at 1.7 Times really have changed. Do we really need to go backwards though. I doubt I would have over a 100 jumps like it was back then. I got into skydive(not my first jump) because of canopy flight Josh That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #64 June 25, 2003 Not everyone is you.... You might be a very skilled person in all that you do. But the TREND is there that people with no experience are getting canopies and killing themselves on them. And under the programs that have been pitched, you could test out of the BSR. What is the harm in that?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
craddock 0 #65 June 25, 2003 QuoteWhat is the harm in that? I hope none. I have some ideas how it(program) could actually cause a few more injuries, but I better keep them to myself. I have seen you twist my words already. I never once said we should not do anything, Did I ? That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #66 June 25, 2003 Well my question is how can a program that stress education. Allows for people who actaully HAVE the skills to test out. And regulates those that don't have the skills, and are unwilling to get the education for jumping whaat ever they want? How is that a bad thing?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
markbaur 0 #67 June 25, 2003 Quotea program that stress education....test out. Could you repost a link to the proposed education syllabus and proposed test standards (written, oral, performance)? I know you've done this before, somewhere. Sorry about being lazy, but there are so many threads on this topic right now. Mark Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #68 June 25, 2003 Quote What is the harm in that? How is that a bad thing? That's what people said about Prohibition. Did anyone foresee the arise of gangs that persist to this day when Prohibition was passed? How do we know the harm of your proposal, no one has studied the possible unintended consequences. Derek admitted not having obtained the USPA accident database before coming up with his proposal. Have you obtained it? You folks have NOT done adequate homework to be imposing rules on others.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #69 June 25, 2003 Quote how can a program that stress education. Allows for people who actaully HAVE the skills to test out. And regulates those that don't have the skills, and are unwilling to get the education for jumping whaat ever they want Morning, all. I've been watching these conversations develop, deteriorate, develop again...very interesting. Something no-one seems to have mentioned is going to the experts who teach this already for their suggestions. You might find out that, oh say Jim Slayton, has already been developing a skills based license for canopy piloting, and has spent some years doing it. A few other comments, and then I'm gonna go practice my skills... The numbers are interesting, but I still contend that as there hasn't been adequate data available, that a conclusion cannot be accurately drawn as to the amount of deaths under an operational canopy v. other causes. If a significant amount of the data is missing (w/l), one cannot draw a conclusion that supports a regulation for a particular position, pro or con. I cannot see that this is anything other than a whole lot of interesting discussion without a conclusion. From what I understand, some folk have sent the USPA letters expressing their position. I suggest that everyone do that, and give it to the board to discuss at their next meeting. Jan Meyer, in a conversation on June 7th, told me basically that the USPA is there to keep the FAA off our back, not implement new rules. It was clear to me at that point something significant needs to happen at the grassroots level to change minds and positions...but if only a handful have communicated their positions, then it is not enough. I think everyone agrees that there is a need to address the problem, but not everyone agrees on the way to do it. It is interesting to note who is and is not participating in the discussions. In Ron's poll, there is a clear majority indicating a preference for education over regulation. If that is something that can be supported, why is that not being stressed, developed, and thought through? If we can solve the problem of education availability, then we can begin to address the issues. Just some things to think about and things I've observed... Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bmcd308 0 #70 June 25, 2003 I've watched this thread / this entire debate over several threads develop also, and to be frank I'm not sure how I feel about it. I will say this - at 200 jumps and with a wl of about 1.1, there are lots of times I want to downsize. I can't fly with the cool guys on hop and pops, because they are about to stall while I am wearing my arms out on the front risers just to stay near each other. That makes me want a smaller canopy. I have good landings most of the time under my canopy, which makes me think I can handle something smaller. However, every once in a while, something happens that makes me abandon the idea of a smaller one. Just this past weekend, poor planning under canopy put a King Air load of us all landing in a very short amount of time. We have a large landing area, but I was still nervous with all the folks around me. As I was making small turns very low to avoid other people landing, I was once again reminded that sometimes it's nice to have that big hunk of fabric up there, because when you need it, you really need it. Would I have crashed under a smaller one? I don't know. But the big one definitely helped give me the control necessary to watch out for other people and land where I wanted. The other thing I am constantly reminded of is Billvon's canopy progression checklist, which is periodically reposted or linked to all over this site. I watch guys at my dropzone downsize because they want to land faster, but they never do any sort of induced speed landing under the canopy they have. I think it is silly for people who want to land faster to land their canopy as slowly as it can possibly be landed, then downsize to a new one so that they can land it faster (but still as slowly as it can be landed). When I see the Mullins boys swooping half the landing area, I really do wish that I could do that. The thing is, I am just now getting the time in sport to realize that equipment is only part of that. The ability to use the equipment is far more important. Jeff Mullins flies a very small canopy loaded pretty high (no, I do not know exactly). He can lay a swoop all the way across the landing area that will send the tandems' families scattering. I have also personally witnessed him trying to land on a lawn chair without putting his feet down first, and if he had a heavier chair, he would have pulled it off (it tipped over as he stepped into it). Before I fly a wl like his, I am going to ask myself whether I would tell everyone on the dz that I was going to land standing on a chair and invite them to come watch. I bet that many of the people who consider themselves ready to downsize would not. I know this is kind of an odd example of a test, but I think it is critical for people to understand that people who are really good swoopers have skills well beyond dragging down on a front riser until they are scared and then flaring. I despise regulation. However, as I sit at my own dropzone and watch people land at the edge of control then say that they want to demo something smaller, it makes me wonder whether they have any brains in their heads at all. This post will reach no conclusion, because as I have said, I am not sure how I feel about the whole wingload bsr thing. However, I will say that I see plenty of people around me every weekend (sometimes myself included) who could benefit from more, not fewer, square feet of canopy. As John Le Blanc says (paraprhasing), learn to fly your current canopy before you downsize. And remember that learning to fly it does not just mean having a few survivable straight-in landings. Brent ---------------------------------- www.jumpelvis.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
craddock 0 #71 June 25, 2003 QuoteHow is that a bad thing? Again Ron I never said it was a bad thing. Don't be such an ass! Here is what I said : "I have some ideas how it(program) could actually cause a few more injuries, but I better keep them to myself. I have seen you twist my words already. I never once said we should not do anything, Did I ?" For one I feel it COULD lead to much higher wingloadings accross the board. It may give jumpers the impresssion they can downsize faster because they have taken a course. If USPA says so... Taking a course does not always make someone a better pilot. Knowing how to do something is not the same as being able to do something. About a month ago, Scott Miller was up in Wisconsin doing a canopy control class. They did x number of jumps with video. I was at the DZ but am unsure of the exact details. What I do know is that of the 5 jumpers he had, two of them suffered broked bones the next weekend. One broke an ankle. The other broke a femur in two places. Another one is an accident waiting to happen, almost taking out the fence ,the trees, what not before being advised to land in a different area. That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #72 June 25, 2003 QuoteAgain Ron I never said it was a bad thing. Don't be such an ass! Try acting like an adult. Forum rules are no personal attacks.. Of course you will claim later that you never said it. If you feel like slamming me...send me an email..I don't want this otherwise good discussions locked because you resort to name calling....better yet just don't do it."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,070 #73 June 25, 2003 >That's what people said about Prohibition. Did anyone foresee the >arise of gangs that persist to this day when Prohibition was passed? Uh huh. This is just like Prohibition. Right. Wanna bring abortion into it next? For someone who is usually pretty rational, this is a pretty odd tactic. There's no need to use emotional arguments to try to "win", it's just a discussion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #74 June 25, 2003 QuoteDerek admitted not having obtained the USPA accident database before coming up with his proposal. Have you obtained it? You folks have NOT done adequate homework to be imposing rules on others. What 'homework' was done when the minimum "A" license pull altitude was changed from 3,000 feet AGL to 3,500 feet AGL? Was the change a bad idea? Hook Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #75 June 25, 2003 QuoteQuoteDerek admitted not having obtained the USPA accident database before coming up with his proposal. Have you obtained it? You folks have NOT done adequate homework to be imposing rules on others. What 'homework' was done when the minimum "A" license pull altitude was changed from 3,000 feet AGL to 3,500 feet AGL? Was the change a bad idea? Hook I fail to see how not doing yesterday's homework is an excuse for not doing today's homework.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
