Dying because of low turns

[billvon 3,070]

>I fail to see how not doing yesterday's homework is an excuse for
>not doing today's homework.

We have some 27 BSR's. Your argument seems to be that, although the "homework" you specify was not be done for any of those 27, it needs to be done for the 28th. On what do you base your opinion that the system that worked for every other BSR will not work for this one? Do you have any evidence at all that the lack of statistical studies and peer-reviewed reports for the creation of the other BSR's led to rules that decreased rather than increased safety?

Or is that just a guess on your part?

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

>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.

What's emotional about that? Prohibition did seem like a good idea at the time. It's proponents saw nothing but good coming from it. Unfortunately it also started a crime wave that no-one foresaw.

You (collectively) have not adequately analysed the ramifications of your proposal, nor have you, it seems, even bothered to get hold of the best data that are available. That's not the way to get things changed.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

I fail to see how not doing yesterday's homework is an excuse for not doing today's homework.

The 'homework' i.e. gathering complete statistics and/or a research study and then a comprehensive analysis of this research, simply isn't necessary. Name one BSR that is based on 'homework'. Now name one BSR that should be repealed because of a lack of research (homework) prior to the BSR being implemented. This isn't NASA. We don't have to ground all skydivers when there is an incident, appoint a committee, conducts tests, and enact new procedures based upon the committee's recommendations, all at a huge investment of time and money.

I have watched with others, the trend of people getting hurt or killed after downsizing too quickly. Canopy control training and education has not kept pace with canopy development and progression. An increase in education is absolutely necessary. The current system of S & TA's is not working. The limited availability of canopy control courses and the small attendance at these courses is not fixing the problem. Simply making canopy control education and training available will not fix the problem. Requiring the training is the only solution.

People did not quit or not start skydiving because the "A" license minimum pull altitude was changed from 2,500 feet AGL to 3,000 feet AGL. People did not stop coming out to DZ"s to make a tandem jump because the minimum pull altitude was changed from 4,000 feet AGL to 4,500 Feet AGL. People didn't decide not to learn to skydive when the "A" license requirements were increased. People will not stop skydiving if they are either limited in their wing loading or must demonstrate they can handle a higher wing loading or must receive additional canopy training and education before exceeding the BSR maximum for their number of jumps.

If you need a study before you will believe that there is an increasing trend of downsizing too quickly and the resulting injuries and fatalities, then you will never believe in and support the proposed BSR. You will continue to offer "prohibition' and 'flat earth' arguments. It doesn't even seem as if you are arguing against this specific BSP proposal. You are against the process and the lack of a stack of research paper filled with data and statistics. You could use most of your arguments against any proposed BSR. I have to ask, did you protest the minimum pull altitudes for "A" license and tandems? Did you demand to see the research and data? Are you going to write USPA and suggest that all BSR's be reviewed and studied? And any that aren't reviewed and studied be repealed?

I am not a fan of "We have always done it this way". Reviewing the process is a good thing. In this case, the process isn't broken and basing a BSR on common sense and experience has worked and still works. If there was a better way of doing it, that wasn't time or financially cost prohibitive, I would be all for it. Unfortunately, there isn't. But that is OK, because, again, what we have works.

Will people violate the BSR, if enacted? Yes, they will, the same way minimum pull altitudes BSR's are broken. Most people follow them simply because they realize they make sense. Some follow them for fear of getting caught. Some of the ones that do pull low will get caught and grounded. Hopefully they will either realize that the might as well pull by their minimum altitude so they can still jump and eventually 'grow out' of the desire to pull low. A few will habitually pull low, not get caught or grounded, and may or may not eventually bounce, have their AAD fire, etc. The minimum pull altitude BSR keeps most people pulling on time, it works.

Hook

Edit: I meant to say "from 2,500 feet AGL to 3,000 feet AGL" Oops

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

The minimum pull altitude BSR keeps most people pulling on time, it works.

Hook

Do you REALLY think a rule is what makes people pull at a safe altitude?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Do you REALLY think a rule is what makes people pull at a safe altitude?

You first:

Quote

I have to ask, did you protest the minimum pull altitudes for "A" license and tandems? Did you demand to see the research and data? Are you going to write USPA and suggest that all BSR's be reviewed and studied? And any that aren't reviewed and studied be repealed?

Hook

[markbaur 0]

Quote

People did not quit or not start skydiving because the "A" license minimum pull altitude was changed to 3,500 feet AGL.

Possibly because the minimum pull altitude for "A" license holders is still 3000 feet?

Mark

[billvon 3,070]

>Do you REALLY think a rule is what makes people pull at a safe altitude?

Initially, yes. If there were no rule people would either learn to pull at a decent altitude or they'd go in - or they'd see others go in due to low pulls and decide to pull a bit higher. Like I said before, that sort of self-regulation can work, there are just more bodies to deal with.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

Initially, yes. If there were no rule people would either learn to pull at a decent altitude or they'd go in - or they'd see others go in due to low pulls and decide to pull a bit higher. Like I said before, that sort of self-regulation can work, there are just more bodies to deal with.

I tend to believe that many of the BSRs were probably established like that. People looked at what was going on and decided to try something as a rule. Either that or someone with experience had a rule that was working and others adopted it. I doubt there was a lot of studies. More of a collective hunch based on experience.

[Ron 10]

Quote

You (collectively) have not adequately analysed the ramifications of your proposal, nor have you, it seems,
even bothered to get hold of the best data that are available.

We have gotten the data..several very experience people see the issue and agree on the problem...But I guess thats not the "Correct" way to do it...

Why di I think that if we had the info on paper...You would then just argue that it didn't come from a reputable source?

Quote

That's not the way to get things changed.

It is how it works in skydiving.

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

[Hooknswoop 19]

Since it doesn't appear that you are going to answer my questions, I'll go ahead and reply. Just don't expect me to answer your questions.

Quote

Do you REALLY think a rule is what makes people pull at a safe altitude?

Yes, I do. I went through the low pull phase. At that time that meant below 2,500 feet AGL. I went well below that. I knew that anything below 2,500 feet AGL, I was risking the wrath of the S & TA. I wasn't too concerned with a slow opening followed by a malfunction combined with a bad spot. I was more concerned about not getting caught. I did, of course, get caught and warned. It was enough, I didn't want to get grounded. So I made sure I pulled no lower than 2,500 feet AGL. The rule was well known to me and made an easy cut off point for the S & TA. Above that, OK, below that, you're grounded. No, "I can handle pulling at 2,400 feet arguments." The rule and the S &TA kept me from pulling low until I had enough experience to realize that I shouldn't pull low, not because of the rule, but because it wasn't safe.

Some people don't bother with ever intentionally pulling low. They either simply have no desire to be in free fall at low altitude or realize the risk simply isn't worth it. For these people, the BSR isn't necessary.

Do you think the minimum pull altitude BSR's should be rescinded because you believe they are not the reason people don't pull low?

How can you call 2,000 feet AGL, for "C" and "D" license holders, 2,500 feet AGL for "B" license holders, and 3,000 feet AGL for "A" license holders safe? What supporting data do you have? What research has been done? Of course, these are rhetorical questions. These BSR's obviously are a good idea and work. They are not based on research, but on experience.

Hook

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Since it doesn't appear that you are going to answer my questions, I'll go ahead and reply. Just don't expect me to answer your questions.

Quote

Do you REALLY think a rule is what makes people pull at a safe altitude?

Yes, I do. I went through the low pull phase. At that time that meant below 2,500 feet AGL. I went well below that. I knew that anything below 2,500 feet AGL, I was risking the wrath of the S & TA. I wasn't too concerned with a slow opening followed by a malfunction combined with a bad spot. I was more concerned about not getting caught. I did, of course, get caught and warned. It was enough, I didn't want to get grounded. So I made sure I pulled no lower than 2,500 feet AGL. The rule was well known to me and made an easy cut off point for the S & TA. Above that, OK, below that, you're grounded. No, "I can handle pulling at 2,400 feet arguments." The rule and the S &TA kept me from pulling low until I had enough experience to realize that I shouldn't pull low, not because of the rule, but because it wasn't safe.

Some people don't bother with ever intentionally pulling low. They either simply have no desire to be in free fall at low altitude or realize the risk simply isn't worth it. For these people, the BSR isn't necessary.

Do you think the minimum pull altitude BSR's should be rescinded because you believe they are not the reason people don't pull low?

How can you call 2,000 feet AGL, for "C" and "D" license holders, 2,500 feet AGL for "B" license holders, and 3,000 feet AGL for "A" license holders safe? What supporting data do you have? What research has been done? Of course, these are rhetorical questions. These BSR's obviously are a good idea and work. They are not based on research, but on experience.

Hook

Well, apparently your mileage varies, but most of the people I jump with, both old timers and newbies, pull above 2500ft although we're "allowed" to go lower. The one guy I know who consistently takes it low is a real old timer (3-digit D number) and I don't think rules make much difference to him anyway - he's mostly concerned about avoiding a CYPRES fire.

At a recent 120 way in FL the organizers had to grumble at the jumpers for pulling too high!

So on the whole, my experience is that most people's behavior wrt pull altitudes is scarely affected by the rule.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Ron 10]

Quote

At a recent 120 way in FL the organizers had to grumble at the jumpers for pulling too high!

So on the whole, my experience is that most people's behavior wrt pull altitudes is scarely affected by the
rule.

right, but how about when the rule came out, or 10 years ago?

The rule has kept me from pulling low back when I did that sort of thing.

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

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Well, apparently your mileage varies

Exactly. I have been an S & TA (what a thankless, screwed up job, with no pay) and I have been teaching students for 7 years. I have had to pay attention to pull altitudes, canopy control, wing loading, accidents, etc.

Quote

At a recent 120 way in FL the organizers had to grumble at the jumpers for pulling too high!

Well if they are on a 120 way, they are experienced, experienced enough to be past the pulling low phase and understand that is isn't smart to pull low. The BSR isn't really necessary for them. It is necessary for the less experienced jumpers that don't have their experience.

You are resorting to not answering questions and replying to only parts of people's posts. Have we convinced you?

Oh ya, one of my questions you didn't answer;

Quote

Do you think the minimum pull altitude BSR's should be rescinded because you believe they are not the reason people don't pull low?

Hook

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

Well, apparently your mileage varies

Exactly. I have been an S & TA (what a thankless, screwed up job, with no pay) and I have been teaching students for 7 years. I have had to pay attention to pull altitudes, canopy control, wing loading, accidents, etc.

Quote

At a recent 120 way in FL the organizers had to grumble at the jumpers for pulling too high!

Well if they are on a 120 way, they are experienced, experienced enough to be past the pulling low phase and understand that is isn't smart to pull low. The BSR isn't really necessary for them. It is necessary for the less experienced jumpers that don't have their experience.

Quote

You have no data to support the claim that inexperience leads to low pulls.

You are resorting to not answering questions and replying to only parts of people's posts. Have we convinced you?

No

Quote

Oh ya, one of my questions you didn't answer;

Quote

Do you think the minimum pull altitude BSR's should be rescinded because you believe they are not the reason people don't pull low?

Hook

I believe that decisions about rules and regulations should be the result of detailed analysis of the problem, not my gut feeling. If I were concerned about the pull altitude rule i would make the analysis and give an opinion. Contrary to your assertions, there are a whole load of data on canopy opening behavior, human reaction times, and low pull incidents available if you take the trouble to look.

Equally, any decision about WL restrictions should be the result of detailed analysis, which you have not done. If you'd done it you wouldn't have to keep harping on about your experience, and every time you're challenged you'd give a real answer instead of a diversion to the pull altitude rules.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

I believe that decisions about rules and regulations should be the result of detailed analysis of the problem, not my gut feeling.

right, and the pull altitude BSR's were not the result of detailed analysis of the problem. That doesn't mean they aren't valid. They were based on experience, not gut feeling, and they are a good thing. They pull altitude BSR's have been around a long time, and I have never seen or heard about USPA doping a detailed analysis of them before they passed them. This doesn't invalidate them.

Quote

If I were concerned about the pull altitude rule i would make the analysis and give an opinion. Contrary to your assertions, there are a whole load of data on canopy opening behavior, human reaction times, and low pull incidents available if you take the trouble to look.

How much of that was done before they BSR's were enacted? This isn't NASA. Where is the detailed analysis of "A" license holders going in because they were pulling at 2,500 feet and showing that by changing it to 3,000 feet they will stop bouncing?

Quote

Equally, any decision about WL restrictions should be the result of detailed analysis, which you have not done. If you'd done it you wouldn't have to keep harping on about your experience, and every time you're challenged you'd give a real answer instead of a diversion to the pull altitude rules.

Basing a BSR on experience works. Show me that it doesn't and I will stop supporting the proposed BSR.

You have recognized there is a problem, do you have an alternative solution?

Hook

[biffmannchew 0]

so You're saying TJ Landgren would have to go down to a 1.1 wl? Stop doing what ever you're on bruno, pyschopath

[rhino 0]

I never pull below 3k...

[skybytch 273]

Quote

Stop doing what ever you're on bruno, pyschopath

Read the forum rules. Personal attacks are not allowed. Stop now.

[Tonto 1]

Quote

A large part of the problem is that the few DZOs who report accurately end up looking like the least safe on the planet.

Amen to that!

t

It's the year of the Pig.