Wingload BSR take 3

[Ron 10]

Quote

As I understand it, Ron wants the restrictions put in place to encourage people to get more education.

Exactly!

When you found out to skydive you had to do 5 static lines, or 7 AFF levels insted of just putting a rig on and going for it like they did in the "old days" (that so many people scream about being better than today). You didn't quit did you? Nope you did what it took to do what you want...And the USPA has BSR in place to protect you until you know enough to handle it yourself...And even then you still have BSR's that effect you.

So all I want is for there to be a process in place that:

A. Protects jumpers from making poor choices in Equipment. We need this because quite frankly the target group sometimes just will not listen, and peer preasure is not working. Many retailers will sell to anyone that has the cash. Now, I have put my money where my mouth is everyday. I only do buisness with retailers, and companies I know to have morals...In fact I sent back a FREE canopy to a company that I found to be selling 1.6 loaded elipticals to guys with 200 jumps. And bought a Stiletto.

I can't even start to tell you the number of people I have told to be careful, and then latter seen carried off. So if these people are unwilling to listen they should be restricted to more docile WL's till they learn enough at the "canopy school of broken femurs".

This process also has to have a normal progression in place for those that can't afford/find and don't want/will not take the additional training to allow them to progress to higher WL's.

The Germain program is a very good (In fact the best base I can find). It still allows people to progress as their experience grows.

B. It HAS to have a way to bypass the "rule" to allow those that are truely skilled and have the desire to really study canopy flight...A practical test will allow this. My plan of being able to qualify for the PRO is a good base..10 landings inside a circle...If you can REALLY fly the canopy you have it should be no problem. And it is easy as hell to judge even for someone that can not even hook. I can teach a wuffo to judge this. Did he land in the circle standing up...Yes? Did he do it 10 times? Yes? Congradulations here is your sign off for the next WL level.

The simple facts are that SOMETHING has to be done. Just education will not work...The ones that need it don't go get it.

So you can progress at the normal rate if you like. Or you can test out to a higher WL.

Ron

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

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

I like the idea, but I would not want to see someone injured or killed trying to perform a high performance landing just to get a license, if all they ever want to do is land a lightly loaded canopy straight in.

This is precicely why I drew the comparison to night jumps.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[relyon 0]

Quote

If you're competing at the National Level for CReW, then presumably you're one of the best canopy pilots in the United States. Shouldn't you be able to perform a high performance landing to meet a mere 200 jump D license requirement?

D. James Nahikian
CHICAGO

I've competed at the world level in CReW. I have no intention of doing a high performance landing for any reason. Landing a Lightning is more than enough thrills for me as it is.

Bob Lyon
NCCS-224
1224 jumps / Lightning 143 @ 1.33 / education not regulation

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

It will not. Essentially forcing them to get training before they can jump higher loadings, though, _will_ make them better pilots.

This is why I propsed training as part of the 'd' licence - it's not just those wishing to swoop who're cratering. Training in the art of piloting high performance canopy (even a safire at 1.2 is a HP canopy...) needs to be taught to everyone, not those who happen to want a certain canopy before a certain number of jumps.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[billvon 2,990]

>Training in the art of piloting high performance canopy (even a safire
>at 1.2 is a HP canopy...) needs to be taught to everyone . . .

No it doesn't. It doesn't need to be taught to Lisa or Carmen. They don't jump high loadings. It would be a good idea, no doubt, but there is not the same need as there is when someone with 100 jumps buys that Stiletto 107.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

>Just like water-training was made manditory because people were
> drowning,

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>Really?

Really. Remember the Lake Erie incident?

Nope, that's why I asked.

Demo jump, dense cloud cover, got out over Lake Erie by mistake, 14 of the 17 jumpers drowned.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[skymedic 0]

Quote

I would go one step further, and mandate having a high performance landing requirement for the 'd' license.

The 'd' license is the most advanced license we have, it's supposed to mean that the jumper has been trained in, and successfully performed all tasks required to be a safe and profiecent skydiver. Examples of these tasks are night jumps, water training, and canopy accuracy.

While at one time high performance canopies were the exception, they are now the rule. It is increasingly becoming ludicrous that you can "earn" a 'd' license without demonstrating the skills of piloting the most common parachutes on the market.

Just like water-training was made manditory because people were drowning, we need to make high performance training manditory (for 'd' license holders) because people are femur'ing - and worse.

Lew Sanborne is D1 and he never makes a high performance landing...although the guy can hit dead center jump after jump after jump....

Marc
otherwise known as Mr.Fallinwoman....

[AndyMan 7]

Lisa or Carmen could easily crater at their wingloading. I don't know Carmen, but like Lisa I presume she's knows how to pilot her canopy safely close to the ground. A look through the fatalities say that many skydivers don't.

I'm inching towards where Kallend is. Let's take wingloading out of it. The assertion that wingloading is the cause of the fatalities is tenuous at best. What is certain is that many people don't know how to fly their canopies close to the ground, wither it be loaded at 1.1 or 2.1.

You've put the definition of "high performance" in wingloading. I don't. For this discussion, I think planform is a lot more relevant. If you consider only planform, virtually every canopy sold today is "high performance", even a Spectre is "tapered" and will turn and dive quickly into the ground.

The current 'd' licence requirements (except for the changing jump numbers) were put into place where everybody was jumping Ravens and Mantas - they just didn't dive as much during low turns. People COULD bumble their way through learning how to fly them.

Times have changed, and under virtually all of the canopies sold today, you can not bumble your way through learning how to fly. Bumbling will kill you.

Canopy skills for all licences need to be updated for the realities of the canopies being sold today.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[icemaker 0]

I am so glad that I have my D. I have NO want or need to do hook turns for a swoop landing. I could see even more people getting hurt having to do this type of landing for a license requirement.

I would like to see more canopy skills incorporated into the A requirements. The current BSR for students with pull alt give them time to perform more skills with their canopy. Remember you cannot teach common sense.

However there are some skills that are almost impossible to do under student canopy. For example front riser turns, I did not have enough strength in my arms. I can do them now but only have gotten comfortable with them after going to a canopy camp and playing up high. Heck I even like to use my front risers to help get a little speed when landing.

At my age I know that I am not 9 feet tall and bullet proof. Been there with the broken bones, concussion and other various injuries from other sports (ice skating, downhill skiing, water skiing, ect).

[JamesNahikian 0]

Canopy skills for all licences need to be updated for the realities of the canopies being sold today.
_________________________________________________

What he said.

D. James Nahikian
CHICAGO

[JamesNahikian 0]

No it doesn't. It doesn't need to be taught to Lisa or Carmen. They don't jump high loadings.
________________________________________________

Lisa and Carmen still can screw themselves into the ground with the canopies they are jumping. And if they never practice turning low near the ground, how is it they retain their proficiency for executing emergency turns? Practicing these maneuvers above 1,000 feet isn't the same.

D. James Nahikian
CHICAGO

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

Canopy skills for all licences need to be updated for the realities of the canopies being sold today.
_________________________________________________

What he said.

D. James Nahikian
CHICAGO

And here too:

www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=536763#536763

...

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

[billvon 2,990]

>Lisa or Carmen could easily crater at their wingloading.

Quite true. Carmen already did; she turned low to avoid a ditch. Result: nasty compound break of her lower leg, broken hand. Had she been at 1.8 to 1 she would be dead.

>I'm inching towards where Kallend is. Let's take wingloading out of it.

I am not one of the people who believes that high wingloadings are no more dangerous than low wingloadings.

>What is certain is that many people don't know how to fly their
>canopies close to the ground, wither it be loaded at 1.1 or 2.1.

I agree; however, the result of the same mistake under both canopies is very, very different. A low turn at 1:1 is a learning experience; a low turn at 2:1 ends your skydiving career (in general.) That's why they must be treated differently.

>Canopy skills for all licences need to be updated for the realities of
>the canopies being sold today.

And one of the realities is that high loadings are more dangerous than low loadings.

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

A low turn at 1:1 is a learning experience; a low turn at 2:1 ends your skydiving career (in general.) That's why they must be treated differently.

.

Previously you listed three fatalities at WL around the 1.0 - 1.1 range.

...

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

[Blahr 0]

Quote

The simple facts are that SOMETHING has to be done. Just education will not work...The ones that need it don't go get it.

So you can progress at the normal rate if you like. Or you can test out to a higher WL.

Ron

Amen. For a lot of folks this is about ego. I dont know about you fols but most skydivers I know have BIG FAT ego's.
Nobody likes to feel like the newbie or the student. They wanna swoop with the big boys.
Sometimes someone has to say "Too fucking bad, you arent good enough for that yet"

I'm damned if I'm gonna let my 16 year old son jump into a supercharged whateverthehell 6.0. He might THINK he can handle it but the odds are better than average he would wind up dead.

In this country we protect our young and inexperienced with rules and regulations.
They dont usually appreciate that until they are older and wiser, but we do it anyway. Its for their own good.

So listen up boys and girls, you might not like being regulated but a lot of you are too young and inexperienced (emotionally, not physically) to be allowed to continue to let your egos call the shots. You might not like being restricted but its for your own good.

I am young and inexperienced in this sport. I DONT mind if there are rules that govern how I can progress. They are there for MY safety and the safety of the people around my inexperienced ass. The suggestions that have been put forth offer me ways to progress faster IF IM READY. Not a bad deal if you ask me and not a bad trade off for being allowed to participate in one of the most exciting activities there is while still maintaining a good margin of safety.
I am NOT young or inexperienced in life. I can see that a lot of you are. Maybe if you are lucky you will live to regret how idiotic you sound.

Some of these people here are trying to offer solutions
to a deadly problem and all I see is them catching a lot of crap for their trouble, time, and caring.

You know who you are. What solutions are YOU offering instead? Or is bitch and moan all you can come up with?

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

And one of the realities is that high loadings are more dangerous than low loadings.

People femur at 1.0 -1.2 almost weekly and a few die every year. Is that not enough to warant change?

Why limit manditory canopy control courses only to the extreme wingloadings?

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[craddock 0]

Quote

And one of the realities is that high loadings are more dangerous than low loadings.

Another reality as John points out is that males between 20-30 are are the Most dangerous group

That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

[FliegendeWolf 0]

This point is irrelevant.

A man is born male through no action of his own. He manages to live long enough to make it to his twentieth birthday, and he is therefore within the age range 20-30.

A skydiver decides to take on a higher wingloading. Unlike the 20-year-old male, the skydiver has a choice as to how they would prefer to load their canopy.

Therefore, attempting to argue against the necessity of wing-loading restrictions by claiming reductio ad absurdem that 20-30 year old men are more dangerous than anyone else and they should therefore be banned is invalid.

A One that Isn't Cold is Scarcely a One at All

[Shark 0]

Quote

Quote

And one of the realities is that high loadings are more dangerous than low loadings.

People femur at 1.0 -1.2 almost weekly and a few die every year. Is that not enough to warant change?

Yes, that is one reason why it is incorporated into the ISP. When I teach the FJC one of the first things I write on the board is:

"Your number 1 objective is to land safely under an open parachute." (Thanks to Bill Von for that quote.)

Education starts at jump #1 and continues.

Quote

Why limit manditory canopy control courses only to the extreme wingloadings?

We don't. I encourage my students to get into the course as soon as possible after they get their license.

To add to that, if I know one of them is on a load, I find out what canopy TLOs they are to perform and watch them under canopy and debrief with them later.

Someone mentioned it before, but it is about education. With the amount of injuries occuring, it may lead to the BSR with forced education and restrictions. But, "the more things change, the more they stay the same."

[billvon 2,990]

>People femur at 1.0 -1.2 almost weekly and a few die every year. Is >that not enough to warant change?

Because you can recover from a broken femur, and even learn from the experience. When I hear that a 100 jump wonder broke his femur, and will be out for a few months, I am always relieved. It heals well and they will learn from the experience - and not become a fatality statistic next year.

In general I'm in favor of the minimum regulation needed to prevent fatalities.

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

This point is irrelevant.

A man is born male through no action of his own. He manages to live long enough to make it to his twentieth birthday, and he is therefore within the age range 20-30.

A skydiver decides to take on a higher wingloading. Unlike the 20-year-old male, the skydiver has a choice as to how they would prefer to load their canopy.

Therefore, attempting to argue against the necessity of wing-loading restrictions by claiming reductio ad absurdem that 20-30 year old men are more dangerous than anyone else and they should therefore be banned is invalid.

Who said to ban them? Just pointing out that if you want to identify risk factors for canopy fatalities, being a young male is more hazardous than having a high WL and low jump numbers, yet the proposed BSR only targets the latter group.

...

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

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

[

"Your number 1 objective is to land safely under an open parachute." (Thanks to Bill Von for that quote.)

I think it pre-dates Bill.

...

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

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

We don't. I encourage my students to get into the course as soon as possible after they get their license.

Cool!

Now, whats wrong with taking some of the basic skills you're teaching them, and putting them as requirements for a 'b' license. Then take some of the more advanced ones, and make it a 'c' requirement. Lastly, take the most challenging ones, like riser turns to final, and make them 'd' license requirement?

Why does canopy instruction for 95% of skydivers stop at the end of "student status"?

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Why does canopy instruction for 95% of skydivers stop at the end of "student status"?

Because it isn't mandatory and they don't think they need it, or it isn't available.

Hook

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Why does canopy instruction for 95% of skydivers stop at the end of "student status"?

just based on the informal poll here it certainly doesnt.. formal canopy instruction might stop, but i heard quite alot of canopy instruction happening yesterday afternoon, all as part of normal skydive operations..

probably more accurate to say "Why does canopy instruction for 25% of skydivers stop at the end of "student status"?"

and actually based on the fatality numbers we have (unfortuately we dont have the injury numbers) it probably even lower..

the problem is people still make mistakes and accidents can and will happen to the best and most qualified...more training will certainly help, but pretending that only 5% of skydivers ever get any more canopy instruction after being licensed is a really bad spot..

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.