skybytch 273 #1 June 25, 2003 Okay, my turn. Although I feel strongly that it is a big part of the problem, how about we take wingloading out of the picture altogether and focus solely on education? Required canopy control training and skill sign off for A, B and C licenses. A license covered in ISP. B license training (basic) to include a review of previous training, canopy aerodynamics, a thorough discussion of wingloading and canopy selection, accuracy, off field landings, crosswind and downwind landings, slow flight, flying in proximity to others, collision and object avoidance and an introduction to high performance landings, amongst other topics. Instructors for B license training would not need to be accomplished swoopers as they would not be teaching beyond, say, double front riser approaches. C license training (advanced) to include a review of previous training and more thorough coverage of whatever form of canopy flight the jumpers taking the course are most interested in. Instructors to be active and experienced in whichever form of flight being taught - i.e. swooping, CRW, accuracy, sport accuracy. The required training could be taken at any time, and can be repeated as often as desired, but must be taken in order (i.e. basic and then advanced) the first time through. Skill set for sign off for B license could be as follows - All standing up - -At least 1 no/light wind accuracy landing -At least 1 moderate wind accuracy landing -On one of the above drop a mat or similar marking device at the point where they are supposed to land when on final and have them avoid it as if it's an obstacle. And don't count accuracy, just avoidance. -At least 1 cross wind landing -At least 1 (light) downwind landing Skill set for sign off for C license could be increased numbers of the above or?? Pros - Gets canopy control training available to everyone, everywhere. (yes, it will take some time to get the program set up and running across the US). Does not limit jumpers decisions, other than having to get additional canopy control training beyond the A license level. Makes getting canopy control training beyond the A license level the normal thing to do. Leaves open the option for more advanced canopy pilots to learn the safest methods of swooping whenever they feel ready, under the supervision of experienced swoopers. Cons - Expense and time required to take it from idea to implementation everywhere Lack of suitably experienced swooping instructors to teach the higher end material (is there? I don't know for sure if there is or not). Would something along these lines be more acceptable to the majority? *note - thanks to PhillyKev for the skill set Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Jimbo 0 #2 June 25, 2003 Quotehow about we take wingloading out of the picture altogether and focus solely on education? Good plan, I like it. But, like every other plan mentioned here you're relying on the USPA to make it official. I'm not entirely opposed to that, as a matter of fact I don't think I'm opposed to it at all, but it's going to take time and I suspect it's going to take a lot of time. The other option I think, is rather than making it official, make it cool. What about a campaign advertising the various canopy flight schools out there, everything from the Team Extreme school, to Scott Miller's traveling road show, to Derek's and Chuck's programs? Get some write ups in Parachutist, get some neat pictures and testimonials. Make people WANT to seek out the training, give them a cool T-shirt so all their friends will know that they sought out training, make them the new cool kids, don't the shove it down their throats. Anyhow, that's my mostly unthought out ideas on the subject. I think it's a start and I think you're more likely to get somewhere SOON with that than with the USPA. I'll now leave you all to return your regularly scheduled bickering. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zenister 0 #3 June 25, 2003 sugar or vingar? depends on what you are after... i think changing the culture by an emphasis on demonstrable skills and training will go alot farther than "handing down the law from above', but to do it will require lots of input and public expressions from swoop competitors, manufacturers, and instructors..more qualified people need to "hang out shingles" advertising their willingness to take time to teach, most i've met certainly are but the opportunity needs to be more public to get widespread acceptance..____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites AndyMan 7 #4 June 25, 2003 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. _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Jimbo 0 #5 June 25, 2003 QuoteI would go one step further, and mandate having a high performance landing requirement for the 'd' license. What's a high performance landing? - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,990 #6 June 25, 2003 >I would go one step further, and mandate having a high >performance landing requirement for the 'd' license. 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,444 #7 June 26, 2003 Quotemandate having a high performance landing requirement for the 'd' license If by that you mean at least one landing with a heavily-loaded canopy (or even sort of heavily loaded), I'm sure glad I already have my D license. If by that you mean a complex landing scenario, starting with front risering in, maybe (although that's hard for people with canopies that are hard to front riser). If by that you mean a hook turn, then, again, I'm glad I already have a D license. And if you mean that someone ought to be able to fulfill the famous, patented Billvon landing safety criteria (well, other than the uphill/downhill one where hills don't exist), I could easily see including that. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JamesNahikian 0 #8 June 26, 2003 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. _________________________________________________ Nobody needs a D license "if all they ever want to do is land a lightly loaded canopy straight-in." Come on, Bill. D. James Nahikian CHICAGO Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Shark 0 #9 June 26, 2003 QuoteI would go one step further, and mandate having a high performance landing requirement for the 'd' license. Then why not CReW? QuoteThe '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. And being comfortable when flying in close proximity with other canopies including docking. Perhaps one can demonstrate this by docking 8th or later... QuoteJust like water-training was made manditory because people were drowning, Really? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,990 #10 June 26, 2003 >Nobody needs a D license "if all they ever want to do is land a lightly >loaded canopy straight-in." Come on, Bill. Lisa Briggs. 900 jumps, 1:1 loading, straight in landings, D license, women's world record holder. Carmen Mullenix. 1500 jumps, 1.1 to 1, straight in landings, AFF-I. Another WWR holder. I can continue the list if you like. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,990 #11 June 26, 2003 >Just like water-training was made manditory because people were > drowning, -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Really? Really. Remember the Lake Erie incident? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JamesNahikian 0 #12 June 26, 2003 Carmen Mullenix. 1500 jumps, 1.1 to 1, straight in landings, AFF-I. Another WWR holder. I can continue the list if you like. _________________________________________________ I accept your offer. Please provide us with THE list. D. James Nahikian CHICAGO Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Shark 0 #13 June 26, 2003 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites craddock 0 #14 June 26, 2003 QuoteNobody needs a D license "if all they ever want to do is land a lightly loaded canopy straight-in." Come on, Bill. did they drop the "D" license requirements for national competition? When? 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 JamesNahikian 0 #15 June 26, 2003 I understand you to mean they require water training and night jumps for national competition. D. James Nahikian CHICAGO Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Jimbo 0 #16 June 26, 2003 Quotedid they drop the "D" license requirements for national competition? When? This is from the online version of the Skydivers Competition Manual. Quote1-1.4: QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS A. To compete at a U.S. National Skydiving Championships and be eligible for nationals medals, competitors must— 1. Be a U.S. citizen or comply with paragraph B below 2. Be a current regular USPA member 3. Be at least 18 years of age 4. Hold a currently valid USPA/FAI license for the appropriate discipline and event as follows: a. Freefall Style & Accuracy Landing: (1) Intermediate Class C License (2) Open Class D License b. Para-Ski: (1) Intermediate Class C License (2) Open Class D License c. Canopy Formation: D License d. Formation Skydiving (1) Intermediate and Advanced Classes C License (2) Open Class D License (3) 10- and 16-Way C License e. Artistic Events (1) Intermediate: C License (2) Open: D License f. Sport Accuracy (1) Standard Class D License (2) Ultra Class D license and 1,000 jumps g. National Collegiate Parachuting Championships (in addition to qualification requirements in Section 7) (1) 2-way: A license and fewer than 100 freefall skydives (2) 4-way: B license So, yeah, it looks like you need a D license to compete at the National level."Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JamesNahikian 0 #17 June 26, 2003 Nobody needs a D license "if all they ever want to do is land a lightly loaded canopy straight-in." Confirmed. D. James Nahikian CHICAGO Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JamesNahikian 0 #18 June 26, 2003 So, yeah, it looks like you need a D license to compete at the National level. ______________________________________________ Thank you for showcasing all the A, B & C license minimums for National Competition. You've underscored why no one needs a D license, even to "compete at the National Level." D. James Nahikian CHICAGO Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Jimbo 0 #19 June 26, 2003 QuoteThank you for showcasing all the A, B & C license minimums for National Competition. You've underscored why no one needs a D license, even to "compete at the National Level." Unless they've chosen to compete in CReW of the Open class. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JamesNahikian 0 #20 June 26, 2003 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Shark 0 #21 June 26, 2003 QuoteIf 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 Ever landed a Lightning? They're pretty fickle, but great while airborne. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites crazy 0 #22 June 26, 2003 Quote Okay, my turn. Although I feel strongly that it is a big part of the problem, how about we take wingloading out of the picture altogether and focus solely on education? Now I'm impressed! Let's go. Landings kill. Not only high performance landings (these are less than 20%), not only high wing loadings (skydivers with 150-200 jumps died at WL of 0.8-0.9 psf), not only low timers (25% have 1000+ jumps), not only yellow canopies... landings can kill anybody. From 1988 to 2003, there were 44 landing fatalities (I didn't cross check) distributed approximately like this: - 21 imputed to a poor management of the landing pattern, including turning into wind (8), off DZ landings (6), obstacles (3), demo (3), and a small landing area. - 13 low turns for unspecified reasons - 5 attempts to do a high performance landing too low - 3 fatalities involving high winds, turbulences, or collapse - 2 possibly lost toggles Agreed, lots of things are into the same bag. But they are related to prerequesites to licences and ratings (mainly the A licence). They are supposed to be covered, both in the ISP and in the general recommendations. Maybe before adding new things, it would be a good idea to have a look at the existing SIM and check what can be removed (because it is not very useful) or improved. For instance: - there are already too many things in the SIM (it's always easier to add than to remove, but it's easier to focus on a small number of essential points than assimilating 300 pages) - the focus is not on the appropriate topics (put the focus on the WL and some people will overlook the procedures for landing emergencies if they have a conservative WL) - landing emergencies are not explicitely included in "5.1.A Practice Emergency Procedures" and "5.1.B. Prevention and preparation" (this is reflected in the training) - "5.1.F Landing emergencies" doesn't explicitely cover some important killers (turning into the wind, obstacle/collision avoidance close to the ground, bad spots) while it covers in detail problems usually easily survivable (water landing). - "5.1.I Low turns" is the main killer and it is the last entry! In addition, the way it is explained, some people might think "i'll be fine, i won't do any low turn" (i heared it many times) - The funny wording "5.1.C.4" is an inappropriate distraction (this is THE important thing and it's writen almost as a joke) - Landings are not explicitely covered in "5.2 Recurrency Training" (many people actually think it's all about freefall) - 5.3.b is not helpful. It should state "pilot skills" instead of "experience" and provide some guidelines. - lack of emphasis on the necessity to identify landing emergencies early - ... Some of my very personal suggested action: - reorder and rewrite some parts of "5 Skydiving Emergencies". Basically, rewriting together 5.1.F and 5.1.I, and moving them into "5.1.D", before all other types of emergencies. - make sure that everybody includes canopy emergencies in 5.1.a, 5.1.b and 5.2. Instructors and coaches should emphasize these points - "Practice" emergency landings before every jump (same as cutaway/reserve) - improve 5.2 and 5.3.b to provide helpful guidelines, for instance like in the ISP (drills and skill checks) - ... There are actually lots of extremely good points in the ISP that could be highlighted, or even moved into the general recommendations. From a completely different point of view, I also personnally think that there is a question of attitude WRT landing fatalities. When people blame the landing fatalities on the high wing loading, lots of people think "i'll be fine, i have a conservative wing loading" (almost half the fatalities are at wingloadings from extremely conservative to reasonable). When people blame the landing fatalities on the low timers, lots of people think "i'll be fine, i have more than 500 jumps (more than 1/3 of the landing fatalities involve skydivers with more than 500 jumps). When people blame the landing fatalities on low turns, many people think "i'll be fine, i don't do low turns" (most of the deadly low turns were not planned). If you acknowledge that landing emergencies can kill everybody, including yourself, then it's difficult to hide the scary reality behind misleading thoughts. There is not much choice left than be prepared for these emergencies. Landing emergencies deserve at least the same attention as freefall emergencies, in the training, the recurrency, and our pre-jump preparation.-- Come Skydive Asia Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,990 #23 June 26, 2003 > Nobody needs a D license "if all they ever want to do is land a lightly loaded canopy straight-in." You need a D if you want to compete in open class. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nacmacfeegle 0 #24 June 26, 2003 "If you're competing at the National Level for CReW, then presumably you're one of the best canopy pilots in the United States." I've never been to the US nationals, but entering a regional/national comp in the UK just shows that you managed to round up a bunch of pals, paid the entry fee, and are prepared to learn heaps and have a good time. Just because you enter a comp doesn't mean you actually have the ability to peform in it. As someone who travels around a fair bit, my D licence is more like a skydiving passport, nothing more, nothing less. I a leery of placing compulsory HP landings on a licence requirement, however you could do something similar to the British system, where your licence is updated to show Freefly/RW/Crw proficiencies in the form of stickers/stamps/endorsements whatever. You could have an HP (HP1, HP2, HP3 etc) licence which could be staged for different wing loads, and different levels of proficiency as described by Lisa et al way up the thread. But then again, I have a D license, don't indulge in HP landings, am on the same sized canopy that I qualified for my D, am not currently a USPA member, so why should I bother about all this? After all, it doesn't affect me, does it?-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #25 June 26, 2003 What will keep someone from not doing this, and getting a high WL? We have said before, the people that need the training are not going to take 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 Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 1 of 5 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Jimbo 0 #2 June 25, 2003 Quotehow about we take wingloading out of the picture altogether and focus solely on education? Good plan, I like it. But, like every other plan mentioned here you're relying on the USPA to make it official. I'm not entirely opposed to that, as a matter of fact I don't think I'm opposed to it at all, but it's going to take time and I suspect it's going to take a lot of time. The other option I think, is rather than making it official, make it cool. What about a campaign advertising the various canopy flight schools out there, everything from the Team Extreme school, to Scott Miller's traveling road show, to Derek's and Chuck's programs? Get some write ups in Parachutist, get some neat pictures and testimonials. Make people WANT to seek out the training, give them a cool T-shirt so all their friends will know that they sought out training, make them the new cool kids, don't the shove it down their throats. Anyhow, that's my mostly unthought out ideas on the subject. I think it's a start and I think you're more likely to get somewhere SOON with that than with the USPA. I'll now leave you all to return your regularly scheduled bickering. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #3 June 25, 2003 sugar or vingar? depends on what you are after... i think changing the culture by an emphasis on demonstrable skills and training will go alot farther than "handing down the law from above', but to do it will require lots of input and public expressions from swoop competitors, manufacturers, and instructors..more qualified people need to "hang out shingles" advertising their willingness to take time to teach, most i've met certainly are but the opportunity needs to be more public to get widespread acceptance..____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyMan 7 #4 June 25, 2003 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. _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #5 June 25, 2003 QuoteI would go one step further, and mandate having a high performance landing requirement for the 'd' license. What's a high performance landing? - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,990 #6 June 25, 2003 >I would go one step further, and mandate having a high >performance landing requirement for the 'd' license. 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,444 #7 June 26, 2003 Quotemandate having a high performance landing requirement for the 'd' license If by that you mean at least one landing with a heavily-loaded canopy (or even sort of heavily loaded), I'm sure glad I already have my D license. If by that you mean a complex landing scenario, starting with front risering in, maybe (although that's hard for people with canopies that are hard to front riser). If by that you mean a hook turn, then, again, I'm glad I already have a D license. And if you mean that someone ought to be able to fulfill the famous, patented Billvon landing safety criteria (well, other than the uphill/downhill one where hills don't exist), I could easily see including that. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JamesNahikian 0 #8 June 26, 2003 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. _________________________________________________ Nobody needs a D license "if all they ever want to do is land a lightly loaded canopy straight-in." Come on, Bill. D. James Nahikian CHICAGO Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shark 0 #9 June 26, 2003 QuoteI would go one step further, and mandate having a high performance landing requirement for the 'd' license. Then why not CReW? QuoteThe '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. And being comfortable when flying in close proximity with other canopies including docking. Perhaps one can demonstrate this by docking 8th or later... QuoteJust like water-training was made manditory because people were drowning, Really? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,990 #10 June 26, 2003 >Nobody needs a D license "if all they ever want to do is land a lightly >loaded canopy straight-in." Come on, Bill. Lisa Briggs. 900 jumps, 1:1 loading, straight in landings, D license, women's world record holder. Carmen Mullenix. 1500 jumps, 1.1 to 1, straight in landings, AFF-I. Another WWR holder. I can continue the list if you like. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,990 #11 June 26, 2003 >Just like water-training was made manditory because people were > drowning, -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Really? Really. Remember the Lake Erie incident? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JamesNahikian 0 #12 June 26, 2003 Carmen Mullenix. 1500 jumps, 1.1 to 1, straight in landings, AFF-I. Another WWR holder. I can continue the list if you like. _________________________________________________ I accept your offer. Please provide us with THE list. D. James Nahikian CHICAGO Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shark 0 #13 June 26, 2003 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
craddock 0 #14 June 26, 2003 QuoteNobody needs a D license "if all they ever want to do is land a lightly loaded canopy straight-in." Come on, Bill. did they drop the "D" license requirements for national competition? When? 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
JamesNahikian 0 #15 June 26, 2003 I understand you to mean they require water training and night jumps for national competition. D. James Nahikian CHICAGO Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #16 June 26, 2003 Quotedid they drop the "D" license requirements for national competition? When? This is from the online version of the Skydivers Competition Manual. Quote1-1.4: QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS A. To compete at a U.S. National Skydiving Championships and be eligible for nationals medals, competitors must— 1. Be a U.S. citizen or comply with paragraph B below 2. Be a current regular USPA member 3. Be at least 18 years of age 4. Hold a currently valid USPA/FAI license for the appropriate discipline and event as follows: a. Freefall Style & Accuracy Landing: (1) Intermediate Class C License (2) Open Class D License b. Para-Ski: (1) Intermediate Class C License (2) Open Class D License c. Canopy Formation: D License d. Formation Skydiving (1) Intermediate and Advanced Classes C License (2) Open Class D License (3) 10- and 16-Way C License e. Artistic Events (1) Intermediate: C License (2) Open: D License f. Sport Accuracy (1) Standard Class D License (2) Ultra Class D license and 1,000 jumps g. National Collegiate Parachuting Championships (in addition to qualification requirements in Section 7) (1) 2-way: A license and fewer than 100 freefall skydives (2) 4-way: B license So, yeah, it looks like you need a D license to compete at the National level."Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JamesNahikian 0 #17 June 26, 2003 Nobody needs a D license "if all they ever want to do is land a lightly loaded canopy straight-in." Confirmed. D. James Nahikian CHICAGO Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JamesNahikian 0 #18 June 26, 2003 So, yeah, it looks like you need a D license to compete at the National level. ______________________________________________ Thank you for showcasing all the A, B & C license minimums for National Competition. You've underscored why no one needs a D license, even to "compete at the National Level." D. James Nahikian CHICAGO Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #19 June 26, 2003 QuoteThank you for showcasing all the A, B & C license minimums for National Competition. You've underscored why no one needs a D license, even to "compete at the National Level." Unless they've chosen to compete in CReW of the Open class. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JamesNahikian 0 #20 June 26, 2003 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shark 0 #21 June 26, 2003 QuoteIf 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 Ever landed a Lightning? They're pretty fickle, but great while airborne. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crazy 0 #22 June 26, 2003 Quote Okay, my turn. Although I feel strongly that it is a big part of the problem, how about we take wingloading out of the picture altogether and focus solely on education? Now I'm impressed! Let's go. Landings kill. Not only high performance landings (these are less than 20%), not only high wing loadings (skydivers with 150-200 jumps died at WL of 0.8-0.9 psf), not only low timers (25% have 1000+ jumps), not only yellow canopies... landings can kill anybody. From 1988 to 2003, there were 44 landing fatalities (I didn't cross check) distributed approximately like this: - 21 imputed to a poor management of the landing pattern, including turning into wind (8), off DZ landings (6), obstacles (3), demo (3), and a small landing area. - 13 low turns for unspecified reasons - 5 attempts to do a high performance landing too low - 3 fatalities involving high winds, turbulences, or collapse - 2 possibly lost toggles Agreed, lots of things are into the same bag. But they are related to prerequesites to licences and ratings (mainly the A licence). They are supposed to be covered, both in the ISP and in the general recommendations. Maybe before adding new things, it would be a good idea to have a look at the existing SIM and check what can be removed (because it is not very useful) or improved. For instance: - there are already too many things in the SIM (it's always easier to add than to remove, but it's easier to focus on a small number of essential points than assimilating 300 pages) - the focus is not on the appropriate topics (put the focus on the WL and some people will overlook the procedures for landing emergencies if they have a conservative WL) - landing emergencies are not explicitely included in "5.1.A Practice Emergency Procedures" and "5.1.B. Prevention and preparation" (this is reflected in the training) - "5.1.F Landing emergencies" doesn't explicitely cover some important killers (turning into the wind, obstacle/collision avoidance close to the ground, bad spots) while it covers in detail problems usually easily survivable (water landing). - "5.1.I Low turns" is the main killer and it is the last entry! In addition, the way it is explained, some people might think "i'll be fine, i won't do any low turn" (i heared it many times) - The funny wording "5.1.C.4" is an inappropriate distraction (this is THE important thing and it's writen almost as a joke) - Landings are not explicitely covered in "5.2 Recurrency Training" (many people actually think it's all about freefall) - 5.3.b is not helpful. It should state "pilot skills" instead of "experience" and provide some guidelines. - lack of emphasis on the necessity to identify landing emergencies early - ... Some of my very personal suggested action: - reorder and rewrite some parts of "5 Skydiving Emergencies". Basically, rewriting together 5.1.F and 5.1.I, and moving them into "5.1.D", before all other types of emergencies. - make sure that everybody includes canopy emergencies in 5.1.a, 5.1.b and 5.2. Instructors and coaches should emphasize these points - "Practice" emergency landings before every jump (same as cutaway/reserve) - improve 5.2 and 5.3.b to provide helpful guidelines, for instance like in the ISP (drills and skill checks) - ... There are actually lots of extremely good points in the ISP that could be highlighted, or even moved into the general recommendations. From a completely different point of view, I also personnally think that there is a question of attitude WRT landing fatalities. When people blame the landing fatalities on the high wing loading, lots of people think "i'll be fine, i have a conservative wing loading" (almost half the fatalities are at wingloadings from extremely conservative to reasonable). When people blame the landing fatalities on the low timers, lots of people think "i'll be fine, i have more than 500 jumps (more than 1/3 of the landing fatalities involve skydivers with more than 500 jumps). When people blame the landing fatalities on low turns, many people think "i'll be fine, i don't do low turns" (most of the deadly low turns were not planned). If you acknowledge that landing emergencies can kill everybody, including yourself, then it's difficult to hide the scary reality behind misleading thoughts. There is not much choice left than be prepared for these emergencies. Landing emergencies deserve at least the same attention as freefall emergencies, in the training, the recurrency, and our pre-jump preparation.-- Come Skydive Asia Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,990 #23 June 26, 2003 > Nobody needs a D license "if all they ever want to do is land a lightly loaded canopy straight-in." You need a D if you want to compete in open class. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #24 June 26, 2003 "If you're competing at the National Level for CReW, then presumably you're one of the best canopy pilots in the United States." I've never been to the US nationals, but entering a regional/national comp in the UK just shows that you managed to round up a bunch of pals, paid the entry fee, and are prepared to learn heaps and have a good time. Just because you enter a comp doesn't mean you actually have the ability to peform in it. As someone who travels around a fair bit, my D licence is more like a skydiving passport, nothing more, nothing less. I a leery of placing compulsory HP landings on a licence requirement, however you could do something similar to the British system, where your licence is updated to show Freefly/RW/Crw proficiencies in the form of stickers/stamps/endorsements whatever. You could have an HP (HP1, HP2, HP3 etc) licence which could be staged for different wing loads, and different levels of proficiency as described by Lisa et al way up the thread. But then again, I have a D license, don't indulge in HP landings, am on the same sized canopy that I qualified for my D, am not currently a USPA member, so why should I bother about all this? After all, it doesn't affect me, does it?-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #25 June 26, 2003 What will keep someone from not doing this, and getting a high WL? We have said before, the people that need the training are not going to take 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
