WL recommendations

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Do you think that a landing accident somewhere in the US every weekend is acceptable? What can be done to change that?

this is a sort of distractor, as it depends how many jumps are being made every weekend.

how many car accidents are there per day? how many boating fatalities per weekend? at some point you have to accept that large numbers of people (the more popular skydiving becomes or the more time spent at larger dz's) will have a number of accidents that are simply not attributable to lack of skil or trainingl..

the question is how many is acceptable? 1 landing injury per 100? per 1000? per 10K?

have landing injuries over the last ten years increased out of proportion to total jumps made?

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

[craddock 0]

Quote

Ten years isn't enough? How many years worth do we need? How many injured and dead jumpers are you willing to help scrape off the landing area in the meantime?

So now we had a problem ten years ago? I never heard of this talk a few years ago.

Quote

Sorry if I'm coming off harshly, but I really can't understand how someone can be against reducing the number of times ambulances visit the dropzone.

And where did I say I was against this. Really? Where! You earned your name well Lisa. I made a comment about JC and why I felt he did not transition as fast as the current crop of jumpers. I made a comment that under some of the proposed BSR's I have seen I may have not continued to jump. I have many sports that I have competed in, it was hard enough to fit skydiving in back then. It would not have been that hard to quit since I had would not have been able to jump the canopies that got me addicted.
I expressed these comments based on someones post that this could happen, which someone elso though was ridiculous. And so now I am against reducing the number of fatalities?
Lisa- I coach and give canopy training and do the best I can to prevent seeing another fatality. I just choose to do it a different way than you. While your busy trying to change the system, I will keep teaching and sharing information that I feel is much more likely to save lives

Quote

Do you think that a landing accident somewhere in the US every weekend is acceptable? What can be done to change that?

Yes I do Lisa. In the US several accidents per weekend. I have been in sports were it was not at all uncommon to stop the competition because both ambulances were gone(several times per day!). I may have seen hundreds of broken femurs. This sport is very safe compared to what some do. I have broke dozens of bones in other sports. Never been injured skydiving.
You keep trying to change the rules Lisa, I will keep on trying to educate and save lives.
I'm outa here

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

[flyer299 0]

You know, I like Skydiving for its Freedom. I feel that I should have the ability to choose somthing stupid. And everyone should also have the ability (and I hope duty) to educate me as to why I shouldn't. Just because I can, doesn't mean I should.

I am in strong Favor of more eductions, guide lines and recomendations. Perhaps even a threshold that requries a sign off after additional training. But I am opposed to any hard rules.

[craddock 0]

Quote

as a sponsor of the PST, please do not try to enter competitions with your know it all attitude. I hate cleaning up messes. [/quote



Please do not tell me what the fuck to do, I too hate cleaning up messes

***You have people with a whole lot more knowledge and experience saying one thing and you saying things to the contrary -- who is most likely right?

First I do not understand how you know how much knowledge I have, nor how much experience. Second I have no idea what your talking about. No one has said that JC would have progressed the same in todays world, only that the current proposal would not have affected him. Did I say it would? Don't remember that. What am I arguing about?
If you all would stop arguing and put your efforts toward educating(those of you who may be qualified) something might actually get done about your problem.

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

[skybytch 273]

Quote

So now we had a problem ten years ago?

Where did I say that? Read it again and perhaps it will be more clear.

Quote

Lisa- I coach and give canopy training and do the best I can to prevent seeing another fatality. I just choose to do it a different way than you. While your busy trying to change the system, I will keep teaching and sharing information that I feel is much more likely to save lives

I'm not trying to "change the system" - I'm trying to do what I can to bring the issue of landing accidents and the need for more training beyond the A license to as many skydivers as possible, including those skydivers we've elected to run our organization. I see a problem, many jumpers with far more experience than I'll ever have agree with me on that point, and I know there is no easy answer. I'll support anything that will get canopy control training beyond the A license level not just available to EVERY jumper on EVERY dz in the US, but considered to be the thing you do if you want to go faster, stand up all your landings... or even just survive when shit happens to you.

I'm glad you're doing what you can do in your local area to educate people. Since teaching canopy control is not something I'm qualified to do, I'm doing what I can do - talk about it to as many people as possible, explain why I think there's a problem and contribute where I can (and feel qualified to comment) to a solution.

Quote

Yes I do Lisa. In the US several accidents per weekend.

Quote

And where did I say I was against this. Really? Where!

You just did.

I think that even one landing related injury that it's even remotely possible could have been prevented by better training is too many. It should not be normal for "femur" to be a verb. Education is the answer.

If you're against any form of requirements, how about coming up with something you could support? In your opinion, how do we make advanced canopy control training available to all and make getting that training as "normal" to the new skydivers of tomorrow as getting wet water training is today?

Quote

You earned your name well Lisa.

Like I haven't heard that one before.

[billvon 2,990]

>Perhaps even a threshold that requries a sign off after additional
> training. But I am opposed to any hard rules.

Not sure I understand that. So beyond a certain loading and below a certain experience level you'd need a sign off? Sounds good; that's part of my proposal. But how is that not a rule? Is the sign off something you could ignore if you wanted? If that's the case, well, that's pretty much what we have now - optional advice that you can ignore.

[Ron 10]

Quote

Just as examples, cross wind landing and declared accuracy (but not as stringent as Pro
rating).

Why not the PRO? I can do it under my 107 and 96? If they can't do it, they may not be able to really fly that canopy.

Ron

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

[Ron 10]

Quote

have landing injuries over the last ten years increased out of proportion to total jumps made?

Don't know, but I do know that the people who are getting killed under high WL have less jumps year over year.

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

[Ron 10]

Quote

So now we had a problem ten years ago? I never heard of this talk a few years ago.

This has been around since the first parachute had toggles.
First it was regular rounds vs modified.
Then Round vs steerable. Then round vs square.
Then 7 cell vs 9 cell. Then F-111 vs ZP...Then square vs Eliptical vs Xbraced.

The problem is that more jumpers are not listening anymore, and these new hot canopies are available to a guy with 200 jumps.

Ron

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

[craddock 0]

Quote

Yes I do Lisa. In the US several accidents per weekend.

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


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And where did I say I was against this. Really? Where!

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

You just did.

Said what? You really have to stop with this cut and paste. Because I would expect to see landing injuries means I am against reducing them? Come on Lisa.

Quote

If you're against any form of requirements, how about coming up with something you could support?

I don't recall ever saying I was against requirements but I am sure you can cut and paste that one. This started out agreeing with a post on one small point. Now you all think I am opposed to anything that will help. Just because I may debate a point on one side does not mean that is where I stand on it. Hardly. I it was that simple changes would have been made years ago.

Quote

In your opinion, how do we make advanced canopy control training available to all and make getting that training as "normal" to the new skydivers of tomorrow as getting wet water training is today?

I am not quite sure, but many of us never got wet. I suppose that comment will help Ron with his waiver arguement but it is hardly the same thing.

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

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

Ten years isn't enough? How many years worth do we need? How many injured and dead jumpers are you willing to help scrape off the landing area in the meantime?

So you have studied 10 years worth of landing accident data? You bothered to obtain the actual USPA database and analyse it?

Please give us a synopsis, the more detail the better.

...

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

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

Quote

have landing injuries over the last ten years increased out of proportion to total jumps made?

Don't know, but I do know that the people who are getting killed under high WL have less jumps year over year.

Really? Since when?

...

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

[skybytch 273]

Quote

You really have to stop with this cut and paste. Because I would expect to see landing injuries means I am against reducing them? Come on Lisa.

Okay, since you don't like cut and paste and don't seem to be able to go back and reread even your own posts... sorry for the waste of bandwidth here everyone...

I said -

Quote

Do you think that a landing accident somewhere in the US every weekend is acceptable? What can be done to change that?

You said -

Quote

Yes I do Lisa. In the US several accidents per weekend. I have been in sports were it was not at all uncommon to stop the competition because both ambulances were gone(several times per day!). I may have seen hundreds of broken femurs. This sport is very safe compared to what some do. I have broke dozens of bones in other sports. Never been injured skydiving.

To clarify, I asked if you thought one landing accident per weekend throughout the US was acceptable to you. You said yes, that many injuries are acceptable to you.

Did I interpret your words incorrectly?

Quote

I don't recall ever saying I was against requirements but I am sure you can cut and paste that one. This started out agreeing with a post on one small point. Now you all think I am opposed to anything that will help. Just because I may debate a point on one side does not mean that is where I stand on it. Hardly. I it was that simple changes would have been made years ago.

Your debating would carry much more weight if you'd take the time to find out exactly what's being argued before posting about it.

[Ron 10]

just look at the last two years John

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

[skybytch 273]

Quote

So you have studied 10 years worth of landing accident data? You bothered to obtain the actual USPA database and analyse it?

Please give us a synopsis, the more detail the better.

Did I say I had one? No.

What I have is a historical perspective. Unlike many debating this issue, I was a skydiver ten years ago. It's fairly obvious to me that, in my experience, more jumpers are getting hurt or dying under perfectly good canopies today than were getting hurt under perfectly good canopies in 1993.

I started selling new and used gear in 1996 - which was also before many of those debating this issue had even thought of making a jump. I sold far fewer used rigs for former jumpers who got hurt back in 1996 than I did in 2002.

I can't make data that doesn't exist magically appear. You know as well as I do that the information needed to make a decision based on statistics isn't available.

Oh, and I am glad that the Prof and others are picking holes in these proposals. Hashing it out here will make responding to the same nitpicking at the board level much easier.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Why not the PRO? I can do it under my 107 and 96? If they can't do it, they may not be able to really fly that canopy.

Just because you can't land in a 5 meter diameter circle on 10 declared jumps in a row doesn't mean you can't fly your canopy. Particularly if you are talking about an HP canopy. One of the things that Clint Clawson told me was not to worry so much about the spot where you touch down, but rather the path of your swoop. Yes, it is possible to do, but it is also possible to safely pilot and land a canopy and fly it well without hitting a tuffet 10 times in a row.

[craddock 0]

Quote

To clarify, I asked if you thought one landing accident per weekend throughout the US was acceptable to you. You said yes, that many injuries are acceptable to you.

Did I interpret your words incorrectly?

Yes you did, but you also implied that I am against reducing this number. Which is far from the truth and I do not know where you come up with it

Quote

Your debating would carry much more weight if you'd take the time to find out exactly what's being argued before posting about it.

Let me guess WL recommendations, Proposed bsr's
What? that's not it?
Or what your saying is that I am not allowed to debate a particular point within a topic.

Lisa mabey you need to go back and find out what points I was "arguing"

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

[craddock 0]

Quote

just look at the last two years John

Thank you, I think you just made his point

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

[skybytch 273]

Quote

Yes, it is possible to do, but it is also possible to safely pilot and land a canopy and fly it well without hitting a tuffet 10 times in a row.

But wouldn't you say that those who can hit a tuffet standing up 10 times in a row under whatever canopy they are flying are far better canopy pilots than those who can't? If someone can't hit a 5 or 10 meter target every time, aren't they less likely to survive landing in someone's backyard? Accuracy at the end of the swoop is a part of the major swoop competitions, isn't it?

[skybytch 273]

Quote

Let me guess WL recommendations, Proposed bsr's
What? that's not it?

Once again. Read the proposals. Then you won't have to guess, you'll know exactly what's being argued.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

But wouldn't you say that those who can hit a tuffet standing up 10 times in a row under whatever canopy they are flying are far better canopy pilots than those who can't?

Yes, but does that mean that someone who can only do it 3 times in a row, then land 10 meters away on the fourth try shouldn't be allowed to fly that canopy for non demo fun jumps? I'm looking for a compromise here. I didn't say that a BSR regarding wing loading is inherently a bad idea. But I think some people are taking it way too far.

Wouldn't it be better if a proposal was made that was less objectionable so as to have broader support then propose stringent requirements that will garner opposition? Something realistic that people could agree to is better than a drastic change to current conditions that will piss people off.

[Ron 10]

No, but its VERY plain in the last two years...This has been going on since 93..When the ST came out..But you didn;t know that did you?

Like I said read a little..then comment

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

[Ron 10]

Quote

Just because you can't land in a 5 meter diameter circle on 10 declared jumps in a row doesn't mean you
can't fly your canopy.

Why? It seems to me that if you can't plan your flight path to touch down then you still need work. Fences don't get out of your way...You can't tell a tree to move even though you have the sweetest surf righ between two other trees.
Stopping is a very good way to gauge if a person can really control his canopy.

Canopy control is not about just getting a surf...It is about controling the canopy and making it fly the path you want..including stopping where you want.

Ask Clint if he can do it...I bet he can..JC I bet he can also.

If you can control your canopy...you can do it.

Ron

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

[skybytch 273]

Quote

Wouldn't it be better if a proposal was made that was less objectionable so as to have broader support then propose stringent requirements that will garner opposition? Something realistic that people could agree to is better than a drastic change to current conditions that will piss people off.

I'm for anything that will have a positive effect on what I think the problem is. A solution based on education being available to all jumpers is my concept of the "best" answer. I don't expect to see any of the proposals I've read here going into effect exactly as written. I feel that working toward something that the majority can agree with is the point of these discussions. I'd like to see more jumpers putting out their own proposals and ideas.

Finding the least objectionable solution may not be the best answer though. Doing anything at all will piss some people off. If some recommendation/rule/limitations are put into effect we won't see the benefit of them for some time to come (assuming that they apply only to new jumpers and not every jumper - which I'm not sure isn't a bad idea).

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Ask Clint if he can do it...I bet he can..JC I bet he can also

Well, duh. The question is should you need to be a pro rated canopy pilot in order to jump your canopy? That's ridiculous. So where do you start? On a student canopy until you can get your pro rating, then you can move down one size to what's probably a smaller student canopy and get your pro rating again?

Once again, I like the idea of improving safety. But proposals like this will never fly. There will be fierce opposition to it, so what's the point. Come up with something realistic and I'll be behind it.