Help the newbies to not break themselves

[Bolas 5]

I posted this in Allen's incident report but it may be better here...

Here's an idea for the swoop gods and more experienced swoopers these low jump number rapid downsizers are talking too.

Challenge them to a kind of swoop competition... the kicker is you use their canopy especially if it give you a lower wingloading or a bigger one of the same type to at least match the loading. Let them go first and land anywhere they want with whatever kind of approach they want. You have them watch as you do the same approach and start your landing in the same place they did and beat their distance.

The hope is they say "Damn, I didn't know that canopy could do that. How'd you do it?" Give them a few tips and then suggest they try those techniques out and in their mind they have kind of have a new goal they can try with that canopy.

If they come back again in a month or so just repeat the process.

Another not so hands on approach would be to make a swoop video with the larger more docile canopies. How amazing and mind opening would it be to see a member of the Pro Swooping Tour swoop a Navigator 280? Obviously it would have to be downwind...

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[Stumpy 284]

I agree, one of the earliest things i saw in my skydiving career was the cameraman who filmed my AFF1 landing his spectre 170 REALLY fast (and he wasn't that big a guy either) He looked way better than one of the instructors who was on a something-or-other-elliptical 100ish. That kind of stuff does stick in the mind....

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[grega 0]

Hmm you are definitely right, that all should know you can swoop with big canopies too.
But the key is in training.

Even with navigator 280 you can get seriously hurt if you dive into the ground, meaning that you try to do 360 but are way too low.

So the only way to really solve this accidents is by strict regulations and TSO checking each and everyone's canopies and skills.
If we want to have it safe i think it will have to go the way airplanes did. You simply have to have a licence for each specific airplane and you can get the licence by training under supervision. Similar should be with canopies. I think this is the only way.

People are just way too different to make some default regulations for how many jumps which canopy and which loading. Some have huuge egos, some want to swoop only to show off, other don't want to ever do a turn lower than 300feet,... You can have 2000 jumps and fly whatever you want? what if the person has 2000 jumps on parafoil with nothing but straight in approaches. Or you can have a supernatural talent that is reasonable, and is waaay capable of flying a better canopy at less jumps than the general regulations restrict...

Training for each canopy and each wingloading is the only solution if you ask me...

Sure you'll have to pay for the training, but that's the way it is for everything in the world (cars, airplanes, boats,...)

Just my thoughts..

"George just lucky i guess!"

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Even with navigator 280 you can get seriously hurt if you dive into the ground, meaning that you try to do 360 but are way too low.

True, but your far less likely to die or be seriously injured. Part of this is let them fuck up on big canopies where the likelihood of breaking something is less. Plus if a jumper gets scared/lucky on a big canopy they will more likely stay at that size longer and then have more respect for the next smaller canopy they jump.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[baa75 0]

To apply the same idea to driving a car, since you mentioned it...

Are you prepared to go re-take a driver's test for each new car you buy? Including the COST of the test and driver's ed for that car? Sounds ridiculous doesn't it?

People would get pissed and find ways around it. It’s the same in skydiving except that we drive as a way to get around, we skydive because we love it and its a FUN thing to do.

Personally I hate tests. The main reason I took the A license test is because of the limits put on those who are unlicensed. If I had to take a test for each canopy I have jumped and plan to jump I would get sick of it very quickly.

I understand wanting people to be safe but you can only regulate so much before you take all the enjoyment out of it.

BettyAnn

Getting married? Check out my website!

[billvon 2,991]

>Are you prepared to go re-take a driver's test for each new car you buy?
> Including the COST of the test and driver's ed for that car? Sounds
>ridiculous doesn't it?

It wouldn't be ridiculous if cars were all really different from each other.

Take a better example. Is it ridiculous to require people to take tests when they fly new types of airplanes? (i.e. complex, twin, seaplane.) If that's not ridiculous, why is it silly to require people to take tests to land a canopy that's nothing like their old canopy?

>Personally I hate tests. The main reason I took the A license test is
>because of the limits put on those who are unlicensed. If I had to take a
>test for each canopy I have jumped and plan to jump I would get sick of it
>very quickly.

And so you wouldn't downsize? Then the objective would be accomplished. You would be less likely to end up broken/dead _and_ you can keep jumping until your desire to jump a smaller canopy overcomes your dislike of a test.

[Chrisky 0]

I can't see how a TSO check would affect the problem, or any other technical check for that matter.

I think it would be a good idea for the pros to show off their skills on bigger mains to show people how much the pilot does compared to the wing. Instead of just talking about it. I personally haven't seen anyone swoop anything bigger than a 150 yet. (But i do believe that a good canopy pilot can make almost anything fly really sweet).

The mind is like a parachute - it only works once it's open.
From the edge you just see more.
... Not every Swooper hooks & not every Hooker swoops ...

[baa75 0]

Quote

>Are you prepared to go re-take a driver's test for each new car you buy? Including the COST of the test and driver's ed for that car? Sounds ridiculous doesn't it?

It wouldn't be ridiculous if cars were all really different from each other.

I can go from a old 1970's station wagon to a brand new sports car and no one asks if I can handle driving it. One would fall apart over 80mph the other obviously a lot faster. They accelerate differently as well as brake and corners are a whole new world.

Quote

And so you wouldn't downsize?

As I said, I'm horrible with "tests" so no, I wouldn't want to down size which means I would have been stuck jumping a 200+ canopy until I got tired of backing up with a slight breeze and got bored of being under canopy forever and probably quit.

I know this is an ongoing debate but I just can't see that the answer to the problem of people getting in over their heads is to make everyone have to take tests constantly. The people who really want to jump those canopies will still find a way to do it, the same as they do now. Buy from online instead of a gear store, borrow from friends, fake jump numbers to demo gear, etc.

Things like this would keep more conservative jumpers from progressing normally. I'm all for safety but I can't stand being regulated for every move I make. I skydive because it is a small chance at freedom from a very hectic/controlled life.

If I jumped something I couldn't handle and got hurt its my own fault. I made a conscious decision to do it and I get to suffer the consequences. It’s not like someone else strapped it on me and pushed me out. Maybe it sounds selfish but I just think people should sometimes be allowed to get hurt if that's the only way for them to learn. It’s just a shame the DZ takes the heat.

BettyAnn

Getting married? Check out my website!

[billvon 2,991]

>I can go from a old 1970's station wagon to a brand new sports car
> and no one asks if I can handle driving it. One would fall apart over
> 80mph the other obviously a lot faster. They accelerate differently
> as well as brake and corners are a whole new world.

The pedals are in exactly the same place. The steering works the same way. In many ways the sports car is _safer_ - better brakes and better steering. If you step on the brakes in either car the car will stop. If you floor either one and aim it at a bridge pillar you will die.

Now, compare a Manta to a Xaos 98. If you flare the Manta at 20 feet, or fly it into the top of a tree, or "stick out your arm to break your fall" you're probably going to be fine. You can land by pulling both brakes all the way down and holding them. You can play around with line twists for a few minutes. Doing any of those things on the Xaos will seriously injure or kill you. Hence the need for different training/experience.

> I wouldn't want to down size which means I would have been stuck
> jumping a 200+ canopy until I got tired of backing up with a slight
> breeze and got bored of being under canopy forever and probably
> quit.

Not to be cruel, but you'd also be alive and uninjured. That might not be the case if you follow the modern progression of "downsize as fast as you can until you get hurt, then stay at that size." In many places you can't do any sort of RW until you get your A license, can't do demos until you get your C or D, can't do night jumps until you get etc etc etc. Some people might quit because they really want to do demos but don't want to get their C or D license or PRO rating. And that's life. Demos are just too dangerous (in the judgement of USPA, which for the most part represents skydivers) for incompetent people to be doing them.

> Maybe it sounds selfish but I just think people should sometimes
> be allowed to get hurt if that's the only way for them to learn. It’s
> just a shame the DZ takes the heat.

In some ways I agree. But in many cases this isn't a risk people are accepting; the people who are getting hurt are often shocked afterwards that they couldn't pull out their swoop or turn at that altitude or whatever. You can't accept a risk you don't understand. That's one of the reasons for demo restrictions - hey, a jump into a high school football field is just a skydive into a big landing area, right? Until you do a few and realize how different demos are, you can't even make a good decision on the magnitude of the risk you're taking. Similarly, I think there are a lot of people who are jumping small canopies who are simply unaware of the risks they are taking. Sure, we can tell them, but they just signed a waiver telling them they're going to die in dozens of ways, so they just file your advice in the same place.

Once someone has a minimum level of education, I'd have no problem letting them jump whatever they want. But they have to get the education _first_, because until they understand what they are doing they can't even make an intelligent decision over whether they want to take that risk. A canopy class doesn't do you much good once you're paralyzed from the neck down, and that's a bad time to decide you didn't want to take that kind of risk.

[speedy 0]

Quote

I would have been stuck jumping a 200+ canopy until I got tired of backing up with a slight breeze

I get really tired of hearing this excuse for downsizing.
If the wind is too high to jump a 200+ then it is also too high to jump my velocity 90. I will back this up any time I am jumping in high winds. If I can jump my velo I can also jump the 200+. The wind speed is never a consideration in selecting the size of my canopy.

When jumping smaller canopies, forward speed in full flight does not vary that much, it's the sink rate that changes dramatically.

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[baa75 0]

The problem I still see is that the people who go along with all of this testing and regulation are the ones who would have been jumping a canopy sized right for them in the first place. The people who are going against advice and jumping canopies too small are still going to do it.

Back to cars...I have to get mine inspected every year and I do it but the people who have cars that wouldn't pass inspection find ways to get around it and still drive anyway.

Quote

Once someone has a minimum level of education, I'd have no problem letting them jump whatever they want.

Education is fine and I would have loved to have taken Scott Miller or Heath's class as a student or right after so I would have known more right from the start. Problem is, unless that is included in the student jump program many of us wouldn't be able to afford it. Besides that's its optional and there's no pass/fail it remains fun and people learn more when its enjoyable then when its a test.

What if I were to "fail" the test that is being proposed? Would I be told that I couldn't jump my own canopy? I would then have to pay for a rental until I was "allowed" to jump my own gear? How many F-U's do you think we'd hear on that?

BettyAnn

Getting married? Check out my website!

[baa75 0]

Quote

The wind speed is never a consideration in selecting the size of my canopy.

Well it is for me. I spent way too much time sitting under a 288 manta as a 120lb student and that meant being taken for a ride more than flying the canopy. Granted, I've learned a little more about how to fly that thing since then but I'd still rather be jumping my 150 than a 288 for many reasons.

BettyAnn

Getting married? Check out my website!

[billvon 2,991]

> The problem I still see is that the people who go along with all of this
>testing and regulation are the ones who would have been jumping a
>canopy sized right for them in the first place. The people who are going
>against advice and jumping canopies too small are still going to do it.

I hear this a lot, and it just doesn't happen any other place in skydiving. People who pull slightly low may just get some comments, but people who regularly pull at 1000 feet get grounded. They don't "get around it." People who can't do big-ways don't just dive out after a 50-way and try to dock on it; again, they get grounded. In general, they don't "get around it."

>Back to cars...I have to get mine inspected every year and I do it but the
>people who have cars that wouldn't pass inspection find ways to get
>around it and still drive anyway.

Most people just get their cars fixed. There are shops all over CA that will fix the problem and retest the car for you. It's expensive and it might take a long time, but most people take the time to do it.

>Education is fine and I would have loved to have taken Scott Miller or
>Heath's class as a student or right after so I would have known more
>right from the start. Problem is, unless that is included in the student
>jump program many of us wouldn't be able to afford it.

No problem at all. Small canopies are expensive too. Save money on both until you can afford to take the class. The proposal Derek floated a while back requires education only if you want to downsize quickly.

>What if I were to "fail" the test that is being proposed? Would I be told
>that I couldn't jump my own canopy?

If you had 100 jumps, no canopy training and were foolish enough to buy a Crossfire 109? Then yes, you'd be told you could not jump that canopy until you could prove competence under it. Much better to save the money on the Crossfire.

> I would then have to pay for a rental until I was "allowed" to jump my
>own gear? How many F-U's do you think we'd hear on that?

Same number of F-U's you hear now when people are told they can't jump their rig when it's out of date. But in terms of cost - compare the c

[odendan 0]

I am not a big fan of tests, and there are too many ways around it.

Good luck getting PIA to enforce such a system world wide (yes there is skydiving in other countries, and they do come here to jump every now and then).

And if we did use a testing system, I have a feeling that the muppet trying to get on a canopy that is already to small for him/her, would be more encouraged to work on the next size down, so he/she could save taking the test twice.

And as the student is getting ready for the test, how is he/she suppose to prepare? On a canopy that they are not being tested on? And who will enforce these tests? Do you know how many dropzones do not belong to USPA because they feel it brings them no benefit?

And what do you do with the visiting skydiver from a foreigh country who does not have the proper canopy rating?

I am sure we could find a lot of solutions to these small issues, however I am quite happy not seeing my jump tickets or USPA membership fees increase so we can enforce more rules and administer more tests.

If you want these kids not breaking themselves, encourage them to learn their canopies. As you said THE KEY IS IN TRAINING! Most skydivers look up to the instructors, staff and more senior jumpers at their dropzones, and will take their advice seriously.

It is our responsibility as experienced Skydivers/Canopy Pilots/Instructors to help guide these students. Peer pressure is probably the most effective means, unless your dropzone judges your coolness based on the size of your canopy (which I sadly must say I have seen before).

whips n' chains n' hand-grenades with a little ugly on the side.