I can't believe I pay for this crap.....

[davelepka 4]

Latest Parachutist, Capital Commentary, by Chris Needles.

The subject, canopy flight and it's related dangers, and how to avoid them. After some blah, blah, and yadda, yadda, he gets down to some bullet points on how to improve safety under canopy.

Bullet point #1 reads (I shit you not): Get Professional Coaching.

So you would need a professional instructor in that case, eh? I wonder where you would look for such an instructor?

IF ONLY THERE WERE ONLY AN ORGANIZATION THAT TRAINED AND CERTIFIED SKYDIVING INSTRUCTORS.

[freefalle 0]

Dave,
I don't mean this post in any way to be sarcastic so please take it as such, I want to learn more about your opinion. Are you saying you don't feel the USPA properly trains and certifies AFF instructors If that is what you are saying, why do you feel that way. I am not a AFF instructor, I don't really have the desire to be at this point. However, I think MOST of the instructors I have come to know are able to do the job. Are you refering to all instructors in general ie AFF, Tandem or are you just refering to the fact that there is not a certification for "canopy flight" instructors. Can you further discuss your position?

[raymod2 1]

You're just pissed off that he said he opposes a wing loading BSR.

[davelepka 4]

So the head of the USPA, the only organization in the US (that I know of) that certifies skydiving instructors, says in the same editorial that the USPA isn't getting involved in additional canopy instruction, and then his first reccomandation to those interested in not being an example in his next editorial is to seek professional caoching?

Is that not contradictory? Who is a professional? Where can I locate these individuals?

He freefly admits that open canopy incidents are the largest problem area skydiving has, and that the USPA, short of making assinine reccomendations, is going to do zippo.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

You're just pissed off that he said he opposes a wing loading BSR.

Yes, that does piss me off. What prompted my to post was that it seems they are also not going to persue the educational side of the problem.

I always admitted that the issue needed attention in regards to the equipment and the training. Up until this point I was hopeful that the USPA would at least pick up the educational ball and run with it. Somebody call my ex-wife, she'll be happy to hear that I'm wrong again.

[DrewGPM 0]

I think his point is that the USPA is telling us to get professional coaching, but they don't offer any instructor rating for the sport. A valid point of disgust.

Tandem masters have to be strong rated or vector rated. But they do have a USPA rating.

Brian Germain offers a Canopy Coach Rating. I trust him far more than i do USPA. Not sure if anyone else has a coach course designed yet. Drop zones should encourage instructors to get that rating, in my opinion. How many more fatalities and broken femurs are we gonna read about while USPA decides to do something about it?

I for one, am already promoting canopy control courses for everyone and encouraging instructors to take Brians coach course.

[YISkyDive 0]

Ok, this is a complex problem with no easy solution. But what I would see as a fix would be for USPA to set up another instruction rating. Just beyond coach would be a canopy control specialist. Same thing 3 days of class and evaluation jumps. These coaches would understand all aerodynamics involved with swooping and canopy flight, as well as teach students how to “fly” their parachutes. Not just drift around. This rating would give the canopy control specialist the right to the following...

1) Institute a manditory course for all canopy pilots interested in high performance landings below 400 jumps( or what ever jump number that is proper)

2) Educate the students in a 2 2.5 or 3hr sessions that will educate them on ALL canopy control basics. Flat turns, Braked Turns, riser maneuvers, toggle maneuvers and any other form of canopy flight. Primary point is to teach the students about the proper approach to high performance landing. I’m not saying a Germain level class, but damn well full of information to give everyone an understanding of not just “how”, but “why”

3) Canopy control instructors can evaluate student(learning swoopers) as well as give them feed back on their performance and sign a self tracked progression card. To keep cost down, no mandatory on field coaching can be instituted, but period review with the student is important, when they are doing their approaches.

Something following
50 double front riser approaches
50 90s
50 180s
50 270s

off of status

4) This would give the student the right to perform high performance landings in a "educated" form. This simply means that he/she is allowed to do high performance landings at any DZ with a respected certificate or card. Just like some one needs an A license to jump at another DZ, this gives them the right to do HP landings

5) The card should have 2 punch able slots. Follow the yellow card/ red card theory. If a pilot endangers himself or another, depending on the severity of the offense they could get a punch in a single hole, or a double. This means that card is not valid, and the pilot has to either repeat the course, or take the exam again to make sure they understand the issues of safety. If the pilot exceeds 4 punches in a year, then for the remainder of that year they are not eligible to perform high performance landings, because they are obviously a risk.

EDIT: card becomes invalid after 2 punches are made. a single card punch means probation

6) No one under 400 jumps can do high performance landings with out the canopy control rating. Those in place that already know how to land, can take the exam, receive their card and be on their way. A BSR would have to be instituted to state that high performance landings are completely unacceptable below the proper jump number.

EDIT: the bsr would have to follow that no one under X number of jumps can begin performance landings without the course. a basic jump minium should be set on the level which a student can enter the course. i would think its fair for students that demonstrate good skills to enter 50 to 75 jumps with a B lisence

i also think a BSR on wignloading is pointless, because people can kill them selves on anything. Thats not a contralable part of sport reliastically.

7) The course fee would have to be extremely cheep to make sure the most people could act in this, when they are ready. I would presume a 40 dollar fee. The canopy control coach would get X $ per student, the DZ would take half of remaining, and USPA would get the other to help cover the costs of implanting the new system.


I do not have a ton of jumps, nor a lot of educational experience beyond being a snowboard instructor. But I am doing my coach course this week, and have read the IRM. Education is the first step to this problem. Professional coaching is not always possible, and that’s why a new form of coach needs to be established.. because as this sport enters the "mainstream" so will swooping. As free style X develops more tricks, maneuvers and other highly hazardous things, people will want to try it. With out a solid skills set people will watch their hopes and dreams get crushed by hard landings.

This is just something I’ve personally thought up as a fix. Just my opinion.. and those jump numbers are all basic guesses, I can’t say appropriate numbers because I don’t have the experience.

-dave

[davelepka 4]

Thanks for helping me make my point.

100 jumps and 1 year in the sport, and you've got a plan.

30,000+ members, all dropping $50 a year, and the USPA has 'Seek professional coaching'.

[YISkyDive 0]

errr
completly read that wrong. Im sorry
Im really sorry.

Please disreagurd what was said in this post slot earlier.. I read that comptely wrong. Did not by any means mean anything against you Dave.. i thought you where saying something else.

My bad

dave

[DrewGPM 0]

don't be so sorry. You demonstrated why he is so pissed off at USPA. You, with 100 jumps, have formed a basic outline for a canopy coaching system. The USPA with thousands of members and countless years of working in the sport, won't come up with anything.

Why do we pay them all that money to renew if they can't do something that someone with 100 jumps can come up with?

[YISkyDive 0]

haha, no.. for a second i had a diffrent post.. i thought something else was being said.. and wrote a "strong" reply for a few moments. Then i realized what he ment.. and ammended it.

dave

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Ok, this is a complex problem with no easy solution. But what I would see as a fix would be for USPA to set up another instruction rating. Just beyond coach would be a canopy control specialist. Same thing 3 days of class and evaluation jumps. These coaches would understand all aerodynamics involved with swooping and canopy flight, as well as teach students how to “fly” their parachutes. Not just drift around. This rating would give the canopy control specialist the right to the following...

Add an emphasis on teaching flying in traffic patterns- might be in this paragraph, but not clearly.

I haven't gotten my copy yet (and who knows if I will), but it does seem like a copout.

[hufggfg 0]

I just thought you guys might be interested that here in the UK the BPA have over the last few months put together some new qualifications called CH and CP (Canopy Handling and Canopy Piloting) I think both of them have 2 different levels, which deal with a lot of the issues discussed here. I think it is just about to be implemented, and the last minutes of the Safety and Training Committee suggest that the new systems will become mandatory from the 1st June. If you're interested all the minutes from the BPA committees are online here

[Samurai136 0]

Dave, I see your point.

It is kind of sad that the USPA isn't doing anything to change, or improve, it's own rules about canopy piloting, safe piloting skills, having "USPA Certified canopy instructors", etc. On the other hand those changes being discussed really don't guarantee any improvement over the status quo.

A real change over the status quo is to have safer canopy pilots. The quickest route I know of to acheive this goal is Needles' recomendation to take a professional canopy control course. Why wait for the USPA to do something? A good solution to the problem exists.

Ken

"Buttons aren't toys." - Trillian
Ken

[Bartje 0]

Dave,

it is not only a problem in the states.
The same problem is also in europe.

The problem is that even federations do not have enough feedback to put a good program together.
Canopy is something what they can not put somewhere this moment.
Brian does have good guidelines already in his book but the problem is how to put them in a rule or coaching program.
I do not start the discussion from a few months ago back at the table but that discussion is one good example for that.

I do hope that federations will do something about the education for canopy instructors.
For the moment we only have Brians book, this forum and common sense.

A FreeFly Gypsy

[DJL 235]

I think the USPA is just acknowleding that there are better systems in place than what they can currently provide. If they got involved would it really be education or just regulation. Both would help but only education would improve the pool. I would personally like to see a canopy course as a requirement of, at least, the D license. I think the current license program is a joke. But I don't equate being on the USPA BOD as being at the forefront of canopy piloting.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[chrisgr 0]

It is currently very difficult to ensure that everyone gets the training they need. Voluntary CC coaching will not reach everyone.

One problem that I see from comments made by other jumpers is that they are not trying to swoop or execute high-performance landings, so they do not think that CC courses are necessary for them. They do not understand the value of basic CC coaching and education.

Many jumpers also do not understand just how much ‘they do not know’. A structured program that is mandated (e.g. tied to USPA licensing) could get jumpers started at the early stages of their skydiving careers and ensure that jumpers are exposed to the knowledge that they need to survive.

The irony to Needles commentary is that it was published in a magazine entitled ‘Parachutist’. The commentary is really lame and the USPA needs to buck up and enforce mandatory CC education and certification. They have certainly received plenty of input from various sources – including these forums. There are some very good programs on the table(s).

I think that their current practices present a certain amount of liability. This organization has identified and documented a problem such as canopy landing accidents that has led to the deaths of some of its members and injured many more. The USPA has stated that it is aware of the problem, but that it cannot or will not do anything about it other than make recommendations.

Quote

“I can't believe I pay for this crap”.

Well said.

[raymod2 1]

Quote

I think that their current practices present a certain amount of liability. This organization has identified and documented a problem such as canopy landing accidents that has led to the deaths of some of its members and injured many more. The USPA has stated that it is aware of the problem, but that it cannot or will not do anything about it other than make recommendations.

Now you're going to sue USPA because they didn't protect you from yourself? Stop expecting everyone else to look out for you and start taking responsibility for your own life. There is plenty of information in the SIM about canopy piloting if you take the time to read it rather than expecting to have it spoon fed to you. Thank god people like you are not running the USPA.

[chrisgr 0]

Nice response.

I have read the SIM and understand it very well. It is another example of the USPA avoiding the issue.

I certainly won't sue them and that is really not the concern. What does concern me is that they won't step up to the plate.

Do you wish to wait and 'see what happens'. Perhaps someone else will step in. Do you want that?

[eUrNiCc 0]

Quote

Now you're going to sue USPA because they didn't protect you from yourself? Stop expecting everyone else to look out for you and start taking responsibility for your own life. There is plenty of information in the SIM about canopy piloting if you take the time to read it rather than expecting to have it spoon fed to you. Thank god people like you are not running the USPA.

Here's a question for you... Why does the USPA "spoon feed" everyone who wants to get their B license a bunch of information about water landings? In fact... not only do they spoon feed you information that you can easily find for yourself in the SIM, they tell you exactly how to handle unintentional water landings whether you jump in the desert or at the beach, and then throw you in a pool and make you DEMONSTRATE your proficiency to a USPA INSTRUCTOR! Water training is something that could be easily taught to folks for which it is relevant at DZ's near water, and would be completely irrelevant to people jumping in AZ. Canopy control effects us all.

Now here's another question... When was the last time that there was an unintentional water landing fatality??? I can't recall one in recent history.

Perhaps it would do more good to replace or suppliment the water landing survival training and proficiency with a course in canopy control skills similar to what's offered by Scott Miller, Brian Germain and others.

Egad, A BASE life defiles a bad age.

[mattjw916 2]

Quote

Now you're going to sue USPA because they didn't protect you from yourself? Stop expecting everyone else to look out for you and start taking responsibility for your own life. There is plenty of information in the SIM about canopy piloting if you take the time to read it rather than expecting to have it spoon fed to you. Thank god people like you are not running the USPA.

Well said. The information is out there, i.e. books, videos, canopy courses, and plenty of people willing to teach. We don't need to create another "nanny state" in the skydiving world.

NSCR-2376, SCR-15080

[DrewGPM 0]

Quote

When was the last time that there was an unintentional water landing fatality??? I can't recall one in recent history.

Perhaps it would do more good to replace or suppliment the water landing survival training and proficiency with a course in canopy control skills similar to what's offered by Scott Miller, Brian Germain and others.

The fact that there hasn't been a water fatality in a while could very well be attributed to the required water training. I have 8 friends who are alive today because they had water training. They had unintended landings in Lake Michigan.

Just because you normally jump in a desert doesn't mean you don't need water training. Plenty of people travel to mexico and other places that are near water. Plus, you never know when you're gonna find that one river or pond in the area. I'd rather have the training and never need it. I say you have to keep that in there.

Canopy training should be part of the USPA student program. The ISP includes freflying....which graduates may or may not do after they graduate. In fact, some of the most experienced freeflyers feel that nobody with less that 100 jumps should be freeflying. But canopy control, which we do on EVERY jump, we don't teach. I don't get it.

We gotta teach it to them while the instructors still have some control. I hope drop zones will add canopy control coaching to help students. Students are looking things to do after graduation anyway...why not canopy control drills?

[ianmdrennan 2]

Quote

and plenty of people willing to teach.

I agree. Finding people who actually want to LISTEN is the problem. Lots say they want help, few actually heed advice. One of the funniest things I saw was a jumper at our DZ arguing with Ian Bobo about something he (Ian) was there to teach. You can't learn if you're already thinking of a defense.

Quote

We don't need to create another "nanny state" in the skydiving world.

I agree. Nor do I think many people want one. Alternatively people want all the freedom with none of the responsibility. We simply (generally in life I'm referring to) can't have it both ways.

It reminds me of a great sick time policy the company I used to work at had. That was until people abused it, so it was taken away.

It grates me that the actions of the few effect the many. Of course they don't give a crap about anyone but themselves to begin with - another part of the problem.

Blues,
Ian

Performance Designs Factory Team

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Now here's another question... When was the last time that there was an unintentional water landing fatality??? I can't recall one in recent history.

I know of 2 over the past 10 years.

1998 - student with a 260 in high winds that increased. No floatation. Loosened straps, but not clear if he got out of the rig.
2001- CRW pair blown over lake. Experienced guy stuck with his buddy, didn't have floatation or insulation in very cold water (40F).

The water training required for a B license only takes a couple hours and will always be useful. OTOH, a 'short version' Brian's class ran 15 hours. Even if you removed his material on psychology (which he would adamently object to) and did the minimum curriculum that everyone should know, it's a weekend course. Or a couple one day'ers.

• Quote

[YISkyDive 0]

I think that no one should deny water training. Every jumper at one point could be in a position to need. It has saved lives.

I think some just believe that a canopy course based around fundemtals would greatly help reduce the injury rate. This year has been insane with incidents, but at the same time as i went back and read them it seems that people getting hurt are either

A) experinced and something went wrong
or
B)inexperienced and getting some form of coaching.

only one incident i found (swooping related i think) was someone that was barking up the wrong tree and shouldnt have been doing what he was.

the bigger question is could a canopy control course help elminate a students or parachutists want to bury the toogle low to the ground. Aside from swooping, it seems that many deaths/ incidents happen from the notourious(sp?) low turn. how does a body like USPA teach that? It obviously is not stressed enough currently because so many incidents happen do to low turns. AFF doesnt talk about flying. AFF, at least mine, uses the shoulder highet / hip height toogle placement rule, but thats only for a little. People need to know how to pilot their parachutes like they drive their cars, input based on the situation not based on algorythim.

No body can sue USPA for how they manuver their parachute, but USPA may need to find a better education platform to help with educating people on the performance of a modern ram air parachute and what its capabilites are in the hands of both a good and bad pilot.

-dave