Proposal: manufacturer's guidelines for loadings

[billvon 3,112]

I'd like to propose something to the gear manufacturers out there.

1. Agree on common names for skill levels (say, student/novice/intermediate/expert) and rate your canopies at each level, based on size and loading. Some manufacturers already do this (PD and Aerodyne both do) but even those two manufacturers don't agree on the number of levels or names of the levels.

Ideally this should correspond to the experience levels of the A, B, C and D licenses. Everyone progresses differently, of course, but if you could start with those as a very rough indication of skill, new jumpers might have a better way to decide what sorts of canopies to jump. It won't help people who learn much faster or slower than other jumpers, though, which is why we also need:

2. Agree on a set of skills to demonstrate before advancing to the next level. It should almost certainly include basic safety stuff (flat turns, flare turns, accuracy) and perhaps some demonstration of high performance canopy flight.

I've written letters to USPA and talked to the S+T guy about a similar program, but haven't made too much progress yet. Perhaps starting with the manufacturers is the way to go. Manufacturers, in general, understand their products pretty well, and most manufacturers have both instructors and good canopy pilots on their payroll. These are the people you need to determine things like canopy loadings for each level and skills needed to progress.

[AggieDave 6]

Not a bad idea Bill, but hell, they (the manufactures) can't even use the same standard of measurement for measuring canopies.

Then you get less scrupuless manufactures who insist their canopies "fly big" selling a higher performance canopy at a lower performance rating so low time jumpers buy it, stating that it out performs everything else in the rating bracket. Sure as hell it does, it shouldn't be in that bracket.

You and I have both seen that before (I'm sure you've seen it more then me in your experience), unfortunately.

I have a feeling that a majority of the "big boys" will see the validity and value to your suggestion, but until there is some sort of BSR in place (as discussed in previous threads, there really isn't a good blanket solution.

However, everything little thing is a start.

1. Getting the manufactures on board.
2. Trying to change the culture to insist on better and more current training and education (already starting due to DZ.com and the ISP in some part).
3. A BSR from the USPA.

The forth is the "final" solution, the one we don't want...

4. The FAA starts taking notice and steps in to "solve" our problem.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[phoenixlpr 0]

3 and 4???

Notice!
Those things are just for US, but the idea is global!!!!

[thepollster 0]

What, like 5-6 years ago, when PD had a 500 jump minimum to jumpt the Stilleto, and a waiver for the 97 and 107? It didn't work then, and now the problem of easy to obtain HP canopies has become so large, what can the manufactor do?

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

Ideally this should correspond to the experience levels of the A, B, C and D licenses.

I like the idea... just remember not everyone's a member of the USPA. EG, in the UK, D license holders have 1000 jumps minimum... Ozzys have E and F (?) licenses.

Jump numbers have their disadvantages... but at least they're global. Any ideas on a third way?

[Ron 10]

Quote

What, like 5-6 years ago, when PD had a 500 jump minimum to jumpt the Stilleto, and a waiver for the 97 and 107? It didn't work then, and now the problem of easy to obtain HP canopies has become so large, what can the manufactor do?

It worked. I had to talk to Leblanc when I tried to order a ST97 with < 500 jumps.

He finally agreed to sell me a 107. I ended up buying a 120.

That right there sold me on PD products. I often pay for a PD than jump another free canopy.

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

[billvon 3,112]

>just remember not everyone's a member of the USPA.

Agreed - which is why they should correspond to the experience levels of the USPA licenses, but not call out the USPA licenses explicitly. I'm less concerned about the 1000+ jump people since they're more likely to have gotten canopy control experience the 'hard' way by the time they get to that point.

[billvon 3,112]

>and now the problem of easy to obtain HP canopies has become so
>large, what can the manufactor do?

They can start off with guidelines such as the ones suggested above. That may be enough - such guidelines may be used by DZO's to say "hey, you exceed the limit and you only have an A license (or <50 jumps or whatever) so I can't let you jump that." Or it could be the basis of a BSR if it doesn't work like that. But in either case it starts with the people who know the canopies best - the manufacturer's.

[jumpwally 0]

Maybe they (manuf) should be asked what they feel is the down side of setting these standards. Then it would be known what their fears/objections would be. Just a start in the right direction i would think.

smile, be nice, enjoy life
FB # - 1083

[Samurai136 0]

Liability.

PD's present guidelines could be generally summed up as, "We make no guarantee's on the product. You know you are accepting a risk of death using our product. Your risk is significantly increased as your wingloading increases."
The more detailed you make the 'guidelines' the more ammunition you give a lawyer to sue any manufacturer.

Ken

"Buttons aren't toys." - Trillian
Ken

[tdog 0]

Quote

I'd like to propose something to the gear manufacturers out there.

Perhaps we can steal in idea from our paragliding friends... Look at DHV ratings for paragliders. http://www.dhv.de/typo/DHV_OeAeC_classifica.831.0.html

But, it is DHV, not the manufactures, that rate the canopies... And look at the reports - you even get performance data... Wouldn't it be cool to know some of this info before you buy???

How about a third party doing the test flights and ratings? They could also measure canopy sizes using the same yard stick, and put together a complete report based upon standards without the manufacture getting involved...

See this real cool DHV report for a Gin Bolero…

http://www.gingliders.com/products/boleropl_dhv_m.php


or the gangster http://www.gingliders.com/products/gangster_dhv_xs.php

[EAerodyne 0]

Great Idea Bill,

I'd totally be in favor of such a proposal. However, until we can start measuring canopies in the same manner and obtain a standard with regards to that, the number on the side of your canopy is merely a number. In order to establish a wing loading standard, one would need to be starting from a mathematical constant.

Todays canopies are not measured equally, providing a host of problems to riggers, distributors and instructors alike. It is impossible to guide someone correctly without the correct information.

Perhaps Aerodyne should start measuring their canopies like PD does, due the fact that they own about 75% of the current sport market. However that information as to how they measure is not actually a documented item that we can adhere to or adopt.

I would prefer to have a measuring technique that is easy for the layman in the field to measure, and easy to understand. Which is exactly why I have chosen the method used by Aerodyne as our measuring method.

Kind regards and Blue skies

Bushman

[kelpdiver 2]

Does it need to be very complicated to still be of benefit?

Or is it enough to classify them as I (easy), II (regular), III (scary), and designate them:

I: students, A
II: B,C
III: D (or 500 jumps and canopy standards met)

Or on a WL chart, subtract a .1 for I, add a .1 (or 2 or 3?) for III. Leave II straight up.

Beyond 3, it would be pretty hard to classify without a magic constant. It seems like most would fall into Cat II. The marketing question would be how much pressure would there be to be a step lower to increase potential customers.

[billvon 3,112]

>However, until we can start measuring canopies in the same manner
>and obtain a standard with regards to that . . .

I don't think this is very important, because each mfr will decide what experience level you need before jumping (say) a Vision 117. If you measure your Visions such that they are 130's per PD's scheme, then you need less experience to jump the canopy you refer to as the Vision 117 - and it all works out.

>Perhaps Aerodyne should start measuring their canopies like PD does . . .

How about using Sandy's methods? They seem to be fairly consistent, and a lot of research has already been done. I don't know that it's so important that a 150 sq ft reserve is really 150 sq ft, but it IS important that all 150 sq ft reserves have a similar wing loading under a given load.

[billvon 3,112]

>Beyond 3, it would be pretty hard to classify without a magic constant.

How about A, B, C, D license? That's pretty straightforward, especially since our license scheme now more closely matches the rest of the world's (well, the UK and Australia at least.)

But in the end it doesn't matter too much what you call them as long as they're consistent.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>Beyond 3, it would be pretty hard to classify without a magic constant.

How about A, B, C, D license? That's pretty straightforward, especially since our license scheme now more closely matches the rest of the world's (well, the UK and Australia at least.)

With 3 groups, you have easy, hard, and everything else. With 4, you easy, hard, kinda easy, and kinda hard. It gets more difficult or just arbitrary to separate out canopies like the Vision, Pilot, and Sabre2 to say which side of that line they fall. Unless you had a nice formula that would rate the Triathon an 8, the Pilot a 17, the Vision a 21, and the Stilletto a 34. (numbers totally made up)

And you want the manufacturers to play straight up, and not feel the need to reclassify because another maker is playing a little loose to get more business. On that end, maybe the three groupings should be student/a/b, then C, then D, to encourage a longer exposure to each step in the progression.

[billvon 3,112]

>With 3 groups, you have easy, hard, and everything else. With 4, you
> easy, hard, kinda easy, and kinda hard.

To make it clear here, I'm not really talking about a single-word description of how a canopy flies. I'm talking about several agreed upon skill levels for jumpers (not canopies) so that manufacturers can decide what canopy they would recommend to a given jumper.

It's just like licensing. You need a D license to be an AFF-JM. Does that mean that no one with under 500 jumps has the skills to be an AFF-JM? No. Does that mean that everyone who has a D license can automatically be an AFF-JM? Again, no. It's just a baseline to start from, a minimum level of experience that's always the same so people know how many jumps you have (and what you've done) if you have a D license.

>It gets more difficult or just arbitrary to separate out canopies like the
> Vision, Pilot, and Sabre2 to say which side of that line they fall.

Exactly. So you don't even try. You just define the skills that an 'intermediate' jumper has (say, the ability to make basic flat turns and hold a heading in the flare, but not front riser hook) and then each manufacturer decides which canopy they want these people to use at what loading.

>And you want the manufacturers to play straight up, and not feel the
>need to reclassify because another maker is playing a little loose to
>get more business.

Well, that's where an organization like PIA or USPA gets involved to set the skill levels. I believe most canopy manufacturers are not "all about the money" and would not attempt to use the system to get unskilled jumpers buying dangerous canopies. That works out poorly for everyone in the long run - including the manufacturer when his canopies become known as deathtraps.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>It gets more difficult or just arbitrary to separate out canopies like the
> Vision, Pilot, and Sabre2 to say which side of that line they fall.

Exactly. So you don't even try. You just define the skills that an 'intermediate' jumper has (say, the ability to make basic flat turns and hold a heading in the flare, but not front riser hook) and then each manufacturer decides which canopy they want these people to use at what loading.

Quote

Fair enough. From the manufacturer perspective, you can decide which one is the B level and which one is the C.

But like black diamond runs at ski resorts, what one thinks is a B might be considered a C by the other guy. With each addition level of distinction, this becomes more of a problem. At 3 or 4, shouldn't be too bad. By 5, it might. Standardization is tough when there isn't even agreement about measuring size.

• Quote

Share this post

---

Link to post

Share on other sites