PhreeZone 20 #1 February 2, 2004 BillVon, Lisa, Chuck, Derek and Scott... Well done Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WrongWay 0 #2 February 2, 2004 I agree, props to the greenies.....but .........ummmm............any specific reason for this post?? Wrong Way D #27371 Mal Manera Rodriguez Cajun Chicken Ø Hellfish #451 The wiser wolf prevails. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skybytch 273 #3 February 2, 2004 Thanks Phree. Bill gets credit for the wording. Not that any of us expect it to change anything. . . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skymama 37 #4 February 2, 2004 Sniff...he left me off. The message is still there at least. I'm glad it got printed.She is Da Man, and you better not mess with Da Man, because she will lay some keepdown on you faster than, well, really fast. ~Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bendywendy 0 #5 February 2, 2004 I'm confused. I've been out of town and away from the computer - did I miss something??? But yeah - good job!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skymama 37 #6 February 2, 2004 Bill drafted a letter that appears in Parachutist this month.She is Da Man, and you better not mess with Da Man, because she will lay some keepdown on you faster than, well, really fast. ~Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 20 #7 February 2, 2004 Sorry Andrea... your name was'nt on the list Lets see how many other people know what I'm talking about.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #8 February 2, 2004 bah. I haven't got mine yet. can someone post it here?? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelel01 1 #9 February 2, 2004 I know! Now I can't wait to get home and read it! (Please, God, don't let it be about unnecessary post whoring.) Kelly Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skymama 37 #10 February 2, 2004 QuoteSorry Andrea... your name was'nt on the list LOL...I wasn't talking about you. I added my name to the list in the Team Room, but it's not in the magazine. I'm really glad it got printed all the same. For everyone who hasn't gotten their Parachutist, this is the letter Phree is talking about (copied from the Team Room): Over the past few years, we have watched as more and more people injure and kill themselves under high performance canopies. In 99% of the cases, this happens to a jumper who does not have the education and experience to fly his canopy safely. In the majority of cases, a larger canopy would have prevented the fatality or mitigated the injury. We, the undersigned, call on USPA to increase their role in canopy training to help prevent these sorts of fatalities in the future. It is our position that only education can prevent accidents like these. Modern, heavily loaded high performance canopies can be flown safely only after sufficient education and/or experience has been obtained by the jumper. We ask USPA to do the following: -Develop canopy skills requirements for the “B”, “C”, and “D” licenses that build upon the initial "A" license canopy skills. They should include canopy control classroom training, practical exercises, and a written and practical test. Once these are in place, add canopy type/wing load restrictions based on the “A” through “D” license, with a grandfather clause so this does not affect people currently jumping high wing loadings. As always, restricted licenses would be available for jumpers who choose to not participate. -To prevent exceptional jumpers from being held back unneccesarily, allow any instructor, I/E or S+TA to waiver these requirements based on a demonstration of canopy skills. -Develop a Canopy Instructor (CI) rating which focuses on skills required to safely land heavily loaded high performance canopies. Currently, many jumpers receive no practical HP canopy training at all; it is possible to progress through the ISP jumping only a 288 square foot canopy. With the rapid development of very high performance canopies, canopy skills are as critical for skydiver survival (if not more critical) than freefall skills. The intent of the CI would be to teach the canopy skills required for the new licenses, and to waiver those who demonstrate the skill required to progress to small canopies more quickly than their jump numbers would ordinarily allow. We recognize that any additional restrictions placed on skydivers should be considered very carefully; skydiving has never been a sport of heavy regulation, and regulations alone will not keep anyone safe. However, this is happening already; individual DZ's are implementing canopy loading restrictions with no education, no commonality and no way to "waiver out" of the requirements. We feel that USPA could implement a canopy training program that will educate more jumpers, be less restrictive and keep even pilots of very high performance canopies alive and jumping.She is Da Man, and you better not mess with Da Man, because she will lay some keepdown on you faster than, well, really fast. ~Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #11 February 2, 2004 As one of those who cannot be grandfathered in to this... BRAVO! My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #12 February 2, 2004 As a new A license holder, I agree! Bravo! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #13 February 2, 2004 Extensively discussed here 7 months ago. Do a search in Safety and Training on the topic of wing load BSR or canopy training. I'm pleased to see that discussions here have allowed them to refine and improve the original proposal.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaGimp 0 #14 February 3, 2004 well for my 2cents......some DZ's are already doing this....as when i was a C lisenced jumper i traveled to another DZ here in NC, and with my wingloading i was not allowed to jump my canopy at that DZ. and whats with the Gender specifics in the letter!?!? QuoteIn 99% of the cases, this happens to a jumper who does not have the education and experience to fly his canopy safely"Professor of Pimpology"~~~Bolas Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #15 February 3, 2004 if all DZs were under the same requirements, like they are for the A license, you wouldn't have had that issue with your canopy. You'd either have not gotten it in the first place, or you'd have a letter/waiver from your instructors saying you're competent, and therefore permitted. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflir29 0 #16 February 3, 2004 Well....obviously we need a set of rules from USPA to tell Gimp and others like him that he is incompetent and a danger to himself and others. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaGimp 0 #17 February 3, 2004 hey now...i wasnt a danger.....i was jumping a demo 150 awaiting my 139 to come in.....and the guy who sold me the 139 and let me demo the 150 is our regional director......just he wasnt around when i had that DZ owner call him but he did watch out for me and wouldnt let me jump a canopy that i couldnt handle."Professor of Pimpology"~~~Bolas Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflir29 0 #18 February 3, 2004 Quote hey now...i wasnt a danger.. Hmmmmm.....I guess I needed to include the [sarcasm].........[/sarcasm] for some readers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #19 February 3, 2004 QuoteWell....obviously we need a set of rules from USPA to tell Gimp and others like him that he is incompetent and a danger to himself and others. A uniform system would eliminate the hodge-podge of policies that more and more DZ are enacting, which are usually very restrictive (no one over 1.5:1, and only 1.5:1 if you have 500+ jumps, no exceptions at one DZ). Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaGimp 0 #20 February 3, 2004 QuoteQuote hey now...i wasnt a danger.. Hmmmmm.....I guess I needed to include the [sarcasm].........[/sarcasm] for some readers. no i caught the sarcasm...i have read enough of your posts....but i guess you havent read enoug hof mine......guess i still have to add faces for my sarcasm for you Clay "Professor of Pimpology"~~~Bolas Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflir29 0 #21 February 3, 2004 OK.....give me a Mulligan here. I've been up since about 130AM and worked 17 hours or so today. I'm what you might call....not all that coherent at this time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Aviatrr 0 #22 February 3, 2004 QuoteOnce these are in place, add canopy type/wing load restrictions based on the “A” through “D” license, with a grandfather clause so this does not affect people currently jumping high wing loadings. As always, restricted licenses would be available for jumpers who choose to not participate. I can't say I disagree at all...but, Bill, what kind of recommendations(wing loadings and canopy types) do you have for those limitations? You state that "D" licenses should have limitations as well for wing loadings....but would that also include jump numbers associated with those limits - or would D be "unlimited"? Mike Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaGimp 0 #23 February 3, 2004 i must add to this that we also have "reccomended" wingloading by jump number not lisence...which i agree with....haveing 200 jumps and a D lisence isnt much experience at all....on our DZ its 1000+ jump...use proper judgement So there is wingloading reccomendations for jump ranges below 1000."Professor of Pimpology"~~~Bolas Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Aviatrr 0 #24 February 3, 2004 Agreed....my point exactly...somebody with 500 jumps(according to the new D license requirements) may not be qualified/competent for a 2.3 or 2.5 wing loading on a crossbraced canopy. Mike Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yoink 321 #25 February 3, 2004 Kudos for taking a stand on what so many have been thinking but haven't the experience or balls to say. Hopefully the BPA will take heed on our side of the pond. Well done. Thanks for trying to keep us all safe. Will Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
