kallend 2,148 #26 February 3, 2004 QuoteAgreed....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 Neither may someone with 5000 jumps and a AFF rating. I fail to see what numbers have to do with competence. You determine competence by testing it.... 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
yoink 321 #27 February 3, 2004 determine by testing???? So if someone with 150 jumps tries to jump a HP canopy and spanks in, they're obviously not ready for it?????? Sounds like Darwinism to me. While restrictions like this will put me in a bind (I won't be able to jump my canopy), I tell myself that all the people who've signed that letter have so many more jumps and seen so many more accidents than I have, that it just ain't funny. They wouldn't do this just for a laugh.. I guess they've just got fed up of seeing people bounce... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdog 0 #28 February 3, 2004 That letter is just stupid. What are you going to do, weigh people in as they are loading the plane so that you can check their wing loading? Force people to buy a new canopy because they gained 10 pounds and moved out of their approved wing loading range!? Tell an RW flyer they can't add weight to their belt? Furthermore, the current USPA A license progression requires you to explore the full range of canopy control. You learn how to explore the performance envelope of a canopy, all you need to do is apply this to each canopy that you jump. What else needs to be taught that experience and good judgment cannot teach? Surely you don't expect USPA to teach high performance landings. CRW should not be required to down size canopies either. I will never understand skydivers who want more rules. High performance landings are dangerous, learn to do them at your own risk. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkymonkeyONE 4 #29 February 3, 2004 QuoteFurthermore, the current USPA A license progression requires you to explore the full range of canopy control. You learn how to explore the performance envelope of a canopy, all you need to do is apply this to each canopy that you jump You are assuming that all the schools are teaching proper ISP; they are not. There is not a single dropzone in the state of Georgia so far as I can tell that is doing anything other than "old" seven-level AFF. Too bad. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdog 0 #30 February 3, 2004 QuoteQuoteFurthermore, the current USPA A license progression requires you to explore the full range of canopy control. You learn how to explore the performance envelope of a canopy, all you need to do is apply this to each canopy that you jump You are assuming that all the schools are teaching proper ISP; they are not. There is not a single dropzone in the state of Georgia so far as I can tell that is doing anything other than "old" seven-level AFF. Too bad. Yes, you are correct. But if you are not going to follow the current USPA recommendations to the letter, why would adding more regulations help? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #31 February 3, 2004 Outstanding letter, like a Brit before me said for his respective organization, I hope the CSPA pays close attention north of the border. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdog 0 #32 February 3, 2004 You know canopy manufacturers make recommendations regarding experience level and wing loading for each canopy design. This is really the only thing that makes sense, as different canopies can have very different performance at the same wing loading. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 20 #33 February 3, 2004 Yep, and I'm in the loading reccommendations of the manufactor of my canopy. Enforcing something as simple as the manufactors guidelines would greatly promote safer canopy piloting skills for the vast majority of jumpers. Simple tests to determine moving from one skill level to the next would be easy to administor also.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdog 0 #34 February 3, 2004 QuoteYep, and I'm in the loading reccommendations of the manufactor of my canopy. Enforcing something as simple as the manufactors guidelines would greatly promote safer canopy piloting skills for the vast majority of jumpers. Simple tests to determine moving from one skill level to the next would be easy to administor also. And how are you going to enforce it? Standing in the loading area and watching everyone step on a scale? Then checking the data against the max wingloading listed on their USPA member arm band which is required to board the aircraft? You're going to tell someone who just finished lunch that they are SOL because they are over weight now? The dropzone is going to be like a wrestling meet with everyone trying to make weight. What kind of simple tests are you referring to? There is already an accuracy requirement for each license. Do you mean a swoop test?! Surely you don't have to swoop to down size. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 20 #35 February 3, 2004 >Do you mean a swoop test?! Surely you don't have to swoop to down size. Nope. BillVon's got a list of skills to master before downsizing. That list is a good starting point. Things like flat/flare turns. Landing on rear risers only, things like that.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdog 0 #36 February 3, 2004 Quote>Do you mean a swoop test?! Surely you don't have to swoop to down size. Nope. BillVon's got a list of skills to master before downsizing. That list is a good starting point. Things like flat/flare turns. Landing on rear risers only, things like that. Well sounds like some good things to try, but again that is just the basics of learning a new canopy. Why do we need more rules when students learn how to explore the performance envelope of a canopy during the USPA ISP? As far as landing on rear risers only, no way! I can see practicing flares up high on rear risers, but no one should ever be required to land a canopy using only rear risers unless they want to. Depending on the canopy, that is just asking for trouble. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yoink 321 #37 February 3, 2004 Quote no one should ever be required to land a canopy using only rear risers unless they want to. Depending on the canopy, that is just asking for trouble. Are you having a laugh??? maybe landing on rear risers shouldn't be done just off student status or something, but it's a survival skill. It's very different landing with rear risers than just playing with them at 2 grand. This is something everyone should be able to do.... Will Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CrazyThomas 0 #38 February 3, 2004 I gotta call bullshit on this one. A letter recommending more regulations? Quote Over the past few years, we have watched as more and more people injure and kill themselves under high performance canopies. Quote Increased number of people in sport? In 99% of the cases, this happens to a jumper who does not have the education and experience to fly his canopy safely. Quote Major bullshit Quote How about looking like this?: In 99% of the cases, this happens to a jumper who does not have the judgement to fly his/her canopy safely. In the majority of cases, a larger canopy would have prevented the fatality or mitigated the injury. Quote [Nazi] So would have not allowing skydiving at all. [/Nazi] We, the undersigned, call on USPA to increase their role in canopy training POWER to help prevent these sorts of fatalities in the future skydivers from making their own decisions. 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, the cute part Quote with a grandfather clause so this does not affect people currently jumping high wing loadings. If you want more rules, everyone plays by them, or noone plays by them. As always, restricted licenses would be available for jumpers who choose to not participate. Quote And to aid with the "Good Old Boys" school of advantage and privilege for knowing certain people and kissing enough ass. -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. People are really getting this soft? People actually WANT more rules? this reminds me of the "Pussification of the Western Male" . Whatever. You can all fight about it when more rules start to bother you, or when they don't work quite as well as you intended them to. later, Thomas Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vdschoor 0 #39 February 3, 2004 Thomas, It's too bad you're bashing the letter like this, since there is a lot of good stuff in there. I think a lot of us on here know people that got hurt flying canopies that were not fit for them. Granted this is partially the individual's fault, on the other hand if there was a regulation around canopy loading it would be easier to ground these people, or because they were not allowed to jump those canopies the accident might not have happened. Of course someone doing something stupid under canopy could get hurt just as well on a very lightly loaded canopy as under a highly loaded canopy.. the injury would just be more serious.. I think with Bill's comment that people that are already flying these HP canopies should be excluded from this what do you have to worry? I didn't look up your profile but from your response I assume you are flying a HP canopy. Reacting with comments like bullshit is not the way to respond to something as serious as this. Thanks, Iwan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goose491 0 #40 February 3, 2004 Quotei must add to this that we also have "reccomended" wingloading by jump number not lisence. Yeah, I'm not interested in obtaining another licence... my Canadian A allows me on a load at any DZ in the world... if something changes, perhaps I will, but I'd just as soon spend the money on jumps and coaching. My Karma ran over my Dogma!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #41 February 3, 2004 Quotemy Canadian A You may want to get your Canadian B, since the A is very restricted when it comes to skydiving with other people and completely restricts anything past a 2-way. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goose491 0 #42 February 3, 2004 Hey Justin, True what you say, but I haven't had any problems getting on larger jumps. Like I said, If things get tighter, I'll look at getting a B. My Karma ran over my Dogma!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 20 #43 February 3, 2004 Your A probally won;t let you do some jumps like the Florida Keys boogie that normally requires a C. I believe that Vichy is also a C licence now too. Some DZ's do wind restrictions on licences also... the A can be limiting depending on where you go. As for Thomas... read some of his previous posts to get an insight into him. Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydiven4fun 0 #44 February 3, 2004 I think that this is something that has been long over due. As someone who HAS recently lost a good friend in this sport, WE as a community need to take it upon ourselves to help keep preventable accidents from taking place in the future. IN doing this we may at times get a lot of Flak from those we are trying to assist or help. But if in doing so you stop just one accident from happening, Then it would be well worth it.Still here after all these years Clayton Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goose491 0 #45 February 3, 2004 Thanks for the info Phree. Quote As for Thomas... read some of his previous posts to get an insight into him. I had made no reference to Thomas' post. However, perhaps you'd like to make your insinuation a little clearer? My Karma ran over my Dogma!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
deronde 0 #46 February 3, 2004 To draw a nice parallel (anyone is welcome to shoot this one down... this is simply my 2ct): Up until a couple of years ago the FDA used the "regulate-to-death" principal of ensuring that only safe drugs reached the US market. Over the past few years this has started to change into a risk assesment based approach. Without going into a lot of unnessary detail, this approach means that the FDA has become much more a teaching body, showing industry why certain checks are critical to the safety of a drug and much less a police-force who tells industry what to do. Result: same (and in lot's of cases improved) level of safety to the american public, less red-tape, better and most of all more open relationship with the industry. I agree totally with the content and (what I assume to be) the reason for the letter, but instead of regulating skydivers let's try and teach newby/unexperienced jumpers risk management. This so they understand what the dangers are, why it's important to take lessons in canopy control, and to assess for themselves if they are ready to handle an HP canopy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goose491 0 #47 February 3, 2004 Hear hear! Regulation blows! Wether or not this 99% figure is correct, education is just as valid an answer as regulation... IMO, a much better one. I doubt very much, this 99% figure but I hear a lot of "I told him so" following incidents involving low experienced jumpers under highly loaded canopies. Don't rely on someone else to impose rules on our population... Just educate your own and don't let people act stupid and go in on your property. Let's not forget that any DZO has the right to deny any jumper at any time! If you tell someone they don't have the experience to fly a certain canopy yet, and they scoff at you and go buy it anyway, don't let 'em on your plane! My Karma ran over my Dogma!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 20 #48 February 3, 2004 What this propose was was a "forced education" proposal. Its forcing people to learn new things about their canopy before getting a different license, its not about forcing weigh in's and other things like that. If you have an A and want the B, you'd have to demonstrate certian skills under canopy. You would be limited in your loading based on licence, but thats no different then being limited on pull altitudes currently on the same scale. Is 1.6 at under 100 jumps safe? There are more then one poster on here that thinks so and they are flying canopies loaded just like that. One in a similar situation died last year...Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #49 February 3, 2004 sure, regulation sucks. but, because most of the injuries and fatalities are canopy control related, its getting to the point that the USPA needs to regulate it, or the FAA will do it, and we probably won't like the FAA's version of regulation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #50 February 3, 2004 QuoteBillVon, Lisa, Chuck, Derek and Scott... Well done (and skymama ;-) I agree, well done. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
