Fast learners

[billvon 3,085]

>I'm not convinced that restricting wing loading on its own will solve this kind of
>problem.

Not completely, no. It's at best a partial solution.

>Yes, a high wing loading makes for faster crashes but if Sangi has lowered his wing
>loading by 0.2 or whatever, would he still have hooked in?

Probably - but his injury would likely have been something like a broken wrist or ankle. Had it been under a Velocity or Katana he would be dead. A large part of the "don't downsize so fast kid" rationale is to allow them to survive the mistakes they make so they can learn from them.

>Restricting wing loadings may reduce the severity of the injuries or it may not but I'm
>not convinced it tackles the root cause of the problem, which was essentially just plain
>old crap flying.

Agreed 100%. It just mitigates the mistake.

>Maybe it would be better to try and restrict the severity of the stupid shit people can
>do instead of just trying to make stupid shit slightly less deadly.

That would be great. But what could you have said to Sangi to make him do less stupid shit? Fortunately he upsized and that at least saved his life. What do you say now to Virgin-Burner (or whoever the latest pre-swoop-victim is) to make him do less stupid shit? If you tell him to be less aggressive he'll tell you "my instructors all have a bazillion jumps and I'm not going to listen to some Internet/visitor/non-instructor idiot tell me blah blah blah . . . . "

Again, perhaps you can't do anything - but getting him to upsize might just save his life.

And that's not a perfect solution, but it's a lot better than the alternative.

[JackC1 0]

>That would be great. But what could you have said to Sangi to make him do less stupid shit?

Saying things obviously doesn't work too well. I'm just not convinced that wing loading restrictions alone will make that much difference unless you are pretty draconian with them. I think having a hook turn ban on anyone under X jumps and a 90 degree limit on anyone with less than Y jumps etc. would work better and be just as enforceable as wing loading restriction.

[DaVinciflies 0]

  Quote

Sangi is an example of something, but it is not a canopy collision, so it is not very relevant to the point being made.

  Quote

Pretty good example of a high-speed canopy collision with the planet...it's a prime example of downsizing faster than his ability to safely do so. It's that what's being discussed?

That is certainly true.

And yes, this thread is about fast downsizing. However, the specific post of mine that Dave leapt all over was in specific reference to canopy collisions (a topic which was introduced into this thread by another poster).

• Quote

[DaVinciflies 0]

  Quote

Last time I checked, unless the USPA has a BSR in place to cover a situation, what is or is not allowed to happen on a DZ is left up to the DZO. Canopy selection is not covered by the USPA, and as such, the DZO is the one who has the final say. Do you think it's working?

So, the DZOs have the power to do something but choose not to. They clearly (with some exceptions) do not see a problem big enough to warrant more restrictions. As the USPA exists, at least in part, to represent the interests of the DZOs, why should they introduce regulations which the DZOs themselves deem unnecessary?

  Quote

  Quote

Sangi is an example of something, but it is not a canopy collision, so it is not very relevant to the point being made

No, the discussion is about reducing all open canopy related incidents, not just collisions.

No, the particular post of mine that you jumped all over was directly relating to canopy collisions.

[nigel99 577]

  Quote

>That would be great. But what could you have said to Sangi to make him do less stupid shit?

Saying things obviously doesn't work too well. I'm just not convinced that wing loading restrictions alone will make that much difference unless you are pretty draconian with them. I think having a hook turn ban on anyone under X jumps and a 90 degree limit on anyone with less than Y jumps etc. would work better and be just as enforceable as wing loading restriction.

But the other example is that girl from Hollister(?) that died from an un-intentional turn on an off field landing. I think it was a small elliptical canopy and less than 200 jumps. Many of the fatalities or injuries are where people don't intend to do a high performance landing.

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[JackC1 0]

  Quote

But the other example is that girl from Hollister(?) that died from an un-intentional turn on an off field landing. I think it was a small elliptical canopy and less than 200 jumps. Many of the fatalities or injuries are where people don't intend to do a high performance landing.

I addressed that further up thread.

To reiterate again, my point is that wing loading restrictions alone won't do much unless you are draconian with them. If you stick to Brian Germain's wing loading recommendations, that 300 jump wonder will still be able to hook himself in under his 1.3 loaded canopy almost as well as he can under a 1.5 loaded canopy. Likewise that 90 lb girl with 100 jumps will still be able to biff in under her 1.1 loaded Katana 107. You wont fix that unless you make the restrictions so seriously restrictive that you suck a lot of fun out of skydiving. You can however make a fair attempt at stopping the low experienced spiral-of-death addicts from claiming their Darwin Award by banning high rotations below certain jump limits.

[nigel99 577]

  Quote

To reiterate again, my point is that wing loading restrictions alone won't do much unless you are draconian with them. If you stick to Brian Germain's wing loading recommendations, that 300 jump wonder will still be able to hook himself in under his 1.3 loaded canopy almost as well as he can under a 1.5 loaded canopy. Likewise that 90 lb girl with 100 jumps will still be able to biff in under her 1.1 loaded Katana 107. You wont fix that unless you make the restrictions so seriously restrictive that you suck a lot of fun out of skydiving. You can however make a fair attempt at stopping the low experienced spiral-of-death addicts from claiming their Darwin Award by banning high rotations below certain jump limits.

Hi Jack,

Sorry I should be clearer. I think you are in the UK from memory, so possibly not familiar with the current US SIM.

The SIM recommends that A & B license holders (less than 200 jumps) stick to a maximum 1:1 wingloading, C license holders maximum 1.2:1 wingloading. Finally D holders 1.4:1 unless they get further training. SIM also recommends that 150 square foot and less are reserved for D holders regardless of wing loading.

This sound more conservative than Brian Gemains chart. The SIM guidelines don't seem to draconian.

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[JackC1 0]

  Quote

The SIM recommends that A & B license holders (less than 200 jumps) stick to a maximum 1:1 wingloading, C license holders maximum 1.2:1 wingloading. Finally D holders 1.4:1 unless they get further training. SIM also recommends that 150 square foot and less are reserved for D holders regardless of wing loading.

And how's that working? Obviously not too well otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[nigel99 577]

  Quote

  Quote

The SIM recommends that A & B license holders (less than 200 jumps) stick to a maximum 1:1 wingloading, C license holders maximum 1.2:1 wingloading. Finally D holders 1.4:1 unless they get further training. SIM also recommends that 150 square foot and less are reserved for D holders regardless of wing loading.

And how's that working? Obviously not too well otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation.

It is totally ignored. In fact very few people are even aware that this information is in the SIM. If it was moved from being 'informative' to being a requirement it would make a difference. The USPA is very light on regulation unlike many other national bodies. In fact the 'rules' (requirements) section of the USPA manual is only 2 or 3 pages long.

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[Ron 10]

  Quote

I'm just not convinced that wing loading restrictions alone will make that much difference unless you are pretty draconian with them. I think having a hook turn ban on anyone under X jumps and a 90 degree limit on anyone with less than Y jumps etc. would work better and be just as enforceable as wing loading restriction.

A WL restriction would be MUCH easier than a degree of turn. With a WL, you can prevent them from jumping it. A degree of turn requires you to observe the event.

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

[JackC1 0]

  Quote

A WL restriction would be MUCH easier than a degree of turn. With a WL, you can prevent them from jumping it. A degree of turn requires you to observe the event.

Maybe. But are you going to weigh people before they get on the plane? I can gain and lose 10lbs in a week. Maybe check their log book entries against jump ticket receipts to make sure they haven't pencil whipped anything? Compensate for altitude and temperature? Apply it to reserves? What canopy measurement system will you use?

In reality I guess what would happen is someone would ask "what's your wing loading?" to which the reply would be something within the rules and they'd be on the next load. You can't actually see a wing loading, you have to do some measuring and calculating stuff, but you can see a 270.

Obviously there are issues with both systems. Neither would be perfect. A level of common sense and trust would have to apply in both cases. But that is too much to ask I suppose.

[Ron 10]

  Quote

But are you going to weigh people before they get on the plane? I can gain and lose 10lbs in a week.

As a TI and an AFFI... I can guess a person weight pretty damn well. I do not think I am unique it that ability.

  Quote

Maybe check their log book entries against jump ticket receipts to make sure they haven't pencil whipped anything?

The same applies to the turn degree limits.

  Quote

Compensate for altitude and temperature?

Sure

  Quote

Apply it to reserves?

Of course... Reserves already have max weights.

  Quote

What canopy measurement system will you use?

The manufacturers.

See, none of this is hard.

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

[JackC1 0]

  Quote

As a TI and an AFFI... I can guess a person weight pretty damn well. I do not think I am unique it that ability.

That's it? You're going to recommend a rule based on guessing?

I think your credibility just left the building.

[wmw999 2,555]

He's going to recommend a rule that requires no ongoing monitoring as the jumping day progresses (or, really longer periods).

While increasing temperatures during the day, or a big lunch, can make small differences, and while 10 lbs can also make a difference, for most people, that's not likely to be significant. If it takes you from below 1.1 (or whatever) to just above, fine.

Having body weight judgment means that you can guesstimate, and if the canopy/body combination looks doubtful, ask for confirmation. ONCE.

If you have to monitor every jumper's every turn, then the DZ needs to assign someone to do that. AND they have to be able to recognize the canopies of people who are and aren't allowed to do those turns.

Mistake-proofing (which requiring larger canopies to compensate for lack of experience is, sort of) is a far better way to build something than checking for errors on every execution.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Ron 10]

  Quote

That's it? You're going to recommend a rule based on guessing?

I think your credibility just left the building.

No, but it is pretty clear you are just looking to nit pick anyway. It does not take a genius to see if a guy you weighed last week gained a bunch of weight.

Your 'suggestion' required monitoring every single jumper on every single jump.

It is pretty clear you have no real suggestion and are just trying to nit pick others.

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

[craigbey 0]

  Quote

So, the DZOs have the power to do something but choose not to. They clearly (with some exceptions) do not see a problem big enough to warrant more restrictions. As the USPA exists, at least in part, to represent the interests of the DZOs, why should they introduce regulations which the DZOs themselves deem unnecessary?

Don't put this all on the DZOs. They will be more effective -- and so will we -- at addressing this problem if our elected officials in the USPA stepped up and did something other than issue a press release to group members.

Example: Some time ago, a young jumper with about 50 jumps was about to purchase a complete kit with a Sabre150 canopy. This represented a significant downsize from the DZ's spare 190's and 210's that the jumper had been using.

The DZO sat down with the jumper and advised him that this was too much of a downsize and jumping the Sabre150 at just over 1.3 was asking for trouble due to the jumper's very limited experience. The jumper proceeded to purchase the kit anyway and survived ... despite numerous scrapes, bumps and bruises. The jumper used up a fair portion of their bucket of luck.

The DZO did what he thought was necessary at the time, but knew that the jumper could go somewhere else if he prohibited the jumper from flying the Sabre150 at his DZ. The jumper was already hitting other DZ's anyway, so how could this one DZO stop the jumper?

If there had been a more widely accepted set of rules regarding downsizing and those rules were more consistenly accepted and applied like pull altitudes, this DZO probably would have simply laid down the law and stopped the jumper immediately.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

  Quote

  Quote

So, the DZOs have the power to do something but choose not to. They clearly (with some exceptions) do not see a problem big enough to warrant more restrictions. As the USPA exists, at least in part, to represent the interests of the DZOs, why should they introduce regulations which the DZOs themselves deem unnecessary?

Don't put this all on the DZOs. They will be more effective -- and so will we -- at addressing this problem if our elected officials in the USPA stepped up and did something other than issue a press release to group members.

Example: Some time ago, a young jumper with about 50 jumps was about to purchase a complete kit with a Sabre150 canopy. This represented a significant downsize from the DZ's spare 190's and 210's that the jumper had been using.

The DZO sat down with the jumper and advised him that this was too much of a downsize and jumping the Sabre150 at just over 1.3 was asking for trouble due to the jumper's very limited experience. The jumper proceeded to purchase the kit anyway and survived ... despite numerous scrapes, bumps and bruises. The jumper used up a fair portion of their bucket of luck.

The DZO did what he thought was necessary at the time, but knew that the jumper could go somewhere else if he prohibited the jumper from flying the Sabre150 at his DZ. The jumper was already hitting other DZ's anyway, so how could this one DZO stop the jumper?

If there had been a more widely accepted set of rules regarding downsizing and those rules were more consistenly accepted and applied like pull altitudes, this DZO probably would have simply laid down the law and stopped the jumper immediately.

The DZO could have laid down the law and said "You aren't jumping that here, period."
He then could have called around and warned the other area DZs about this DGIT.
Some would have then prohibited the guy from jumping the too small of a canopy.
Others may or may not have.

There are DZs that won't allow this sort of thing, and if they get that sort of call, would be grateful for the information.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[Trae 1]

iney to "The DZO sat down with the jumper and advised him that this was too much of a downsize and jumping the Sabre150 at just over 1.3 was asking for trouble due to the jumper's very limited experience. The jumper proceeded to purchase the kit anyway and survived ... despite numerous scrapes, bumps and bruises. The jumper used up a fair portion of their bucket of luck.

The DZO did what he thought was necessary at the time, but knew that the jumper could go somewhere else if he prohibited the jumper from flying the Sabre150 at his DZ. The jumper was already hitting other DZ's anyway, so how could this one DZO stop the jumper? "
.................................................

That DZO's weak as piss.
Sat him down and talked to him and then let him do what he wanted anyway
This is why we have so many fuckin idiots in our sport now.

[craigbey 0]

  Quote

The DZO could have laid down the law and said "You aren't jumping that here, period."
He then could have called around and warned the other area DZs about this DGIT.
Some would have then prohibited the guy from jumping the too small of a canopy.
Others may or may not have.

There are DZs that won't allow this sort of thing, and if they get that sort of call, would be grateful for the information.

What you described doesn't happen often enough or consistently enough to be of any value.

[DaVinciflies 0]

  Quote

  Quote

The DZO could have laid down the law and said "You aren't jumping that here, period."
He then could have called around and warned the other area DZs about this DGIT.
Some would have then prohibited the guy from jumping the too small of a canopy.
Others may or may not have.

There are DZs that won't allow this sort of thing, and if they get that sort of call, would be grateful for the information.

What you described doesn't happen often enough or consistently enough to be of any value.

Now we're getting somewhere.

WHY doesn't it happen enough? If we can't understand that then no number of toothless USPA BSRs will make any difference.

[craigbey 0]

Don't waste your time trying to chase that goose. There are so many different reasons why some DZO's don't communicate with their neighbors that you could never address them all. Even those that do get along probably don't communicate enough as it is to provide a channel for something like what was suggested.

People will continue to find ways to jump canopies that are beyond their skill level. The most effective way to address that problem is a combination of more education, downsizing restrictions and advancement based on the demonstration of specific skills. USPA needs to ensure that is consistently applied across DZ's.

And yes ... there may be some rogue DZ's out there who won't follow the USPA rules / recommendations. That is another issue ... all together.

[DaVinciflies 0]

  Quote

Don't waste your time trying to chase that goose. There are so many different reasons why some DZO's don't communicate with their neighbors that you could never address them all.

Actually, I wasn't referring to why the DZO did not pass the jumper's info on to his neighbours. I was meaning we need to understand why he did not lay down the law if the jumper was in over his head.

[craigbey 0]

  Quote

we need to understand why he did not lay down the law if the jumper was in over his head

What law (i.e. restrictions)? How would the DZO know the jumper was in over their head? What standard should be used / enforced?

You do agree that more training should be part of the solution? What training? How do you ensure that the people that need it receive the training and can demonstrate proficiency?

What other tools does the DZO have that does not simply push the jumper down the road with the hopes that the next DZ will address the problem?


The absence of those things is all that you need to understand. Without those things, DZO's are more likely to ignore / avoid the situation, just give the problem lip-service or kick the problem down the road. Non of which address the problem with the unskilled / unqualified canopy pilot.

And yes, I know there are some DZO's who are already working towards implementing some of these things at their DZ's. Kudos to them.

[DaVinciflies 0]

  Quote

What law (i.e. restrictions)? How would the DZO know the jumper was in over their head? What standard should be used / enforced?

Common sense should be applied in the same way that S&TAs apply common sense for other safety issues. The DZO should reasonably be expected to know what is being done on his DZ, if not directly then through his safety staff. After all, it is his business and the buck stops with him.

  Quote

You do agree that more training should be part of the solution? What training? How do you ensure that the people that need it receive the training and can demonstrate proficiency?

Certainly I agree that training will help generally, but in this thread I was addressing what to do with those people for whom training will not help, because they won't listen. I offered up an alternative to a USPA solution, ie. a DZ-by-DZ enforcement solution.

  Quote

What other tools does the DZO have that does not simply push the jumper down the road with the hopes that the next DZ will address the problem?

If the DZ down the road accepts the "fast learner" then DZO #1 can't do a thing about it. But at least the impending negative publicity is not at his place of business. Just because you can stop people going somewhere else to do something dangerous, doesn't mean you should not try to improve things at your own DZ. That's just weak and burying your head in the sand.

  Quote

The absence of those things is all that you need to understand. Without those things, DZO's are more likely to ignore / avoid the situation, just give the problem lip-service or kick the problem down the road.

This is really my point. Do you think that just making a new rule or BSR at USPA level will change this? I do not.

  Quote

And yes, I know there are some DZO's who are already working towards implementing some of these things at their DZ's. Kudos to them.

Absolutely.

[danielcroft 2]

This discussion is interesting even if only for a look into the "find reasons why not" mindset.

This comes up time and time again (even for my relatively few years in the sport) and every time there's the "oh, don't restrict me" and "what about all these edge cases" talk. None of which actually offer any value but instead stifle constructive dialog.

Dave said it upthread a ways, what's the harm in having WL restrictions? No one has said anything to refute that question (or really answer it at all) in this thread (or any of the many others that I've read). The reason is that there is no harm. Will it solve all our problems? No, of course not. Are we aiming to solve them all? Sure, that's a nice ideal but realistically, it's never going to happen.

Any rule set down by the USPA will just be like any other BSR that the USPA sets. The majority of people will follow them most of the time and some people will circumvent them because they choose to. We're not going to be able to build a usable system of loading restrictions *ever* if we keep chasing people who deliberately ignore them. That line of discussion would probably be better off in a psychology class rather than here.

In my opinion the answer is to take our best bet and apply it as a BSR. New students will be expected to adhere to it. People who already own canopies will be grandfathered in, i.e. nothing has changed for them. The best bet that's been tossed around most frequently that I've seen is Brian Germain's list. Let's just make that a BSR and we can tweak it as we notice issues.

I'd happily go through any extra canopy requirements for my license if that's what was asked of me. I'd also happily participate in helping newer jumpers and talking to newer jumpers about what is and what isn't appropriate.

I feel like all us A Type personalities object to restrictions but for the majority of the people here, there'd be no change at all and no restrictions. Again, as Dave said, it would change the culture (like the minimum pull altitude BSRs) over a very short period of time.