Re: [Kallend] Landing Injury West Tennessee Skydiving 07 May 2005

[Ron 10]

Quote

See now I disagree. Ten years ago when the swoop was still in its infancy, there really wasn't much advice going around - now, maybe this isn't true and I just didn't get lucky with someone to give me the appropriate advice. But honestly, if someone that I respected on the DZ came up to me and said, hey I see that you are learning to land fast, you may want to progress through high performance landings in a slow and controlled method - I believe I would have listened

Maybe, but the majority do not.

Quote

Honestly, there is no excuse for someone today in the sport of skydiving to NOT have that information. They should realize that people get in over their heads by loading up their canopies

They have all kinds of info...they don't listen.

Joey Jones is a great canopy pilot....He had 800 jumps on a 175 before he down sized. Rickster is possibly one of the best in the world and he jumped a progressive profile for thousands of jumps.

Now you have guys with 300 jumps at 1.6....It took Jones, Powell ect thousands of jumps before they had that wingload. They are the best, what makes these new kids think they can progress faster?

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

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

>Why draw the line where you want it and not where the sensible
>(aka whuffo) members of society want it?

Because I know more about skydiving than whuffos do.

I would argue that the average whuffo demonstrates more knowledge about how to avoid unnecessary risk of death than you (or any other recreational skydiver).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,112]

>I would argue that the average whuffo demonstrates more
>knowledge about how to avoid unnecessary risk of death than you.

I would disagree. I know as well as any whuffo that you can avoid any and all risks of skydiving by staying on the ground. Given that skydivers choose to take additional risks than skydiving, I know more about how to minimize those risks than whuffos do. Indeed, I have training in how to take whuffos and turn them into skydivers safely.

The issue is not, and has never been, that the really smart skydivers stay on the ground. The issue is that the really smart skydivers make jumps in such a way as to minimize their chances of injury or death. Some skydivers can do that better than others, just as most skydivers can make such decisions better than whuffos can.

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

the really smart skydivers make jumps in such a way as to minimize their chances of injury or death.

That is a delicious way of stating the problem, because it completely fails to account for the other reasons that people might do a jump or a maneuver in the first place. Some people find thrills in risks. It's precisely that safety is desirable only to a degree, and that there are always tradeoffs involved.

It's positively delightful that you are able to elucidate your preferences, but it is dreadful that you would recklessly attempt to impose your preferences on others.

nathaniel

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[billvon 3,112]

>because it completely fails to account for the other reasons that
>people might do a jump or a maneuver in the first place.

Not at all. If people jump, it is implicit that they want to do it. If people do big-ways or swoop, again, it is implicit that they are doing it because they want to. All those things can be done safely or unsafely. A wise skydiver knows the difference between the two.

> but it is dreadful that you would recklessly attempt to impose
>your preferences on others.

I do it all the time. I organize, I act as plane captain, I teach AFF - heck, I spent two years as an S+TA telling people what they could and couldn't do! Reckless and dreadful, perhaps. But I think the sport is better off when people try to keep new jumpers alive, rather than simply letting them die.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

It's positively delightful that you are able to elucidate your preferences, but it is dreadful that you would recklessly attempt to impose your preferences on others.

That is exactly what Instructors and S & TA's are supposed to do............

Derek

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Quote

It's positively delightful that you are able to elucidate your preferences, but it is dreadful that you would recklessly attempt to impose your preferences on others.

That is exactly what Instructors and S & TA's are supposed to do............

Derek

I think the "A" stands for "advisor", not "controller".

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

I think the "A" stands for "advisor", not "controller".

So you don't think an S & TA should tell a jumper with 50 jumps that wants to jump a Velocity 79 loaded at 2:1 and will obviously hurt/kill themselves that they cannot jump that canopy? You would be OK with the jumper going ahead and jumping it with the advice that he didn't?

You don't think an Instructor should tell a student what is and what isn't safe? I don't see a "C" that stands for "controller" in AFFI.

Derek

[EvilLurker 2]

Bill (and other instructors)

You may want to take into consideration that other people overhear some of the advice you are giving these students, and some of them take it to heart. I learned a lot while I was at the DZ from listening to what was being said in the "background", and even though it might not have penetrated through and made an impact on the student you were addressing, some of us listened and learned from it. It's very hard to tell what the impact of your information was, don't just limit it to the "immune" student
.
Now, here's what my thoughts have been (for quite a while now):
If USPA wants to intelligently teach HP canopy control, what's needed is a hanging-harness simulator system with a VR helmet that can be used to train/verify canopy skills. This is not a hugely expensive project, the entire set-up could be built for the price of a tandem rig (cheaper if USPA had it contracted in bulk from a major manufacturer). All facets of first-jump/malfunction/canopy control could be taught in safety, and it would be a lot more realistic than what's being used now at most dropzones. Simulating canopy flight is no longer out of the realm of possibility with a cheap PC setup and the graphics are realistic enough to provide an excellent training tool. You can rewind/replay what happened and give pointers/critique performance.
Now, put your student that is "immune to advice" on there, give them a high wing loading, and when they bounce (and they will), they're going to be a LOT more receptive to listening. Once they display proficiancy on the trainer, THEN go to the actual in-flight canopy training, at least the student will have a good idea about how something is supposed to look/feel/how fast it will happen, the lack of which is what really kills people.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

If USPA wants to intelligently teach HP canopy control

They don't.

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1612832;search_string=uspa%20canopy%20control;#1612832

Witht hat being said, VR canopy flight simulators exist

http://www.systemstech.com/index.php?pid=215

USPA isn't going to buy them, nor will DZO's unless they will make a profit off of them. They won't. They also currently aren't set up for HP canopy flight.

Derek

[billvon 3,112]

>If USPA wants to intelligently teach HP canopy control, what's needed is
>a hanging-harness simulator system with a VR helmet that can be used to
>train/verify canopy skills.

I don't think that will work well. Much of canopy control is not just looking; it is feeling the airspeed of the canopy, hearing the speed increase in the lines, feeling the unloading of the canopy when you begin the turn and the loading of the canopy when you start the planeout, the feel of the grass when it starts to hit your shoes, the changing pressures on the front and rear risers etc. All that would be missing in any reasonable VR simulator. Imagine, for example, how you would portray turbulence in a VR simulator (without a full motion body harness and wind generators, that is.)

[EvilLurker 2]

Quote

They also currently aren't set up for HP canopy flight.

Minor detail, that's easily fixed.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

I know - there are lots of warm and fuzzy ideas about what could be done, but that's a far cry from an actual curriculum.

Several exist.

Derek

Sounds like a Ross Perot line. 'We got plans!'

You need not several, but one, and could be spending this time refining it. Yesterday we had a Canadian instructor proclaim the PLF to be an obsolete concept. Do any others agree with him? Even at 1.0 in no wind, I come in fast enough that not knowing the PLF could lead to decent injuries.

Put together a canopy ATF. Then even if it's not implemented, lowtimers can opt to follow the program, without the big gap that exists if they just read Bill's downsizing checkoff list. If it includes information on technique evaluation they don't even need a CCI type to help mentor them.

[EvilLurker 2]

Bill,
Oh, I agree, it wouldn't be perfect, but it would be a huge improvement over what we're doing now. I could address the wind speed and sound very easily (you're already wearing a helmet and have the data available from the sim to drive the fan/speaker).
The turbulance/G-forces add a lot to the price, but visual clues are a decent substitute. It would detract from the HP/swoop training a lot, I agree, probably not as useful there.
I'm still of the opinion that USPA could do a lot better job of training/preventing injuries by concentrating on applying some modern technology in the fashion I described. I really didn't feel someone holding a glossy picture of a line-over above my head "trained" me to recognize a serious malfunction, for example. I had no real idea on my first jump what the relative size of the landing area would be when under canopy, I didn't have any "feel" for what kind of ground speed I should be witnessing in flight, what my landing point was going to be by "eyeballing", etc. None of those skills really require G-forces to be simulated and could be easily taught in a cheap sim. That's what I think USPA should be providing to the members, good tools for the instructors. You could even use them for tandems, it might convince more of them to come back and take up the sport.
Anyway, thanks for your view on it.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Minor detail, that's easily fixed.

Read Bill's post above yours, it isn't an easy fix, if it can be done at all.

Derek

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

I'm still of the opinion that USPA could do a lot better job of training/preventing injuries by concentrating on applying some modern technology in the fashion I described.

They could, but they don't want to. I made a link clicky above, good reading.

Derek

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

You need not several, but one, and could be spending this time refining it.

What's wrong with Scott Miller's or Jim Slaton's?

Derek

[billvon 3,112]

>Oh, I agree, it wouldn't be perfect, but it would be a huge improvement over what we're doing now.

I agree there. It might well have some utility as an "intro to canopy flight" thing, if modifications were made. I would worry that the money spent on these things might take away money more sorely needed somewhere else. If a DZO replaced an instructor with a videotape and a canopy simulator, for example, students might miss out on more than they gain.

>I'm still of the opinion that USPA could do a lot better job of
> training/preventing injuries by concentrating on applying some modern
> technology in the fashion I described. I really didn't feel someone
>holding a glossy picture of a line-over above my head "trained" me to
> recognize a serious malfunction, for example.

Hmm. Do you feel that students are unable to recognize malfunctions due to that training method? I've never heard of a problem with that.

[EvilLurker 2]

Bill,
I can only speak for myself, but I don't think casually looking up and seeing that you have a line-over is at all realistic. I have a feeling that I might first notice that I was spinning horizontally and freaked out, in which case I might be better served by initiating my EP than studying the canopy, as a first-jump student isn't really prepared to clear a mal other than line twists or closed end cells, maybe a stuck slider. I don't remember anyone mentioning or demonstrating how a line-over would effect flight, just a picture. So, I'd have to say yes, the real way to recognize that type of malfunction was poorly trained and I was taught an incorrect way to recognize it, in reality. How big a can of worms do you want to open here?

[billvon 3,112]

> but I don't think casually looking up and seeing that you have a line-over is at all realistic.

That may well be true, but the important question is - is it good enough? I don't know of too many students who ride lineovers in. It's certainly not in the top 10 of reasons skydivers die.

[EvilLurker 2]

Bill,

I guess it teaches you to look up and inspect your canopy, which is probably the whole concept. I'm all for that.
A line-over malfunction on the VR system presents you with visual clues showing that you are spinning/in an uncontrollable situation. I believe that is a more realistic way to present the situation that would actually occur, so I'm of the opinion it's better training.
If the student, after initiating correct EP, couldn't describe the actual malfunction type, I don't really think that's important in the grand scheme of things. Do you?

Quote

but the important question is - is it good enough?

Is that the important question? I guess we could conclude that all of our training is "good enough" right now and quit trying to improve it. I was drawn into this by the attitude from a lot of people here that it's not good enough, and that instituting new rules/BSRs, improved canopy training and W/L restrictions would save lives, so I threw my opinion out for a beating. I gave you my personal training experience, in hindsight, on how I thought it could have been improved.
I don't think you have too many students riding line-overs in due to the fact that it's a rare malfunction, especially with a good packer and a sub-terminal deployment (I'm ignoring AFF here). I've personally never seen one, so I can't comment on how well trained I was to recognize it. I've seen students with closed end cells do nothing until they cleared themselves many times, and I've seen them hang until line twists worked themselves out of their own accord a few times, so I think some of the training is not sinking in with the current lecture/picture technique (or we could attribute it to the student being in shock/stupid/ totally inexperienced).
I hate to comment on "is it good enough", because we're teaching a lot of people to skydive per year, most of them are landing at least close to the intended target, the injusy/accident rate is low, and many of them are pretty heads-up under canopy and following instructions/training, so I guess i'd say yes.
I do think it could be improved upon, if we decided to spend the money on training equipment that gave a better "feel" for the experience prior to putting someone out the door. Any low-timer could learn a lot on that VR system with the right software, and the beauty is it's available even if there's a weather hold, etc., so people could be practicing skills instead of watching video or playing grabass. You team this up with tunnel time and you could have a decent skydiver that had never been in an airplane, they go hand-in-hand. It's all about not spending the money, in my opinion.
Thanks for the feedback, you've got me thinking.

[EvilLurker 2]

Quote

Minor detail, that's easily fixed.

Read Bill's post above yours, it isn't an easy fix, if it can be done at all.

I meant the software in the current VR system could be easily modified to model a HP canopy (actually ANY canopy you can define the aerodynamics of), not that it could easily be modified to address all of the points that Bill brought up (and he brought up a couple of good ones re. HP landings). Everything but the G-forces and variable riser tension, though, is a pretty cheap fix from my perspective. Sorry for the misunderstanding, I should have made myself more clear.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Nah, I misunderstood what you meant
Derek

[crotalus01 0]

would the proposed W/L BSR be an over the board kind of thing or would jumpers be grandfathered in? personally, i made damn sure that i had the approval of my S&TAs and my coach before i bought the canopy that i am currently on (that most here say i have no business jumping). but a grandfathered system would do nothing for jumpers that currently do HP landings they have been warned against.

As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD...

[Hooknswoop 19]

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=740901;search_string=WL%20BSR%20proposal;#740901

Derek