Ron 10 #76 May 20, 2005 QuoteI think you have 3 types of jumpers to deal with: 1- safety minded and willing/interested in canopy training. But availability, esp at smaller DZs, is limited. 2- jumpers that don't know what they don't know, if coaxed or forced into a CC would benefit. 3- jumpers that 'know what they're doing.' Would only take CC if forced. Would benefit from the technique lessons but would ignore the safety information. I see the CC as not being focused on HP landings so much as all the fundamentals on turns, toggle and riser inputs, dealing with traffic, so forth. As I read you I believe you're focused on the third group, but I'm not sure anything will be very successful there. Even a WL BSR has limitations, esp if you buy into the Skydiving article asserting that 180s and 270s are more dangerous on lightly loaded canopies because of the smaller altitude window. I've been more interested in helping the first two groups who are getting hurt doing low panic turns or not dealing well with out landings. That said, I don't quite subscribe to a live and let die attitude towards the third group because of the number of in air collisions. The thing is the first group gets instruction, the second can and is being talking into it... The third is hamering in. The programs in place that we already have work on the first two groups.....Now what to do about the third?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #77 May 20, 2005 I'm not sure the current supply is remotely close to meeting the needs of the first two groups, and I don't think it's comprehensive/standardized enough. It's geared to a large degree to what the jumpers present want to talk about. Given the depth of the subject, I don't think any weekend class can do it alone. Do you really believe it's just the third group hammering in? Last year had more than a few people inexplicably spiral in or low turn and it wasn't because they were running 1.7 on 300 jumps. In fatalities you got lots of people from the first two groups. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ianmdrennan 2 #78 May 20, 2005 QuoteIn fatalities you got lots of people from the first two groups. I agree - seems to be about a 50/50 split each year. Half intentional low turns into the dirt and half due to panic and/or bad planning. Of course, as usual we're talking about fatalities. If good INJURY data was available I'd figure we'd have a very high portion of the group in the small canopy/experience bracket. But that's heresay (or general observations) I suppose at this point cause there's no real data to back it up. Blues, IanPerformance Designs Factory Team Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
likearock 2 #79 May 20, 2005 QuoteI'm not sure the current supply is remotely close to meeting the needs of the first two groups, and I don't think it's comprehensive/standardized enough. It's geared to a large degree to what the jumpers present want to talk about. Given the depth of the subject, I don't think any weekend class can do it alone. Maybe they're not perfect, but at least it's a start. Certainly better than nothing. Quote Do you really believe it's just the third group hammering in? Last year had more than a few people inexplicably spiral in or low turn and it wasn't because they were running 1.7 on 300 jumps. In fatalities you got lots of people from the first two groups. Regardless, all three groups would benefit from canopy control courses. Is there any question that such courses should become mandatory steps towards getting a USPA license? Wayne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #80 May 21, 2005 QuoteRegardless, all three groups would benefit from canopy control courses. Is there any question that such courses should become mandatory steps towards getting a USPA license? It's in the discussion, but hardly settled so. You couldn't mandate now because there isn't the capacity to teach that many. Which is really my point in the last few postings. Brian G came through Hollister last year in Sept, last month as well. He might have fit another DZ in between, but I don't recall. In Sept people came from all over. Maybe 35 people in the two sessions. That's not a lot. I'm sure each of the DZs has someone that is qualified to do some degree of canopy coaching, but it's usually done when someone is having troubles with their landings, or for those starting HP. So what I've been pushing for, instead of leaping to the rule making phase, is to define a baseline CC course that would be appropriate and comprehensive for the A graduate. Maybe make it mandatory by B. List the set of skills considered necessary and a set of diveflows that would cover the bases. But leave it open for the instructor to exceed the criteria list. It seems silly to require education that isn't well defined yet, and it will help more people along. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #81 May 21, 2005 QuoteIt seems silly to require education that isn't well defined yet, and it will help more people along. It wouldn't be required until the course was established. How would you suggest it be mandatory? "A" license isn't feasable, too much too soon. They may never get another license beyond the "A". QuoteMaybe 35 people in the two sessions. That's not a lot. Exactly, great courses are available and people aren;t getting the training/education. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #82 May 21, 2005 QuoteExactly, great courses are available and people aren;t getting the training/education oh well... if you think making it 'mandatory' would change things you havent spent much time attempting to educate people... those who wish to learn, can, will and do... those who do not will never. No matter what the rules or how many hours of training you make them sit through... changing the culture, by making training and education "Cool" and pointing out the failures as why it is a good idea will do FAR more than making it a "regulation" i'm all for more indepth CC instruction at each stage of the licensing process, based on casual observation my AFF instructors taught me ALOT of things that were not mandated as part of the course... but making it a 'box to check' to get signed off for any given wingloading will simply increase the number of "pencil whipped" requirement that occur everywhere everyday...____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
likearock 2 #83 May 21, 2005 Quote I'm sure each of the DZs has someone that is qualified to do some degree of canopy coaching, but it's usually done when someone is having troubles with their landings, or for those starting HP. Exactly. The USPA could also have some kind of canopy coach certification to formalize the process and put more capable people out there. Quote So what I've been pushing for, instead of leaping to the rule making phase, is to define a baseline CC course that would be appropriate and comprehensive for the A graduate. Maybe make it mandatory by B. List the set of skills considered necessary and a set of diveflows that would cover the bases. But leave it open for the instructor to exceed the criteria list. Sounds like an excellent idea. The only possible problem, as Hooknswoop pointed out, a lot of people don't go any further than the A license and would miss out on the course. Quote It seems silly to require education that isn't well defined yet, and it will help more people along. It's getting better defined every day. To me it's clear that mandated education would be a much easier pill to swallow than mandated WL restrictions. Wayne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #84 May 23, 2005 QuoteI'm not sure the current supply is remotely close to meeting the needs of the first two groups, and I don't think it's comprehensive/standardized enough. Well then the USPA should do something about it huh? The thing is I know plenty of "qualified" canopy coaches that don't do anything on a weekend. The knowledge is out there, people refuse to seek it. QuoteDo you really believe it's just the third group hammering in? Nope, but if the people know what they are doing, are under a resonable WL for their experience and still screw up...thats human nature. I am all about people being allowed to make mistakes. I am not all about people thinking they know what they are doing, and not listening to advice, doing as they damn well please just cause they can. Accidents are gonna happen...This is a high speed high risk sport. But what sickens me is the people who don't bother to learn how to do it and try it. We will not let an AFF student even if he knew the risks do what he wants, why would we let a person just buy any canopy they want?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #85 May 23, 2005 QuoteQuoteI'm not sure the current supply is remotely close to meeting the needs of the first two groups, and I don't think it's comprehensive/standardized enough. Well then the USPA should do something about it huh? The thing is I know plenty of "qualified" canopy coaches that don't do anything on a weekend. If the USPA won't do what "we want" in this regard, nothing prevents us from doing so. Create a training package, let those idle canopy coaches advertize it, and the number taking such training will increase. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #86 May 23, 2005 QuoteIf the USPA won't do what "we want" in this regard, nothing prevents us from doing so. Create a training package, let those idle canopy coaches advertize it, and the number taking such training will increase. Those idle canopy coaches are not idle by choice. People don't seek them. The ones that seek the knowledge are arleady on a good path. Its the ones that do not think they need the training that are in danger. Short of forcing them they will not take education."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jsaxton 0 #87 May 23, 2005 It's always easy if you're not writing the code. It's hard to read? Well it was hard to write too! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #88 May 23, 2005 Quote Those idle canopy coaches are not idle by choice. People don't seek them. A lot of people don't shop that way, Ron. They prefer to see an offering with a price, see if that meets their needs and affordability, and then decide to buy, or to buy and modify. They're not a fan of asking for a price and then having to decide on the spot between paying it or giving a brush off to a fellow jumper at the DZ. Unless they're very scared by their landings, going to a random coach they may not know and asking, what will it take to make me better - feels like going to a shrink and saying, make my mind whole again. $150/hr for as long as the shrink feels right isn't an easy purchase to budget for. http://www.skydiveelsinore.com/teams/Flight-1/index.html Elsinore's page is a good example of how to announce the available coaching. IIRC, they have printer fliers in a few locations on the DZ as well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
