BSR proposal take 5 (or, the details of mine)

[billvon 3,116]

Since people are often asking "what BSR proposal are you referring to, anyway?" here is mine. It is very similar to the one Derek posted about some time ago, and the one we wrote to USPA about.

1. Implement the Canopy Coach rating. To get this rating, a jumper must first go through the BIC, then take a multi-day CCCC (canopy coach certification course.) This course will cover how to teach and evaluate canopy control to post-A-license jumpers, and will include training on drills, use of video, evaluation of results etc.

Once a jumper has the CC rating, he is considered qualified to hold canopy control courses. These would be offered to any jumper/group of jumpers for some nominal fee (or for free, if the CC chooses to forgo a fee) and will include a 'final exam' of sorts where basic canopy survival skills are demonstrated to the satisfaction of the CC on a given loading. This completion will be indicated in a logbook signoff, along with the canopy loading it was demonstrated on. This signoff can be used by gear dealers, DZ's etc to determine whether or not the jumper is qualified to jump higher performance canopies.

2. Add canopy skills requirement to each license level. To get an A-license, you already have to demonstrate some canopy skills on the proficiency card. Add B, C and D license canopy skills requirements. Here are some sample requirements; these (of course) can change.

A License
Front/rear riser turns at altitude
Braked turns at altitude
Braked approach
(Note - these are already part of the ISP; no change is required for these)

B License
Demonstrated canopy directional control during the flare
Same accuracy as current B license

C License
Double front riser approach to landing
Turn/recover during the flare (no degree requirement)
At least begin a flare with rear risers; preferably land with rear risers
Same accuracy as current C license

D License
Flat turn below 200 feet at least 45 degrees
Front riser approaches to landing, turning at least 30 degrees
Turn in the flare at least 30 degrees
Land in a >8kt crosswind
Same accuracy requirements as the current license

These requirements have been chosen so even jumpers at lower loadings should be able to accomplish them relatively safely. As always, any jumper who chooses not to perform these is eligible for a restricted license.

3. Add canopy loading limits to each license level. These should be:

A license 1.0psf
B license 1.2psf
C license 1.4psf
D license no limit

4. Add a provision to the SIM to allow a jumper to 'place out' of the canopy loading restrictions by demonstrating the skills appropriate to that loading level to a canopy coach. Ordinarily it would just be performing the license requirements for that loading. Once the jumper accomplishes these to the coach's satisfaction, he gets signed off to the next level. The signoff can be used by DZO's and gear dealers to determine max loading, and can also be used by the jumper to get the next license once he has the jump numbers.

[pilotdave 0]

Just curious... do you consider double front riser approaches a survival skill or a stepping stone to get into swooping?

Dave

[kallend 2,148]

...

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

[kelpdiver 2]

seems reasonable enough, even without figuring out all the little details. Does ok on the simplicity standpoint too.

Lowtimers looking to get their first rig might delay it 20 jumps till they have their B, or it may encourage everyone to work on 10m accuracy earlier on. Either way, not the same pain that requiring 200 jumps would have entailed.

I didn't think D's had any accuracy requirements to meet. Just get 500, and those two night jumps.

[jdfreefly 1]

I like the wing loading portion of this. I'm not so sure about the front riser requirements. I would be worried it would encourage people to get involved with front riser maneuvers who would have otherwise stayed away from them. That doesn't mean I am dead set against the idea, just uncertain.

Maybe add a rear riser landing to the C or D requirements. I feel like it is a skill people should learn and they generaly don't.

Also, in the instructor manual, we would want to add a reference for teaching. I know you have your 7 things people should be able to do before downsizing. Things like that need to be in there.

There should also be a section on the progression of getting to know a new canopy, ie - what drills to cycle through to familiarize yourself with the new smaller canopy you just started jumping.

edit - bills list has 7 things, not 10

Methane Freefly - got stink?

[billvon 3,116]

>do you consider double front riser approaches a survival skill or a
>stepping stone to get into swooping?

Sort of both. It's the simplest HP landing manuever there is; it demonstrates the minimum amount of skill you need to be able to do HP landings. So for anyone who ever intends to do HP landings, it's a survival skill.

[MarkM 0]

One thing I like about it is that with the WL restrictions, there would actually be a reason to get your B.

[billvon 3,116]

>I'm not so sure about the front riser requirements. I would be
>worried it would encourage people to get involved with front riser
> maneuvers who would have otherwise stayed away from them.

Yes; it's one of those "add risk now to reduce it later" sort of things, but it's certainly bad to add risk for no reason i.e. if the jumper is never going to front riser. You could get rid of the turning front riser approach and just stick with the double fronts; that's a _very_ minimal risk for someone who is prepared to do it. The drawback of that is that people may progress to toggle hooks instead of front riser hooks because that's all they've trained to do, and that's bad news (I think.)

>Maybe add a rear riser landing to the C or D requirements. I feel
>like it is a skill people should learn and they generaly don't.

Good point. I will add that.

>Also, in the instructor manual . . .

Yeah, I don't know that I want to tackle that now. It would probably be better off coming from Jim Slaton, Brian Germain, Scott Miller et al, people who have done more canopy coaching than I have.

[parachutist 2]

Quote

B License
Demonstrated canopy directional control during the flare
Same accuracy as current B license

B license requirements looks a bit empty. I think a good addition at this stage would be: Jumper must explain the "accuracy trick" and show that he/she fully understands how to use it for accuracy from 2k ft AGL (this will help eliminate the get-home-itis because jumpers will learn to calculate where they're going to land. 'Oh yes... if I continue flying straight ahead I will land in those trees')

PD's explanation of this "Accuracy trick" is available online and it's a very useful learning tool:
http://www.performancedesigns.com/docs/survival.pdf

[altichick 1]

Over all I like what you are suggesting but it assumes that someone has the physical strength to fly front risers which not all jumpers do. With a system like this some of us may never get our C/D license

Don't sweat the petty things... and don't pet the sweaty things!

[dragon2 2]

In The Netherlands we require you do some frontriser turns for your B (up high, duh): first a 360 left and a 360 right, then three times 360 left and three times 360 right!!! That's two 1180 turns! On most probably a 170 sqft canopy...
Luckily it doesn't say how TIGHT those turns have to be!

ciel bleu,
Saskia

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Over all I like what you are suggesting but it assumes that someone has the physical strength to fly front risers which not all jumpers do. With a system like this some of us may never get our C/D license

I thought about that as well- with a Spectre 210 I had to do a flare and then a recovery to lighten the tension so I could get some front risers just briefly. But with a higher wingloading and more practice, hopefully it won't be impossible.

As he wrote it, you could still get the C and D, but it would be marked as restricted to the 1.2 limit of the B.

[cbain 0]

What about the ability to fly a pattern? dealing with traffic?

Christina

[chrisgr 0]

Great proposal. The simplified w/l chart tied to USPA licensing is excellent.

Suggestions:
Add dive arrest techniques to C or D license requirements.


http://www.uspa.org/publications/SIM/2005SIM/section6.htm#610c

"f. aborting a turn and recovery to flare"

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Quote

B License
Demonstrated canopy directional control during the flare
Same accuracy as current B license

B license requirements looks a bit empty. I think a good addition at this stage would be: Jumper must explain the "accuracy trick" and show that he/she fully understands how to use it for accuracy from 2k ft AGL (this will help eliminate the get-home-itis because jumpers will learn to calculate where they're going to land. 'Oh yes... if I continue flying straight ahead I will land in those trees')

PD's explanation of this "Accuracy trick" is available online and it's a very useful learning tool:
http://www.performancedesigns.com/docs/survival.pdf

The accuracy trick is already in the ISP. I had to know it to get my A license. But a retread would not necessarily be a bad thing.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[nate_1979 9]

Why not just scratch the License level vs. Wingloading requirements and go completely with the "you must qualify to fly a certain wing loading" requirement? I like the idea of Show me you have the skills to downsize and we'll let you do it, if you cant then you dont idea... Just seems that this proposal has already kind of done that, since you can "qualify" for a higher wingloading or get "restricted" lower than what you license says anyway right?

FGF #???
I miss the sky...
There are 10 types of people in the world... those who understand binary and those who don't.

[mattjw916 2]

Seems very reasonable and emphasizes training rather than imposing restrictions.

NSCR-2376, SCR-15080

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

I like the wing loading portion of this. I'm not so sure about the front riser requirements. I would be worried it would encourage people to get involved with front riser maneuvers who would have otherwise stayed away from them. .

Same could be said for night jumps.

...

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

[BIGUN 1,486]

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[pilotdave 0]

I agree about night jumps. If someone CAN do them with just a B license, I never understood why they should have to do them to get a D. Most people only do a couple night jumps under extremely controlled conditions though. And almost always get a briefing right before the jumps.

But swooping is very different from night jumping. Not everyone with a D license swoops. Why force people to start swooping earlier than they might otherwise start, if they ever do? I think teaching people that want to swoop correctly is important. But teaching people to swoop that don't want to swoop or otherwise wouldn't swoop is dangerous.

For most people, it is very difficult to become complacent on night jumps. Most people don't have the opportunity to do them very often. But I think if front riser approaches are taught as part of every skydivers path to a D license, you'll see even more people trying to learn on their own too early or too fast and get hurt.

Dave

[Praetorian 1]

ITS GREAT, I love the emphasis on training, am a little worried about the limited supply of coaches to begin with. I also like the idea of being able to test to a higher wingloading before the next lisence.

HOWEVER,

I feel you wingloading chart begins slightly too conservative and then jumps to too liberal at the end. I would have been over my limit till I got my B, with no test out I would have had to UPsize after my afp course... and why allow someone to jump to unlimited? is it the theory that by that time they will have the judgment not to kill themselves? why not continue with the prove you can fly it stratagy up into the 2:1 range? say you cannot fly a main until you have completed the A-D skill requirements on a loading within .2 of your intended main?

Good Judgment comes from experience...a lot of experience comes from bad
judgment.

[billvon 3,116]

>I feel you wingloading chart begins slightly too conservative and then
>jumps to too liberal at the end.

Interesting; based on most people's progressions around here it seems slightly conservative on both ends (to me.) Derek's proposal was 1.0/1.1/1.3/unlimited; those loadings might address your comment.

>and why allow someone to jump to unlimited?

I think at some point you have to let people go. The objective here isn't to keep people off certain canopies, it's to get them training. And if, despite our efforts, they have not gotten training by jump 500 - they probably never will.

[MarkM 0]

Quote

But swooping is very different from night jumping. Not everyone with a D license swoops. Why force people to start swooping earlier than they might otherwise start, if they ever do? I think teaching people that want to swoop correctly is important. But teaching people to swoop that don't want to swoop or otherwise wouldn't swoop is dangerous.

But I'm wondering if people should be on a higher loaded canopy of they can't use the front risers safely on a lighter loaded canopy. By forcing people to learn the mechanics of swooping, even if they aren't going to do it normally, you're giving them more knowledge about their canopy and you're forcing them to demonstrate a high degree of skill on their current canopy.

[billvon 3,116]

>Not everyone with a D license swoops. Why force people to start
>swooping earlier than they might otherwise start, if they ever do?

Same reason we require people to do RW for licenses even if they're freefliers. It does teach you something about a skill that you might need someday.

I agree that we should not 'force people to start swooping,' and that's the reason the front riser turn is barely enough to pick up any speed (30 degrees.) One option would be to do the demonstration so it just has to be on final, giving them plenty of time to recover to normal flight before the flare. That would be a non-swoop but would still demonstrate the ability to accurately fly the canopy in that mode.

>I think teaching people that want to swoop correctly is important. But
> teaching people to swoop that don't want to swoop or otherwise wouldn't
> swoop is dangerous.

>For most people, it is very difficult to become complacent on night jumps.
>Most people don't have the opportunity to do them very often. But I think
>if front riser approaches are taught as part of every skydivers path to a D
> license, you'll see even more people trying to learn on their own too
>early or too fast and get hurt.

You seem to be saying two different things here. One is that we shouldn't 'force' people to swoop, which I agree with. The other is that if you train people to do something they might do it, and that could be bad. But training them to do it safely is sort of the objective here. A great many people learn to swoop; if they do the turn to initiate it under controlled conditions, with an instructor/coach present, the odds of them learning to do it safely are immeasurably improved. If a DZ of 200 people has 50 poorly trained swoopers, vs the same DZ with 100 well trained swoopers - the second DZ is going to see a lot fewer incidents.

It's like stalls in an aircraft. Some aircraft can stall violently, but we still teach new pilots how to deal with them. I don't think we see a lot of people intentionally stalling their Bonanzas just because they know how to recover, although some do indeed go on to become aerobatic pilots who stall intentionally.

[okalb 104]

Quote

But swooping is very different from night jumping. Not everyone with a D license swoops. Why force people to start swooping earlier than they might otherwise start, if they ever do? I think teaching people that want to swoop correctly is important. But teaching people to swoop that don't want to swoop or otherwise wouldn't swoop is dangerous.

The more I think about it, the more I like the requirement for landing with double fronts. Look at it this way, if nothing else it will teach them that a little more speed on landing is not a disastrous thing. It could come in handy should they ever have to choose between a downwind landing or a low turn into wind.

-OK

Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana