BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread)

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Of the 5 jumpers I knew who died in landing accidents, 2 had over 2000 jumps, one had around 1500, another 900 and a WL of 1.2, and one with around 300 jumps was jumping a Sabre loaded at <1.0

And had the BSR been in place when they started, maybe with a better CC foundation and learning process, they wouldn't have died under a good canopy.

The point is, the BSR will affect everyone that starts skydiving after it is in place in a positive way.

There is no down side to better education and training and keeping jumpers from flying too small canopies.

Derek

[pash 0]

I have almost no business addressing your stance on this topic as you've probably been around since skydiving started. I hope you can understand where I'm coming from and that what I'm saying is still respectful.

Quote

Why won't the BSR supporters delve into the stats and come up with the information?

From my point of view, I have valued EVERY bit of training and education offered to me. I think what the proponents are saying is that, for people like me, this would offer better education from the start and, therefore, it would be likely that fewer injuries and fatalities would occur to me over the years because my skydiving house would have been built on a more solid foundation.

It's clear to me that there will continue to be people opposed to "the system" and all the willy-nilly rules and regulations of "the man" but my odds of surviving will be better for the BSR. As for the others, they'll be the ones to prove, in their own way, that a BSR won't stop every fatality or injury.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Why won't the BSR supporters delve into the stats and come up with the information?

Maybe you missed when USPA took a stand against mandatory incident reporting or leaked confidential incident information to the prosicution on a case against a DZ. That has ensured that the stastics don't and will not exist.

Derek

[freakbrother 0]

Quote

Quote

Why won't the BSR supporters delve into the stats and come up with the information?

Maybe you missed when USPA took a stand against mandatory incident reporting or leaked confidential incident information to the prosicution on a case against a DZ. That has ensured that the stastics don't and will not exist.

Derek

I don't belive any fatalities have been covered up. The data are available.

What % of fatalities over the last few years involved inexperienced jumpers under high WL?

USPA has data on jump numbers from renewals. What % of <100 jump members died, what % of 100 to 200, 200 to 300, etc. Then you could see if the <500 jump folks are really the ones most in need of saving.

And it IS the job of those who want a new rule to do this.

.
.
www.freak-brother.com

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

I don't belive any fatalities have been covered up. The data are available.

Not, just fatalities, incidents, which includes injuries and fatalities.

There have been a lot of injuries in the past 10 years from people flying canopies they shouldn't be and from a lack of education and training.

Quote

Then you could see if the <500 jump folks are really the ones most in need of saving.

I've said it several times in the last 2 hours, if this BSR had been in place when they started jumping, it would have made a difference. It is very likely that some of those fatalities wouldn't have happened if those jumpers had a solid base of understaning to build off of.

Again, this BSR would affect every jumper in a posotive manner that starts jumping after it is in place. They would get the training has been missing ever since canopy performance took sucha huge step foward in the early 90's.

Quote

And it IS the job of those who want a new rule to do this.

No, it is the job of every skydiver to make things better and reduce injuries and fatalities, that includes you. What are you doing to reduce injuries and fatalities?

Derek

[freakbrother 0]

Quote

***

No, it is the job of every skydiver to make things better and reduce injuries and fatalities, that includes you. What are you doing to reduce injuries and fatalities?

Derek

Right now I'm helping you to eliminate the weak spots in your BSR proposal by bringing them to your attention before the BOD does.

.
.
www.freak-brother.com

[Ron 10]

Quote

Every counter point seems to revolve around philosophy and money. I quite like the philosophy of the leaders in this sport and I know they don't do it for the money.

YOU get to have your fast-ass canopy once you demonstrate you can fly it.

This is one thing I don't get. You can fly whatever you want once you prove it....

If you can do it then you will BE special ,and it will be proven beyond any doubt.

You can fly that tiny canopy since you earned it.

It does not get any bette than that.

I think many who oppose this are afraid they are not all they think they are. And they are afraid they will just be normal and not special.

Not all, but I think it is a fear of some.

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

[Ron 10]

Quote

The minimum deployment BSR says Ds can open at 2000, but few do so as a matter of practice, wouldn't you agree? And lowtimers like me open at 3500 or more even if 3000 is the line.

Great example....When the BSR came out people were pulling below 2 grand all the time. THATS WHY THERE WAS A BSR.

Now its not cool to pull low. When I started people still thought it was cool to pull low. Over the past 10 years that has changed. The focus on saftey is one reason.

A WL BSR might do the same thing....Take away the cool from high WL's.

Quote

That BSR is fairly permissive for normal practices. The 1.x for > x00 jumps chart is not. It would be the equilivent of setting As to 4000ft. Bs&Cs to 3000.

A's can't open where "D"s can

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

[Ron 10]

Quote

How about a gray-list.

Add MORE politics?

This shows you have not been to many DZ's yet.

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

[obelixtim 150]

So what are the "weak" spots in the proposal that you see????........Lets see them....

As for the people asking for "evidence" that a problem exists before you think a BSR is necessary.

I think we've all witnessed enough REPEATED incidents on our own DZ's to realise that there is a definite problem.....each of our DZ's are in effect a small VALID sample of all the DZ's in the country......so I think we can quite safely say the problem is universal.....even though concrete figures arn't available.....

For every jumper who hammers in and gets carted off to hospital or the morgue, there would be another 10 who bounced off the ground hard and been lucky to walk away with lumps and bruises and a slightly different attitude to the whole deal.....I've drunk a fair bit of their beer over the years.......

In fact here's a statement that'll generate a few squeals I bet.....but I'll make it anyway......

It would be very rare to find ANYONE who jumps a pocket rocket who didn't blow at least one landing, before they started showing a bit more respect towards its potential to injure them......they've learnt a lesson early on....

Thats usually what it takes.....a bit of a shakeup..... that they didn't suffer any major injury would be due more to good luck than skill......

I've always been one who's managed to walk away......but I've hit hard on a number of jumps, (but not while swooping.....I'm a bit more cautious after a few test jumps in the early days of ZP canopies).........

Be an interesting little exercise to see how many in this discussion could have used a bit more education from the start......although we understand a hell of a lot more about the problem than we did even 10 years ago....making the failure to act on it even more inexcusable........we really don't need more data......we need solutions.....

But I'm starting to get tired of this argument....I'm convinced already.......don't feel like justifying my position any more to blind sceptics....

My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Right now I'm helping you to eliminate the weak spots in your BSR proposal by bringing them to your attention before the BOD does.

You think you are helping. You are being a pain in the ass. You want to help? Come up with ideas, that is a lot harder than sitting back and trashing others. It is very presumptious of you to think you can just sit back, point out what you think is wrong, tell us to fix it, while you go back to what you are doing. You want in on this? Roll up your sleeves and dive right in. Don't sit on the outside and try to tell us what is wrong.

I know a record holding pilot. He has been flying a long time and built his own record setting airplane. His biggest pet peeve is when he is at an airshow, workig on the plane to get ready for a record attempt and someone will walk up and say, "Why don't you just_________." This person thinks that they can walk up and in 15 seconds, they can solve an issue that he has been working on for years. And then they shove anothe bite of hot dog into their mouth and wander off to the next airplane, to solve another difficult problem in record time. They think they are helping too. They aren't. They are just being aggrevating as hell.

Helping takes real effort. Saying, "Why don't you just__________." doesn't take any efort at all.

You are in the sinking boat. Don't sit there and tell someone they are lowering the life boat wrong. Grab a line.

Derek

[penniless 0]

Quote

Quote

Right now I'm helping you to eliminate the weak spots in your BSR proposal by bringing them to your attention before the BOD does.

You think you are helping. You are being a pain in the ass. You want to help? Come up with ideas, that is a lot harder than sitting back and trashing others. It is very presumptious of you to think you can just sit back, point out what you think is wrong, tell us to fix it, while you go back to what you are doing. You want in on this? Roll up your sleeves and dive right in. Don't sit on the outside and try to tell us what is wrong.

I know a record holding pilot. He has been flying a long time and built his own record setting airplane. His biggest pet peeve is when he is at an airshow, workig on the plane to get ready for a record attempt and someone will walk up and say, "Why don't you just_________." This person thinks that they can walk up and in 15 seconds, they can solve an issue that he has been working on for years. And then they shove anothe bite of hot dog into their mouth and wander off to the next airplane, to solve another difficult problem in record time. They think they are helping too. They aren't. They are just being aggrevating as hell.

Helping takes real effort. Saying, "Why don't you just__________." doesn't take any efort at all.

You are in the sinking boat. Don't sit there and tell someone they are lowering the life boat wrong. Grab a line.

Derek

You are being a bit overdramatic here. No boat is sinking. In terms of fatalities overall, currently they are lower per skydiver than they have ever been. Barry Brummit's old fatalities page had a graph that shows this very clearly. I don't think the successor page has it, but the numbers are still available.

[obelixtim 150]

Well said Hooky.......

I think there's more than a few on this board who are just wind up merchants (WUMS) looking for a bite.....I'm tired of them so I've almost given up responding.......got better things to do.....

My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

[penniless 0]

Quote

Quote

So you have no actual facts either?

I actually do. I've bore witness to many accidents that were never filed with the USPA over my 8 years in the sport. You have 6, I'd assume by now you've been exposed to the same amount of stuff that I have. I'd be extremely surprised if every accident you'd ever heard of or knew about was reported.

Quote

You just assume, and go on from there.

No, I was actually there. I've also jumped at a number of dz's over the years and EVERY ONE of them didn't always file incident reports for injuries.

If you were there and saw them, then they weren't unseen and unreported, were they?

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

No boat is sinking.

Um, right, it's a metaphor.

Quote

In terms of fatalities overall, currently they are lower per skydiver than they have ever been.

So you are back to the ‘their is no problem’ argument?

Injuries and fatalities from flying perfectly good canopies into the ground is on the rise. If you don’t see that over 6 years and 60/jumps a year, you should go out to the DZ more often. When I was skydiving, rarely missed a weekend, and when I was full time, I rarely missed a day at the DZ. Injuries and fatalities from perfectly good canopies is on the rise. A lot of skydivers that have been around a while see it. There are no statistics to prove it, because of USPA, but there are increasing.

We are way beyond whether or not there is a problem.

Again, you want to help? Help. Don’t just sit there and say, “Why don’t you just
_______________.”

Derek

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

If you were there and saw them, then they weren't unseen and unreported, were they?

You really are arguing just to argue.

Stop helping.

Derek

[pash 0]

Quote

If you were there and saw them, then they weren't unseen and unreported, were they?

You've got a tremendous number of skydives when compared to me. Have you ever seen an incident? Have you personally reported every one you've seen. I haven't and I've seen people break their lets already.

I'm a little baby in this sport that plans on looking out for himself and others because I believe in personal accountability and responsibility. I have no problem skydiving in the confines of a BSR. I'm up to it because I have the guts to let go just like you have to have at every exit. I'm convinced that the people here who have been in the sport 24 more years than you have been actually have better PERSPECTIVE. Bring the BSR on. PLEASE.

If you doubt the benefits of a BSR, just let some stupid ass like myself try to land and say "oh shit!!" as you're trying to pick up your canopy on the LZ. I just didn"t want any "personal freedoms" taken from me. So sorry.

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

You really are arguing just to argue.

It's not productive to go dismiss alternate viewpoints because you are not fond of them. That's a fallacy in and of itself. Regardless of experience, we should all recognize this.

Truly good ideas are forged and tempered by the fires of debate. Not extinguished.

nathaniel

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

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

The trouble with that is that each individual will have a different idea of what/who is safe. The ptifalls are obvious; people not getting on the list who should be, and of course, the inverse.

Sure, but those will be factors in any test-out scenario in the WL BSR proposal. They are, I contend, comparable between the two. And if it's a really big deal, there could be an arbitration policy. Both for WL BSR proposal test-outs and for contestation of probation.

In all cases, members that abuse the system should be sanctioned, just like the existing frameworks.

Example of arbitration policy:
1) both parties agree not to sue & abide by the decision of the appointed arbitrators
2) complainant puts up $50
3) USPA selects 2 or 3 uninvolved S&TAs or DZO's from other parts of the country to be the arbitration board
4) arbitrators evaluate the arguments & render judgement, judgement could include forcing the defendant to repay the arbitration fee to the complainant
5) arbitrators split the money amongst themselves, USPA keeps $5 to cover the cost of the paperwork & recordskeeping

Simple arbitration systems like this have worked well in other industries. Thinking big, I bet something like this might even have a place in the standard waiver, in which I suspect it may be already for some DZs. Having an arbitration body filled out with (cough, responsible) jumpers should make the process of deciding fact from fiction a bit more efficient.

Quote

The concept of the BSR, while it still includes people making a judgement call, it's a group of people, all of whom were voted into their position by the population to be effected, who are making a decision based on an ideal that will work for the masses (those of lower skill/talent included).

I contend that by the method used--jump numbers and wing loads--it's essentially impossible for it to be an ideal, and that in fact there's a greater inefficiency that the proponents would admit. Despite their best intentions & efforts.

I think the measure would be improved by cutting out that bit. I think that judgement, as all the posters we have on this board have demonstrated, is a little too elusive to be effectively put into written form, although not too elusive to be practiced & observed.

Quote

This is all leaving out the other side of your coin, the utilization of this list. How often is the list updated?

Lists are easy to keep, it could be just a phone call, or a website. I'd run a website myself, if you like. Tho I don't think it would carry much weight without endorsement--I should think many toes would get stepped on without the appropriate level of buy-in.

Quote

How does a jumper got off the list?

I'm open to ideas. The two that I've proposed so far are
1) automatic expiry
2) automatic expiry with conditions

Quote

How does a DZ access the current list?

If it was a website, then with a web browser. Maybe with a daily fax. Or a telephone call. Or perhaps many ways. Circulars might start to get expensive, but if there was enough buy-in the cost of a circular could likely be borne. Websites, on the other hand, are cheap. The USPA has already got one.

Quote

What separates a guy who 'needs a little guidance' from the 'crater to be'?

That's a particularly difficult question that a BSR can't solve. It's a judgement call, as it seems all of us have said at one point or another. It's clear in some cases, and less so in others.

I think one advantage that a gray-list holds over a whitelist (ie, the test-out condition of today's most popular rendition of the WL BSR) is that when a DZO or S&TA calls someone out, they would make a one-way assertion that the jumper is behaving dangerously. I think it might provide a harder target for legal action, and thus be easier for a DZO or S&TA to take action without fear of legal consequences should that the jumper involved should manage to hurt himself after the listing.

Some people have raised concern that a DZO or S&TA would be hesitant to whitelist a jumper for fear of adverse consequences if the jumper were to subsequently injure himself.

nathaniel

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

[freakbrother 0]

Quote

Quote

Right now I'm helping you to eliminate the weak spots in your BSR proposal by bringing them to your attention before the BOD does.

You think you are helping. You are being a pain in the ass.

I draw you attention to this post from a year or so back:

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=534587#534587

and compare it with Bill's version of the proposed BSR iteration in post #84 of this thread.

It appears that Billvon was and still is prepared to listen to others who have issues, and adjust to improve, while you just call names on those who disagree with you. I doubt your tactic will work on the BOD, but good luck.

.
.
www.freak-brother.com

[billvon 3,078]

>A more realistic analogy to driving would be: You are saying that it's
> ok to tailgate, as long as they are taught how to dodge the other
> car's bumper at last minute.

No, I am not saying that.

But let's look at your driving analogy. Let's say you are teaching your son to drive, and he asks you what to do if a car in front of him locks up his brakes and he thinks he's going to collide with it. Would you:

1. Tell him to plow into the car at full speed and hope the airbags work (because high performance turns at highway speeds are dangerous) or

2. Tell him how to best avoid the impact (i.e. use brakes/steering to mitigate or eliminate the collision)

I think any reasonable teacher would give them answer 2, along with information on how to avoid those situations to begin with. The best drivers know how to avoid dangerous situations AND know how to handle them when they do occur (which they do, even to cautious drivers.)

>Something that I think you do not realize, because you have about
> 4k jumps under your belt, is that low-timers have not trained their
> brains to interpret data that is incoming from their senses yet (air
> speed felt on the skin, G's felt through the leg straps, ability to
> judge ground speed and altitude accurately via vision).

Believe me, while I now find it easier to fly a canopy, it didn't come easily. I put myself in a wheelchair at about jump 150 because I landed on a windy day next to a treeline, and then tried to overcontrol the canopy after it lost airspeed. And that was on a PD190. The reason I am still skydiving today is that that didn't happen under a 120.

>So while you can teach them the theory of how to do safe low turns,
> you can not really get the knowledge into their heads until they
> have plenty of actual practice.

I agree! So give them plenty of actual practice.

[mjosparky 4]

Quote

Quote

If you feel a study is needed to determine something needs to be done and done soon, you are not paying attention.

2003 50% of fatalities in the US were under good canopies.
2004 40% of fatalities in the us were under good canopies.

How many of them would have been affected by the proposal? Were they ALL inexperienced people with high WL? THAT is the critical question.

I'll tell you what, I came up with the overall percentages, how about you come up with a break down of experience level. You should get total jump numbers, jumps on canopy involved, total time in sport and time jumping canopy involved.

Let us know what you find.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[billvon 3,078]

>How many of them would have been affected by the proposal?

Between 2001 and 2002, 13 people would have likely been saved by the above-mentioned proposal; that would have been a 19% decrease in fatalities. I did not consider serious injuries since they are almost never reported to USPA. See here for supporting data.

[mattjw916 2]

Anyone else think this thread has reached it's logical conclusion yet... we might as well debate gun control and abortion while we are at it.

How about closing arguments limited to 100 words each.

NSCR-2376, SCR-15080

[billvon 3,078]

>How about a gray-list.

Well:

1. How would you do this? We can't even get DZ's to send in incident reports on near-fatalities with any regularity; what incentive would they have to fill out a far less important piece of paper and mail it off? I know I had better things to do (like filling out logbooks, completing student paperwork, changing radio batteries etc) at the end of the day when I was in charge of student training at Brown.

2. Let's say they do that. How do they check? Do they call USPA every time a new jumper registers at their DZ? What if a DZ decides to operate on sunday when USPA is closed? Do we require all DZ's have internet access so they can access the records on-line? Or do we just say that new jumpers can't jump on weekends?

3. Let's say we do all that. We pass two new BSR's that say "all DZ's must enter incident reports concerning jumpers that have landing problems within 30 days or lose your group membership" and "all DZ's must check with USPA before allowing any new jumper to jump at their DZ or lose their membership." (Which is what you'd have to do.) So now the S+TA finds out that Joe Swooper is on the list, and goes to talk to him.

"So Joe, you had a few problems at your old DZ with your landings, huh?"

"Yeah, but I've made a lot of jumps since then, and got some training, and I'm really good now."

"Oh, OK."

Joe jumps and crashes and burns under his VX98.

"Hey, you said you were better now!"

"Get off my back! You're just like those other guys at XYZ DZ. I'm fine! You don't understand swooping anyway because you jump a big Nitro 108."

And we're right back where we started (but with lots more paperwork to do.)

I like the idea of a 'master list' to keep an eye on people, but I don't see how it would do much good. The people immune to advice will remain immune to advice at a new DZ no matter what list they're on unless they are forced to change. That force can come in the form of a broken femur (or worse), an S+TA who grounds him, a local wing loading rule, or a BSR that is enforced by the DZO. I think the BSR is the most consistent, effective and fair way to do it - because it will get them the training they need instead of a grounding.