BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread)

[mjosparky 4]

Quote

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?

You are busting everyone ass because you say there is not data to support it. Then you come up with statements like this. Thats not data, thats just you standing around watching again.
Can you give me the dates, times, age, gender, canopy type, experience and cause of death on these "No, I was actually there" incidents you are so proud of.

I can give you chapter and verse on 11 fatalities that I did the investigation. I can show you pictures of the scene and see if you can keep your dinner down. And you have the gaul to say there is no data to support this program.

Your behavior reminds me of a spoiled brat stomping her feet and yelling "me, me, me".

Bill, Derek, and the others that have and are putting so much time and effort into this thing, I wish you luck. It like talking with Moe, Larry and Curly.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

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?

You'd make it as painless as possible. Electronic, if electronic would be less painful than paper. But you're right, it wouldn't work without DZO's & S&TA's participation. They'd have to buy in to the value of the system. Just like the other rules.

Quote

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?

They could print a list at the beginning of the day or weekend, fax machine or computer printout, or circular. Computer printout would be cheapest to set up for the list operator, it could be just a website or an email mailing list. It could be a CGI script for interactive queries...how often do new, already licensed, jumpers show up at typical DZs? I'm guessing on the order of a dozen or two tops per day at the busiest DZs on the weekends, with the exception of season-openers & special events. Season openers & special events typically require special planning, I understand.

Under the most ideal circumstance, manifest software already deployed could be modified to support automatic update and cross reference. DZs running without specialized software could update their lists less often, or cross-reference less often. As long as it happened with reasonable frequency (ie, significantly less than the average "sentence"), most of the value would remain.

It will never be instantaneous to get on the list, or for distributed lists to be updated. The same inefficiencies apply to whitelists. There will necessarily be a gap between when a jumper is declared & when the declaration takes effect, even if it's just the time it takes for the S&TA to run to the nearest phone / PC & submit the new information. As long as the distributed lists are updated regularly, and the interval of probation is significantly greater than the distribution interval, most of the value will remain. If the effective dates of the probation "sentences" are distributed along with the USPA lic #s, at least it will cut off the tail end. It would have to be more timely than the publication of Parachutist, that's for sure, but it wouldn't require typesetting or fancy graphics.

Quote

some narrative

I'm not sure what the point of that is...by comparison, a jumper who's made it onto a whitelist is still human & falliable. What's the distinction?

Under the scenario that training is a way to get off the gray-list, then the gray list would be updated when the instructor submits evidence that the jumper has passed the course. As long as the jumper's name appears on a current gray-list, he's still "officially" gray-listed. The jumper is cleared when his name is removed from the list. Just like there's a delay before your printed license gets sent to you, although there's some flexibility by waving around your signed off test card.

Speaking of which, part of probation could be a reduced license stature. D& C license reduced to B or A, and resulting with either re-testing to the orginal license or expiration of the penalty.

Quote

I don't see how it would do much good

I think, in a way, dr penniless was onto something when he remarked about rules vs exceptions. There are plenty of people who would push the limits with the knowledge of the risks they undertake. And then there are people that take risks that attract your intercession. Classifying everybody into the clueless category is counterproductive; being an adult and / or citizen should be enough to bring a person this much respect. But the actions that a jumper chooses may cause us to revisit our generous assessment of them.

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 3,090]

OK, let's skip the implementation details. I think it would be difficult and somewhat expensive at best, but presumably if we think it's important we can raise dues sufficiently to cover the expense, or force DZ's to pay for it by threatening a boycott or whatever.

But the original question remains - what does the gray list do for the jumper? From his perspective, it just gets him bitched at more often. In other words, more S+TA's will not understand their canopy skills (in their opinion.) From the perspective of the S+TA, all he knows is that someone, somewhere didn't like how this guy landed. He has no idea what kind of canopy he was jumping, how many jumps he's made since, what sort of training he's gotten, whether he has to dig out his swoops or just doesn't clear his airspace etc. So it's back to "Hey, you better keep your nose clean; you're on this list!" "Yeah, whatever."

The only things that will keep jumpers alive under highly loaded canopy are training, experience and education. I don't see the 'gray list' getting any of these things to problem jumpers. The gray list would seem to promote nagging, not education. And nagging doesn't work, from personal experience.

[Liemberg 0]

Quote

Classifying everybody into the clueless category is counterproductive; being an adult and / or citizen should be enough to bring a person this much respect.

You are so wrong there, it is almost funny.

Classifying everybody into the clueless category (until they prove otherwise) is what I do all the time when I allow people to jump at my DZ.

An example? Without at least an A-license EVERYBODY goes to the Student landing area (= away from the public / 500 meters walk back to the hangar), without a B-license visiting jumpers are 'kindly requested' to land there until we evaluated their canopy skills. And yes, when push comes to shove, I have final saying on who is to land in the student area and who is allowed near the hangar. At my place there's a guy who is approaching 200 jumps, has a 1:1,1 loaded rectangular ZP and is - for the time being - 'banned' from landing near the hangar, he MUST land in the student field...

If landing a canopy had to do with debating skills I would not have a problem to recognize the likes of you as adult citizens who are entitled to their opinion. However, since I'm the one that calls the ambulance, talks to the media and phones the next of kin I reserve the right to be judgmental towards every new face that walks in my door.
A 'graylist' sounds like a complicated way to create more 'red tape' than what I'm already plagued with, not a solution to a real world problem.
Taking away some of your "constitutional rights" is a lot simpler. Now you just go and blame others that it has come this far, then show somebody in charge that you'll be fine under 'one level smaller than BSR allows'... You may even pick your own evaluator.

If Bill doesn't want to sign, ask Brian...
(Better yet, ask the instructors at your own DZ; they are used to signing for other peoples proficiency)

This would however involve actual parachute jumps where you showed your skill with a parachute that falls within the (proposed) BSR rules. Once you have the coveted signature, you move on to the next level...

But alas, your ability to quote philosophers wont be of much help there...
edit: Spelling! & still not sure...

"Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci
A thousand words...

[cbain 0]

Quote

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

I agree better education and training may have prevented the incidents in question. But under the current proposal being debated wouldn't education and training only be required if someone wanted to exceed the WL restriction?

So Joe Crater could scim along the BSR going from 1.1 to 1.2 to 1.3 and so on and then at x00 jumps suddenly no more restriction and goes to 2.0. But he still never recieved any additional training or education to prepare him for that.

I'm not sure how to correct this flaw but how about this:

At my job I have to show that I'm willing to continously keep learning by taking courses or reading books, etc. How about a required canopy control course prior to getting the next lisence level B, C or D?

Maybe that could be used with a BSR following lisence levels. So they couldn't move up to a higher WL by just getting the next lisence but they'd have to take a course too. I know that there are accuracy requirements and such for each lisence but maybe that's not enough. I know people would complain about having to spend money on coaching but in order to progress they would have to be willing to shell it out and show they are willing to keep learning. Then that way even if they are right below the BSR requirement then the coaches could still see them and evauluate them and it might make a difference. Because the current proposal doesn't require training unless you want to exceed the BSR. I'm not exceeding the BSR but I took a canopy course this year because I felt I needed it. This would get training to everyone no matter their WL.

Christina

[tspillers 0]

I will add some more concerns about the 'grey list'. As another DZO, such a list would be bad in my opinion. If someone was on the list, I let them jump at my DZ, and someting happened.......I can see the lawsuits now. So I would just not let anyone on the list jump.

Now let's look at someone who get's in here and argues (with good intentions or not) with these more experienced people and one of them isn't as professional as they should be and decides to put them on the list...... Now, they aren't jumping because they pissed someone off away from the DZ.

I am sorry, but I see more harm than good from such a list. I am in contact with area DZ's and we let each other know if there is someone we think should be watched. It works quite well.

Todd

I am not totally useless, I can be used as a bad example.

[tspillers 0]

I like the idea of license skills with each license. Currently, I don't think we have enough "qualified" canopy coaches out there. I think we have some good canopy pilots, but that doesn't mean they can teach what needs to be taught. I would like to see a better program for this as well, but one uphill battle at a time.

Todd

I am not totally useless, I can be used as a bad example.

[cbain 0]

Quote

I like the idea of license skills with each license. Currently, I don't think we have enough "qualified" canopy coaches out there. I think we have some good canopy pilots, but that doesn't mean they can teach what needs to be taught. I would like to see a better program for this as well, but one uphill battle at a time.

Todd

But if there aren't enough "qualified" canopy coaches out there, then who has the skills to judge who should test out of the WL BSR? Maybe a canopy coach rating is needed before implementing the BSR (with or without the additional required training I was talking about).

Christina

[Ron 10]

This is what gets me...

We have a bunch of smart but very young in the sport people saying that the older, much more experienced don't have a clue.

I find that funny.

Also for those that claim that a WL to jump number chart does not work. Then why is the Pull altitude BSR set on licenses? It is really set on jump numbers since there is not training to teach you how to pull low. Only EXPERIENCE. And that experience comes with jump numbers.

For those that claim that we have no hard data....Right. We don't since the USPA has shown to be very bad when they have that data, and no one wants to give them that data. We see it on here as well..People get hurt and they don't want it broadcast. They don't waht their egos to be hurt.

But I ask this...For those that think that we don't have enough data to make a good choice....Do you have a hook knife? If so, why? Statistics show that you will never need one. Other accidents show that even if you had one most will never use it. The number of jumps made where a hook knife is not needed FAR outweigh the ones where they were needed. Also the number of jumps where they were needed and actually used are even smaller.

So why do you carry something that you really don't need? And most likley will not use if you needed it? Where are you facts to prove you need it?

If you don't have the facts, maybe you should just get rid of the hook knife.

Oh, and lets talk about helmets....The number of jumps made where a helmet is needed are so much smaller than the number where they are needed. Why do you wear a helmet?

You guys just need to accept that there are no hard numbers and there will never be hard numbers (Unless the Government steps in). You also have to just accept that BSR's have always been written by those that know more about the sport and are based on trends.

And the BSR's also work.

These folks need to get over thier ego issues and accept that they don't know what they don't know. And that the others that have been in the sport for a bunch of years DO know more than them about the sport.

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

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

I agree better education and training may have prevented the incidents in question. But under the current proposal being debated wouldn't education and training only be required if someone wanted to exceed the WL restriction?

No, my proposal includes mandatory education/training for each license level.

Derek

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Quote

I agree better education and training may have prevented the incidents in question. But under the current proposal being debated wouldn't education and training only be required if someone wanted to exceed the WL restriction?

No, my proposal includes mandatory education/training for each license level.

Derek

Are we discussing your proposal, Bill's proposal, Ron's proposal (if he has one), Brian's WNE chart, or general principles?

It would be very handy to know exactly what we are discussing. Would probably save a lot of griping.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[Designer 0]

Well stated!The object of course is to get everybody reading from the same page(list or not?)First,(tried this already with little success)Get all teaching Canopy courses to come up with "universal program".Clear it through "All the proper People and channels"!Get it approved and into action.9 years is a long time to wait for nothing yet.Let's go people!rob

[penniless 0]

Quote

>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.

Thank you.
Why did it have to be like pulling teeth to get someone to post this information?

[billvon 3,090]

>Maybe a canopy coach rating is needed before implementing the BSR . . .

A canopy coach rating was part of our proposal for implementing the wingloading BSR. At first it would be administered by S+TA's, then by canopy coaches (an extension of the USPA coach rating) once they became rated.

[billvon 3,090]

>Why did it have to be like pulling teeth to get someone to post this information?

Because (for me) it _was_ like pulling teeth to get that information to begin with! There isn't even solid USPA data on fatalities in terms of wing loading and previous training; often such things are not reported. So I had to go to DZ.com and rec.skydiving to try to fill in the blanks.

I don't know if the fatalities database here will become comprehensive or not. But if it does, it will make it easier to generate this sort of data in the future.

[cbain 0]

Quote

>Maybe a canopy coach rating is needed before implementing the BSR . . .

A canopy coach rating was part of our proposal for implementing the wingloading BSR. At first it would be administered by S+TA's, then by canopy coaches (an extension of the USPA coach rating) once they became rated.

That's good and it's good that Hooknswoop said that canopy coaching was part of his proposal for each lisence too but I didn't know that before now. Maybe part of the resistance is because nobody know's what we're talking about for sure. We've seen Brian Germains chart and we've seen bits and pieces of others. But maybe all of the ideas needs to be put into one proposal. Then everyone can make comments suggestions etc on that and we can get that proposal in the best form possible incorporating input from all sources. Even though this has been talked about and debated for years there doesn't appear to be any consistancy even between those that are recommending the BSR.

I also saw a post were someone said that everyone with less experience should just sit down and shut up and let the more experienced people figure it out because they know more. While I agree that wisdom comes with experience and I do listen to those in the sport and with more jumps than me. But that's like scolding a child for asking questions just because they don't understand. It is very difficult raising a "child" in skydiving and there are some that are always going to "rebel." But patience and explaining things fully in terms they understand may help (or you kick 'em out of the house when they turn 16/18/etc). Yes, a child has to live by the rules of the parents but part of growing up is questioning those rules as well.

Can a BSR be passed something like a proposition does for laws? In other words a proposition is written in the best form and then it's put up to the population for a vote. Isn't that the way self governing societies do it? (I'm asking because I honestly don't know how something becomes a BSR.) Or is it up to just the governing body to decide themselves and nobody else gets a say?

Christina

[billvon 3,090]

>Even though this has been talked about and debated for years there
> doesn't appear to be any consistancy even between those that are
>recommending the BSR.

The general gist is from a letter we wrote to USPA a while back. Here it is:

--------------------------------

Letters to the Editor
USPA
1440 Duke St., Alexandria, VA 22314
(703) 836-3495


Over the past few years, we have watched as more and more skydivers injure and kill themselves under high performance canopies. In 99% of the cases, this happens to a jumper who does not have the education and experience to fly his canopy safely. In the majority of cases, a larger canopy would have prevented the fatality or mitigated the injury. We, the undersigned, call on USPA to increase their role in canopy training to help prevent these sorts of fatalities in the future.

It is our position that only education can prevent accidents like these. Modern, heavily loaded high performance canopies can be flown safely only after sufficient education and/or experience has been obtained by the jumper. We ask USPA to do the following:

-Develop canopy skills requirements for the “B”, “C”, and “D” licenses that build upon the initial "A" license canopy skills. They should include canopy control classroom training, practical exercises, and a written and practical test. Once these are in place, add canopy type/wing load restrictions based on the “A” through “D” license, with a grandfather clause so this does not affect people currently jumping high wing loadings. As with other skills, restricted licenses would be available for jumpers who choose not to demonstrate HP canopy skills.

-To prevent exceptional jumpers from being held back unnecessarily, allow any instructor, I/E or S+TA to waiver these requirements based on a demonstration of canopy skills.

-Develop a Canopy Instructor (CI) rating which focuses on skills required to safely land heavily loaded high performance canopies. Currently, many jumpers receive no practical HP canopy training at all; it is possible to progress through the ISP jumping only a 288 square foot canopy. With the rapid development of very high performance canopies, canopy skills are as critical for skydiver survival (if not more critical) than freefall skills. The intent of the CI would be to teach the canopy skills required for the new licenses, and to waiver those who demonstrate the skill required to progress to small canopies more quickly than their jump numbers would ordinarily allow.

We recognize that any additional restrictions placed on skydivers should be considered very carefully; skydiving has never been a sport of heavy regulation, and regulations alone will not keep anyone safe. However, new regulations are falling into place already. Individual DZ's are implementing canopy loading restrictions with no education, no commonality and no way to "waiver out" of the requirements. We feel that USPA could implement a canopy training program that will educate more jumpers, be less restrictive and keep even pilots of very high performance canopies alive and jumping.


Signed,

William von Novak D16479
Chuck Blue D12501
Derek Vanboeschoten D18847
Lisa Briggs D14633

----------------------------------

Since then we've added the ability to 'waiver out' of the restrictions by taking a canopy control course and passing the practical test at the end.


>Or is it up to just the governing body to decide themselves and nobody
>else gets a say?

Well, you get a say indirectly. You elect people who you think will represent you well and they vote on such things. Sort of like how our legislature works.

[freakbrother 0]

Quote

Quote

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?

You are busting everyone ass because you say there is not data to support it. Then you come up with statements like this. Thats not data, thats just you standing around watching again.
Can you give me the dates, times, age, gender, canopy type, experience and cause of death on these "No, I was actually there" incidents you are so proud of.

I can give you chapter and verse on 11 fatalities that I did the investigation. I can show you pictures of the scene and see if you can keep your dinner down. And you have the gaul to say there is no data to support this program.

Your behavior reminds me of a spoiled brat stomping her feet and yelling "me, me, me".

Bill, Derek, and the others that have and are putting so much time and effort into this thing, I wish you luck. It like talking with Moe, Larry and Curly.

Sparky

You are missing the point of having a discussion on this topic AT ALL. If all taht was wanted was a rubber stamp of Brian Germain's or Billvon's or Hooknswoop's proposals, that should have been stated at the outset.

Pictures of your gory investigations won't answer the VALID questions that have been asked about the extent of the problem as it relates to jump numbers and WL. Nor will they address the issue of whether a table like Brians or a license based proposal like Billvon's/Derek's is better.

Assuming that you do actually want USPA to do something, it is necessary to take to the BOD the strongest possible proposal, with as much supporting data as you can, with the real risk factors carefully identified and addressed. That can only come about from open discussion, including the input from skeptics.


Personally I rather like Billvon's version that links to license level and training. IIRC that came about after long discussions here in summer 2003 and incorporated ideas contributed by several people, including some skeptics.


If you can't or won't answer questions raised here, how will you get on with the BOD? Consider this rather like the rehearsal before the real debate.

If a BOD member was to ask during the presentation of this proposal "Can you tell us roughly how many sub D license members are currently jumping at WL>1.5", or "Please tell us what fraction of landing fatalities since 2001 have less than 500 jumps and high WL" or "Isn't this primarily a problem of males under the age of 25?", will you respond to them the way you respond to us, that they shouldn't be asking and do they want to see gory pictures? These are the type of questions that occurred to some of us, and I expect they will occur to the BOD too.


Your efforts to suppress dissenting views and denounce difficult questions are not helpful.

.
.
www.freak-brother.com

[mjosparky 4]

Do you serve cheese with that wine. Maybe you could have gotten up and looked for it on your own. So far you have come up with nothing but complaints and no data to support those complaints.

Now that Bill has provided you with this information does it change you mind? If not, why did you feel the need to complain about not having it?

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[cbain 0]

Thank you for posting the letter. I think it was very well written.

I wonder if we made it a petition and got 100's or 1000's of signatures at DZ's all over to support it if USPA would take more notice?

Basically start a lobbying group, like the lobbyists in Washington to get legislature passed. I keep referring back to our government because I guess I see USPA like the governing body of skydiving.

Christina

[mjosparky 4]

Quote

Your efforts to suppress dissenting views and denounce difficult questions are not helpful.

I am not attempting to suppress dissenting views. I am tired of people who want to practice for the debating team or just want to stand on the sideline and throw rocks. If you have something to contribute, even if it to say this will not work because of, speak up. But if you just want to rant to hear yourself rant, take it to SC.

We have had 2 DZO's give us a look at how it might be if something is not done by USPA. Now we can work together at make a go of this or we can let each DZO come up with their own program. You will find that they will be far less open to "dissenting views" then you think I am.

I have watched this debate with the low pull issue, bandit demos and all the other things over the years. There will be some form of regulation put in place. Right now we have a chance to determine how it will be structured. At some point in the future we will not.

I am done with this.

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

That can only come about from open discussion, including the input from skeptics.

That is fine. Open discussion has and does make things better.

What I disagree with is 1) The attitude that we must prove something to you and if we don't then the proposal has no value and 2) The attitude that some people have that they are self appointed judges of BSR proposals.

If you have reservations about the WL BSR, that is OK. But don't just say, I don't think it will work or it is a good idea or necessary, “You must prove to me that it is a good idea.” Take the attitude of my fellow skydivers have an idea, I think I can improve upon that idea, I'll throw out what I think can be improved and how I think it should be improved. Be a part of the team, not just some self appointed troll under the bridge. This proposal affects you, be a part of it.

Some people seem to want to argue every step of the way, then argue how that step was argued, then argue how we argued how that step was argued. That is tiresome and unnecessary. It feels like I’m arguing with the flat earth society sometimes and the high school debate club other times. As some are beginning to realize, I think, it is very difficult and frustrating to be on the idea side. There is a huge difference between constructive criticism and helping to make the proposal as good as it can be.


This is what I know:

There are an increasing number of preventable injuries and fatalities from open canopy incidents.

Canopy performance is increasing and outpacing canopy instruction.

Until the ISP and before that, on a smaller scale, the AFP program, canopy control instruction was neglected beyond just talking a student down on a radio for a few jumps. That worked OK for very large, slow canopies and when a Sabre 150 the highest performance canopy around.

Jumpers are downsizing faster and to smaller canopies than ever before.

Canopy control training and education will prevent open canopy incidents.

Higher wing loadings cause a canopy to fly and descend faster and have a higher top speed, all other things being equal.

A BSR must be like a student harness. It must fit almost everyone. This means it will fit almost no one perfectly. The minimum pull altitude BSR is a perfect example of this. The lower you pull, especially below 2000 feet without a lot of experience, the risk level starts to really rise quickly.

Newer jumpers tend to not be equipped to make accurate determinations of their risk level. They don’t even know everything that can go wrong yet.

You can downsize too quickly, but you cannot downsize too slowly.

A 180-degree turn under a Sabre 190 at a WL of 1.1:1 at 300 feet won’t result in the jumper impacting the ground. A 180-degree turn under a Stiletto 107 at a WL of 1.95:1 will result in the jumper impacting the ground. Hard.

Jumps number is a good indication of experience. There are always exceptions, but it is fairly accurate.

Experience is necessary to fly HP canopies.

Education and training makes for a safer canopy pilot.

A WL BSR will no more stop all open canopy incidents any more than the minimum pull altitude BSR prevents all low pull/no pull incidents.

A WL BSR combined with canopy training and education will reduce the number of injuries and fatalities from open canopy incidents.

Derek

[freakbrother 0]

Quote

Quote

That can only come about from open discussion, including the input from skeptics.

That is fine. Open discussion has and does make things better.

What I disagree with is 1) The attitude that we must prove something to you and if we don't then the proposal has no value and 2) The attitude that some people have that they are self appointed judges of BSR proposals.

If you have reservations about the WL BSR, that is OK. But don't just say, I don't think it will work or it is a good idea or necessary, “You must prove to me that it is a good idea.” Take the attitude of my fellow skydivers have an idea, I think I can improve upon that idea, I'll throw out what I think can be improved and how I think it should be improved.

I expect you know at least as many, maybe more, BOD members as I do. IMO some of them will need a lot of convincing to pass a new BSR. Answering the questions NOW is clearly frustrating to you, but by the time you get to the BOD you will have heard all the objections.

It IS incumbent on you, if you take a proposal to the BOD, to be able to make a clear, strong case as to why this SPECIFIC proposal is (a) needed, (b) will deal with the issues, (c) is not unduly restrictive and that you have made every effort to deal with all contingencies, and (d) has an implementation plan that can work.

For my part, I think you can make a good case based on existing accident data, and I think a plan based on license levels is more likely to succeed than one based on jump numbers for several reasons that have been explained in previous threads. I think you need work on the grandfathering aspect of your plan, and the details of the implemention (that I have seen) seem a bit vague (for example how exactly is it to be enforced, what exact canopy skills will be taught and tested for the test out and license progression.)

If you really want the best input, make sure that everyone is on the same page with respect to the details since several versions are floating around, and make those details a sticky somewhere so we can refer to them without having to search the forums every time.

Work calls, or I'd amplify.

.
.
www.freak-brother.com

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Answering the questions NOW is clearly frustrating to you

Questions, no problem. Playing debate games, yes, I am tired of that.

Quote

but by the time you get to the BOD you will have heard all the objections.

I've signed my letter. I am no longer a member of USPA. So I won't be going to the BOD w/ anything. That is on you.

Quote

I think you need work on the grandfathering aspect of your plan, and the details of the implemention (that I have seen) seem a bit vague (for example how exactly is it to be enforced, what exact canopy skills will be taught and tested for the test out and license progression.)

I think you need to work on the proposal and run with it. It is your sport, you make it better. Beyond a few posts here, I'm not doing anything else with it.

If it does or doesn't become a BSR, it won't affect me at all. I will either feel like I amde a contribution or shake my head and laugh every time I read about another 200 jump wonder hammering in under a pocket rocket.

Derek

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

There are exceptions to every rule on both sides of the equation, but rules are not written for the exceptions. There are plenty of drivers who can safely handle their cars at speeds that far exceed the speed limits. The speed limits are designed for the masses not the few. The fact that we are proposing a test out option for the exceptions makes it fair for all.

This has gone from heated to downright ugly, so I'll take Matt's suggestion and do my final piece, commenting in particular on this statement.

Removing aside the politics of ticket revenue and max speed laws, the speed limit is set at the 85th percentile. They sit out on the road, measure every vehicle's speed, and at the end the limit is roughly at that 85%. And this generally works just fine - people drive at a speed they feel safe with, regardless of the limit. This has been established by experimenting with different posted limits.

But a W/L BSR of 1.0 to 100, 1.1 to 200, 1.2 to 200 isn't at the 85th percentile. It's instead targetted to the lowest common demoninator. And so I suggested proposing Brian's chart as best practice, but setting the never exceed .2 higher.

This would still eliminate the majority of the incidents you bring up, yet still allow those who choose to, to be more aggressive without being reckless about it. The buffer would also be large enough to cover more docile or large canopies, and probably remove the need for a test out option. I still think grandfathering is wrong, but matched to a fairer new standard, let it be.

Sorry, Nathaniel, but a grey list is a ridiculous complication. It sounds like a poison pill to me.

I'm lurking this thread now - PM me to start a new thread if anyone wants to debate this modification. (I won't hold my breath)