High WLs, Low Experience.. Where Are the S&TAs?

[daremrc 0]

...except no one is talking about banning anything, only setting a required minimum experience level.

I am undecided on weather or not a BSR is the answer, I'm just glad that I am comfortable with the amount of leeway people are and are not given at the place that I jump at the most. It makes me wonder, tho, when I read these forums who or what I might encounter when I travel...

Good judgement comes from experience, and most of that comes from bad judgement.

[MagicGuy 0]

Quote

...except no one is talking about banning anything, only setting a required minimum experience level.

YES! Why are words being put into my mouth? I never said anything about banning shit, just having more guidelines.

I love wingsuits. I love swooping. I love big ways. I love skydiving, all together. And I'm 22 years old. I never said I wanted to ban anything.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

Want to ban 18-24 year old males with proven high accident rates?

Kinda, sorta yeah. The majority of 18 to 24 year old jumpers are newer jumpers, and those are the ones I vote we ban from flying at higher WLs.

You have to admit that you attribute alot to the 'young male' theory. My guess is that you started jumping as a not-so-young male, and had no problems with your choices (which some might consider a little aggresive).

I do agree that there are mature people out there, who are capable of making good choices, but in the world of new skydivers, they are a rare breed.

So yeah, the WL BSR is based on jump numbers, and lower jump numbers and younger jumpers go hand in hand. The young males may have a problem with it, but they are the ones who will benefit the most.

Older jumpers and the ladies are rarely the ones pushing the limits early on, so they wouldn't mind the BSR, and may not even be effected by it.

[JohnDeere 0]

If as much effort had gone into gathering information as has gone into internet rants on the subject, it would be done by now.

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
If anyone was REALLY serious (instead of just wanting to rant on the internet) maybe they could have started to collect said data so that by now we would have built up a profile of the alleged problem.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////

These are two different post by you. Before and after these post you say there is plenty of data. In these two post you say we havent put enough effort in gathering data. So which is it now that you have contradicted yourself????? By the way you still havent answered my last post about not all accidents be reported.

Nothing opens like a Deere!

You ignorant fool! Checks are for workers!

[billvon 3,084]

>Really? You don't believe Newton's laws? Nor that cool video with the 45
>degree line marked?

Oh, there's no question that the 45 degree rule is _theoretically_ a poor one, and that most of the reason it works at all is because people take the time to look outside. Just as there is no question that it takes more skill to land a more highly loaded canopy, and that beginner mistakes are more survivable under a larger canopy.

But you have ZERO data that using the 45 degree rule has resulted in more freefall close calls or collisions than using time or distance. Therefore, you have no proof that it is any more or less safe in practice than using a time or a distance rule. You'd think that if it was really less effective, you'd have at least a shred of data.

(Common sense tells us that larger canopies work better for beginners, and that a time-based separation rule works better, but I know how you hate unsupported theories.)

[kallend 2,113]

Quote

Quote

...except no one is talking about banning anything, only setting a required minimum experience level.

YES! Why are words being put into my mouth? I never said anything about banning shit, just having more guidelines.

I love wingsuits. I love swooping. I love big ways. I love skydiving, all together. And I'm 22 years old. I never said I wanted to ban anything.

We already have guidelines. See the SIM, PART 5.3b. What more do you want? (You DID read the SIM, didn't you?)

Wasn't it you that wrote "So my question is.. why are these S&TAs allowing this stuff to happen?"? That reads to me like asking for a restriction, not a guideline.

Have you gone over the USPA's fatalities data yet, to see if you actually have a case to make?

...

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

[kallend 2,113]

Quote

>Really? You don't believe Newton's laws? Nor that cool video with the 45
>degree line marked?

Oh, there's no question that the 45 degree rule is _theoretically_ a poor one, and that most of the reason it works at all is because people take the time to look outside. Just as there is no question that it takes more skill to land a more highly loaded canopy, and that beginner mistakes are more survivable under a larger canopy.

But you have ZERO data that using the 45 degree rule has resulted in more freefall close calls or collisions than using time or distance. Therefore, you have no proof that it is any more or less safe in practice than using a time or a distance rule. You'd think that if it was really less effective, you'd have at least a shred of data.

(Common sense tells us that larger canopies work better for beginners, and that a time-based separation rule works better, but I know how you hate unsupported theories.)

It isn't "poor", Bill. It can be proven to be inconsistent with the laws of physics and have no predictive power whatsoever. No further evidence is required.

Do you think your last approach to USPA for a WL BSR would have been more successful if you could have shown the BOD from USPA's own dataset that low time jumpers under small canopies were dying at a higher rate than the general population of skydivers?

I'm just curious - how many of those wanting more restrictions have actually bothered to obtain USPA's fatality dataset and examine it? It does take a bit more effort than an internet rant.

However, if you want to convince USPA to make any changes, I think you need to be ready to answer the question "show us that there is a problem that this proposal will solve".

...

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

[kallend 2,113]

Quote

If as much effort had gone into gathering information as has gone into internet rants on the subject, it would be done by now.

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
If anyone was REALLY serious (instead of just wanting to rant on the internet) maybe they could have started to collect said data so that by now we would have built up a profile of the alleged problem.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////

These are two different post by you. Before and after these post you say there is plenty of data. In these two post you say we havent put enough effort in gathering data. So which is it now that you have contradicted yourself????? By the way you still havent answered my last post about not all accidents be reported.

DO YOU have all the data that exists already? If not, why not? Have you even asked anyone at USPA what data they have? If it is not enough to satisfy you, then you can COLLECT some more.

There's a lot of "someone should do something" going on in this thread, but no-one seems to care enough to be someone.

...

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

[Orange1 0]

Quote

Quote

Kallend, I still stand by that post that got lost somewhere in the tussle between you and magicguy.
There are no statistics for example that show the number of sprained ankles for lowtimers under lightly loaded canopies, that could easily have been broken bones under more highly loaded ones. We could look at the statistics a different way: we could for example see how many of the canopy-related incidents happened to people loaded less than 1:1?.)

that staticically would not work unless you make specifc assumptions about "all things being exactly the same" only on a smaller canopy.
Just because someone srains an ankle on a big boat does not mean in anyway that the injury would have been worse on a smaller canopy. The canopies fly very differently, and the sprained ankle could well have been avoided on a smaller canopy

Squeak, happy to make that assumption (in my line of work we call it ceteris paribus ) and I think it's probably a pretty reasonable one... and while i agree in principle that there is a chance a broken ankle under a big canopy could have been avoided under a smaller canopy, in practice i think everyone agrees that if someone lands badly, they are likely to hurt themselves more under a smaller, heavier-loaded canopy.

I'm not necessarily trying to argue for anything, though I intuitively think it is safer to be more conservative on WL. But it would be interesting to see what the stats show, and whether or not they support the argument. Again, this is something I do in my day job: "hmm, that sounds like an interesting theory, let's see how it checks out in practice".

I just don't really feel like being the one to sit and input all the data ...

Skydiving: wasting fossil fuels just for fun.

[nigel99 577]

Kallend - you ask for evidence of the sport being damaged by high-wingloadings. I know that you are going to call this anecdotal but I am a direct casualty of a high wingloading death. Having spent 7 years convincing my wife that I wanted to jump again she had the "pleasure" of calling the emergency services for someone who misjudged a turn.

The trend in the fatalities database shows that deaths under a fully functional parachute are possibly the most significant contributor - and this excludes people not handling malfunctions on HP canopies.

I think that it is also fair to look at well established principles and that people usually under-estimate risk due to in-experience. We see this in all aspects of daily life from sport, driving, and work where the people are wary of the rookie who is briming with foolish confidence.

Granted there will be exceptions and rules tend to slow the exception down but it is the price we pay (and should pay) for the prevention of un-necessary injury and death. When you mention your stilleto at 40 jumps - you are probably leaving out crucial details like 100's or 1000's of hours on a paraglider/glider/hang-glider etc. Similarly there was that person who did alot of tunnel-time and their first jump was an x way. These are exceptions and a "good" system allows credit for experience to transfer. An excuse of talent is simply not good enough as 80% of us believe we are in the top 20%

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[kallend 2,113]

Quote

Kallend - you ask for evidence of the sport being damaged by high-wingloadings.

No I didn't. That is a classic strawman.

I asked for evidence that LOW TIME jumpers under high WL are having accidents at a greater rate than the general skydiving population (none presented so far), that they are killing or injuring OTHER PEOPLE at a higher rate than the general skydiving population (no evidence so far) and I asked for evidence that low timer high WL accidents are drawing the attention of regulators (no evidence so far).

And your guess is correct - I was (and am) a licensed glider pilot before taking up skydiving. One size does NOT fit all.

...

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

[billvon 3,084]

>It can be proven to be inconsistent with the laws of physics and have
>no predictive power whatsoever.

Correct. But you have shown zero evidence that people who use it are more likely to collide with other jumpers (or come close to them) than people who use a time or distance based system. I mean, it's common sense, but so is having low time jumpers jump larger canopies.

If you were REALLY serious about the 45 degree thing (instead of just wanting to rant on the internet) maybe you could have started to collect said data so that by now we would have built up a profile of the alleged problem.

>Do you think your last approach to USPA for a WL BSR would have been
>more successful if you could have shown the BOD from USPA's own
>dataset that low time jumpers under small canopies were dying at a higher
>rate than the general population of skydivers?

1) I did. I got the data from two years from Jim Crouch (such as it was) and did an analysis of it. Even posted it on line.

2) We asked for three things, in this order:

- A canopy coach rating
- A list of canopy skills requirement for each license
- A restriction on canopy loadings based on licenses.

The SIM now contains the outline for the canopy coach rating.

>However, if you want to convince USPA to make any changes, I think
>you need to be ready to answer the question "show us that there is a
>problem that this proposal will solve".

Apparently they've liked our answers so far. (I say "our" because all the things we've asked for - canopy control stuff, a 'graduate course', landing pattern separation - came from way more people than just myself.)

[kallend 2,113]

Quote

>It can be proven to be inconsistent with the laws of physics and have
>no predictive power whatsoever.

Correct. But you have shown zero evidence that people who use it are more likely to collide with other jumpers (or come close to them) than people who use a time or distance based system. I mean, it's common sense, but so is having low time jumpers jump larger canopies.

If you were REALLY serious about the 45 degree thing (instead of just wanting to rant on the internet) maybe you could have started to collect said data so that by now we would have built up a profile of the alleged problem.

Pretty lame, Bill.

Quote

>Do you think your last approach to USPA for a WL BSR would have been
>more successful if you could have shown the BOD from USPA's own
>dataset that low time jumpers under small canopies were dying at a higher
>rate than the general population of skydivers?

1) I did. I got the data from two years from Jim Crouch (such as it was) and did an analysis of it. Even posted it on line.\

WOW - and all those people in this thread have been telling us that there are no data to be had! I guess they didn't look very hard.

Quote

2) We asked for three things, in this order:

- A canopy coach rating
- A list of canopy skills requirement for each license
- A restriction on canopy loadings based on licenses.

The SIM now contains the outline for the canopy coach rating.

>However, if you want to convince USPA to make any changes, I think
>you need to be ready to answer the question "show us that there is a
>problem that this proposal will solve".

Apparently they've liked our answers so far. (I say "our" because all the things we've asked for - canopy control stuff, a 'graduate course', landing pattern separation - came from way more people than just myself.)

No BSR though. And to get a BSR I think you have to convince a bunch of BoDs who are likely to ask tougher questions than I have.

...

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

[MagicGuy 0]

Quote

Quote

>It can be proven to be inconsistent with the laws of physics and have
>no predictive power whatsoever.

Correct. But you have shown zero evidence that people who use it are more likely to collide with other jumpers (or come close to them) than people who use a time or distance based system. I mean, it's common sense, but so is having low time jumpers jump larger canopies.

If you were REALLY serious about the 45 degree thing (instead of just wanting to rant on the internet) maybe you could have started to collect said data so that by now we would have built up a profile of the alleged problem.

Pretty lame, Bill.

Why is that lame? That's what you've been doing and saying for this whole thread! I guess what you've been saying is pretty lame, too.

[billvon 3,084]

>Pretty lame, Bill.

That was actually your own quote.

>No BSR though.

??? Right. So? My goal has been to stop deaths/injuries under good canopies, deaths/injuries due to collisions when people fly nonstandard patterns, and deaths/injuries from people who got no education after level 7. I don't care if it's a BSR, an addition to the group member pledge, a new section of the SIM, a new program, a website or even a new attitude that accomplishes it. The important thing is to stop it.

And if we can stop it without "rules" (in quotes because even the BSR's are extremely optional) all the better.

[JohnDeere 0]

DO YOU have all the data that exists already? If not, why not? Have you even asked anyone at USPA what data they have? If it is not enough to satisfy you, then you can COLLECT some more.

There's a lot of "someone should do something" going on in this thread, but no-one seems to care enough to be someone.

No i dont have all the data that exists yet ( some of us have a real job). I dont have the abilaty to be at every DZ in the US every day they jump do you????
That is my point about inseficient data. I did not ask USPA for all there data, but i dont have to, they have this cool thing called a web site. Its all on there you should look at it some tine. OOOOO wait of couse you know that you are the king of data.
Once again you try answering my questions.

These are two different post by you. Before and after these post you say there is plenty of data. In these two post you say we havent put enough effort in gathering data. So which is it now that you have contradicted yourself????? By the way you still havent answered my last post about not all accidents be reported.

Nothing opens like a Deere!

You ignorant fool! Checks are for workers!

[kallend 2,113]

Quote

>Pretty lame, Bill.

That was actually your own quote.

>No BSR though.

??? Right. So? My goal has been to stop deaths/injuries under good canopies, deaths/injuries due to collisions when people fly nonstandard patterns, and deaths/injuries from people who got no education after level 7. I don't care if it's a BSR, an addition to the group member pledge, a new section of the SIM, a new program, a website or even a new attitude that accomplishes it. The important thing is to stop it.

And if we can stop it without "rules" (in quotes because even the BSR's are extremely optional) all the better.

Well, apparently everyone has what they want. The OP didn't read the SIM, it seems, and didn't know guidelines already exist. You are happy with guidelines and no BSR. So am I.

We are all happy.

...

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

[kallend 2,113]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>It can be proven to be inconsistent with the laws of physics and have
>no predictive power whatsoever.

Correct. But you have shown zero evidence that people who use it are more likely to collide with other jumpers (or come close to them) than people who use a time or distance based system. I mean, it's common sense, but so is having low time jumpers jump larger canopies.

If you were REALLY serious about the 45 degree thing (instead of just wanting to rant on the internet) maybe you could have started to collect said data so that by now we would have built up a profile of the alleged problem.

Pretty lame, Bill.

Why is that lame? That's what you've been doing and saying for this whole thread! I guess what you've been saying is pretty lame, too.

ROFL. At least I knew where to find the guidelines in the SIM!

www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3145211#3145211 Did you?

...

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

[kallend 2,113]

Quote

DO YOU have all the data that exists already? If not, why not? Have you even asked anyone at USPA what data they have? If it is not enough to satisfy you, then you can COLLECT some more.

There's a lot of "someone should do something" going on in this thread, but no-one seems to care enough to be someone.

No i dont have all the data that exists yet ( some of us have a real job). I dont have the abilaty to be at every DZ in the US every day they jump do you????
That is my point about inseficient data. I did not ask USPA for all there data, but i dont have to, they have this cool thing called a web site. Its all on there you should look at it some tine.

[JohnDeere 0]

So your saying USPA has data on every incident in the US for the how ever many years????? If not then we dont have good enough data. Once again can u answer the question about all acedents not being reported?????

Nothing opens like a Deere!

You ignorant fool! Checks are for workers!

[kallend 2,113]

Quote

So your saying USPA has data on every incident in the US for the how ever many years????? If not then we dont have good enough data. Once again can u answer the question about all acedents not being reported?????

AS I wrote previously, USPA has excellent data on fatalities going back decades. Data that apparently you didn't bother to obtain.

And also, just as I wrote previously, IF people wanted data on injuries they could have started collecting it 10 years ago when the first calls were going out for WL restrictions.

Now, the OP has written he's happy with guidelines rather than restrictions. Billvon wrote that he's happy with guidelines instead of a BSR. I'm happy with guidelines rather than new rules. WHAT DO YOU WANT EXACTLY? Just to continue arguing?

...

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

[MagicGuy 0]

Quote

Quote

>Pretty lame, Bill.

That was actually your own quote.

>No BSR though.

??? Right. So? My goal has been to stop deaths/injuries under good canopies, deaths/injuries due to collisions when people fly nonstandard patterns, and deaths/injuries from people who got no education after level 7. I don't care if it's a BSR, an addition to the group member pledge, a new section of the SIM, a new program, a website or even a new attitude that accomplishes it. The important thing is to stop it.

And if we can stop it without "rules" (in quotes because even the BSR's are extremely optional) all the better.

Well, apparently everyone has what they want. The OP didn't read the SIM, it seems, and didn't know guidelines already exist. You are happy with guidelines and no BSR. So am I.

We are all happy.

You'll be happy to know that you are right! I own a SIM and no, I haven't read it from front to back. But the original post wasn't about the SIM, it was about S&TAs. And the issue at hand is still about monitoring low timer wingloadings, not whether or not the SIM has guidelines about wingloading. Because in that case, Brian Germain has guidelines, too. And they probably both hold equal value at this point, considering the canopies that some people are jumping.

[kallend 2,113]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>Pretty lame, Bill.

That was actually your own quote.

>No BSR though.

??? Right. So? My goal has been to stop deaths/injuries under good canopies, deaths/injuries due to collisions when people fly nonstandard patterns, and deaths/injuries from people who got no education after level 7. I don't care if it's a BSR, an addition to the group member pledge, a new section of the SIM, a new program, a website or even a new attitude that accomplishes it. The important thing is to stop it.

And if we can stop it without "rules" (in quotes because even the BSR's are extremely optional) all the better.

Well, apparently everyone has what they want. The OP didn't read the SIM, it seems, and didn't know guidelines already exist. You are happy with guidelines and no BSR. So am I.

We are all happy.

You'll be happy to know that you are right! I own a SIM and no, I haven't read it from front to back.

Maybe you should.

Quote

But the original post wasn't about the SIM, it was about S&TAs. And the issue at hand is still about monitoring low timer wingloadings, not whether or not the SIM has guidelines about wingloading. Because in that case, Brian Germain has guidelines, too. And they probably both hold equal value at this point, considering the canopies that some people are jumping.

I wonder who stole your username and posted

"I never said anything about banning shit, just having more guidelines."

...

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

[MagicGuy 0]

Yup, MORE being the keyword in that statement. Obviously the guidelines that are already in place aren't doing their job.

[daremrc 0]

Maybe a BSR is the answer.

I fail to see what anyone has to lose by limiting wingloading based on license class or number of jumps. If you really want to fly that shit-hot canopy, I guess that just means you will commit yourself more towards being in the sport for a while...

Good judgement comes from experience, and most of that comes from bad judgement.