Perspective

[penniless 0]

Quote

Maybe I come across as some wannabe bedsheet pilot,(quote)

No that is not what I ment about you, and I ment not to just try to bash you, you can be a damm good pilot and still fuck up bad, it takes a long time to experience all the difference situations that can happen in flight and landings, I had a friend who for years jumped at the same dz, he knew where the power lines were, but one day he forgot or didn't see them (but he knew for years where they were)
that day he died, it can happen to any one, even you. So don't ever fool your self into thinking different, one must be on your toes at all times on the dz and really on it landing off the dz.
Good luck with the coaching.


~

How would any proposed regulation have affected the outcome of your friend's jump?

You can't legislate judgment. You can't legislate alertness. You can't legislate focus. You can't legislate common sense.

[mjosparky 4]

Quote

You can't legislate common sense.

That is one thing you have right. Common sense is not all that common, thats why it might be a smart thing to help people use more common sense when they want to rush in over their heads.

It seems people think skydiving is all about "freedom" and no restrictions on their choices and actions.

There are rules and regulations on you from the time you first step on a DZ for that first tandem.

Walk this way, don't sit there, fasten your seat belt, do you have your lic. and membership card, is your reserve in date, are you current, don't park there, you can't pack in that area, wait for the green light, no drinking or drugs, dogs and children must be on a leash, don't pull low, you have to land in this area, no flying here under 500 feet.

Now some fool wants you to learn how to stay alive before you can go out and kill yourself anyway. Yea, its all about Freedom. And like the man said, "Freedom isn't free".

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[ahegeman 0]

Quote

man this proposal aint a big thing if it comes up i'll vote for it. hell man you want the faa to make rules??? mains will be like ten grand. self regulation versus faa regulation?? yeah ill take a few little rules to help keep people safe.

Being someone who's all for letting people kill themselves with their own stupidity (I say this as someone who's never lost a friend that way), I gotta say THIS is by far the most persuasive argument I've heard for a wingloading BSR. Enough people keep killing themselves under perfectly good canopies and maybe the FAA will take an unwelcome interest in us.

How much danger do inexperienced jumpers under too small of canopies really pose to other jumpers? Would a 100 jump newbie at 2.0 really pose much danger to others? I know the canopy flies faster, but would it affect his ability to fly a pattern? Is he/she more likely to panic and cause a collision? Are there any incidents where a jumper on an "inappropriate" canopy hurt or killed someone else because of that canopy? For me that would be another persuasive argument.

Are there any US dzs out there with formal canopy restrictions? I've heard of plenty of times where the DZO will not let a particular jumper jump a particular canopy, but are there any with solid rules in place? I know it'd be a pain to enforce, but at least it would be there.

---------------------------------------------------------------
There is a fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness'.
--Dave Barry

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Are there any US dzs out there with formal canopy restrictions?

More than one. One of them doesn't allow anyone over 1.5:1. No exceptions.

Derek

[dorbie 0]

Quote

How much danger do inexperienced jumpers under too small of canopies really pose to other jumpers? Would a 100 jump newbie at 2.0 really pose much danger to others?

This isn't about 100 jump newbies jumping with a wing loading or 2.0. One of the issues of contention is more like should 100 jump newbies be loading their canopies at 1.1. OK there are test outs but at least use the numbers being proposed lest anyone misunderstand why this is contentious.

[stratostar 5]

Boy oh boy did you ever miss the point.
"you can be a damm good pilot and still fuck up bad,"

The proposed reg wouldn't have done a thing, because this person was well passed the cut off anyway.
It don't matter how good you are or how long you been jumping, for shit to bite you in the ass when you least expect it.
The person I was replying to was implying "it wouldn't happen to him" he is a good pilot and a lowtimer too.
So to spell it out for you, again, it can happen to any of us on any jump, DON"T fool yourself if you think it can't happen to you too because you a good safe pilot, my friend was a good safe pilot, till the jump/landing he wasn't, it only takes one bad one, sometimes. Like MANY others before, you may only get one fuck up in this sport, and your only as good as your last landing!

~

you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

[penniless 0]

Quote

Boy oh boy did you ever miss the point.
"you can be a damm good pilot and still fuck up bad,"

The proposed reg wouldn't have done a thing, because this person was well passed the cut off anyway.
It don't matter how good you are or how long you been jumping, for shit to bite you in the ass when you least expect it.
The person I was replying to was implying "it wouldn't happen to him" he is a good pilot and a lowtimer too.
So to spell it out for you, again, it can happen to any of us on any jump, DON"T fool yourself if you think it can't happen to you too because you a good safe pilot, my friend was a good safe pilot, till the jump/landing he wasn't, it only takes one bad one, sometimes. Like MANY others before, you may only get one fuck up in this sport, and your only as good as your last landing!

~

I didn't miss your point at all. I just emphasized a different point that you seem to have missed.

[penniless 0]

FAA took no action when dozens burned in each year due to low or no pulls. Although landing fatalities are now the largest category, there aren't as many as there were low/no pull fatalities 15 years ago. The overall rate of skydiving fatalities is way lower than it was 15 - 25 years ago.

FAA is primarily interested in protecting passengers, other users of the airspace, and people on the ground. I seriously doubt they care very much if a few skydivers kill themselves each year when landing.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

I seriously doubt they care very much if a few skydivers kill themselves each year when landing.

This is true, and a godsend. The last thing we need is more attention from the FAA. I don't believe that it will ever come to that, so my intentions aren't to stave off big brother. My intention are, however, to keep some jumpers in one piece.

I had a couple of additional thoughts for the doubters. One that I know has been touched upon, is that many incidents are not reported. Broken arms, legs, ankles, torn ACL's etc. are all events that will not be reported, but aside from pain and suffering have some side effects as well. Those jumpers will most likely be out for a season, which at a seasonal DZ, means less income for the DZ. If those jumpers were newer, and are out for the season, that quickly turns into a year (including the winter) and some of those jumpers will just give up, representing another loss for the DZ and skydiving.

For those who think that 'It won't happen to me', keep in mind that everyone who is hurt, were just fine until the last ten seconds. Many of those who are hurt are not trying to swoop, but found themselves in a situation where they could no longer control the outcome.

For those who are trying to swoop, very few of them have a history of close calls. many times a close call is enough to scare then into re-evaluating their actions. It's when the close call is too close, and they end up with more time to think about their actions then they bargained for. If you feel like thigs are going OK, but others suggest you're pushing it, remember, it only takes one mistake.

Speaking of which, anyone know Rickster Powell? He's one of the pioneers of modern swooping. A PD test pilot who spent years swooping in between, over, around, and into what ever he could find. On a regular camera jump, he clipped a tree and got seriously messed up. He had 5000+ jumps, and almost as many swoops, and it happened to him. With that possibility on the horizon, doesn't it make sense to keep a handle on the factors you can control? Such as your canopy selection, and what you do with it?

[Designer 0]

I like the way you guys think!Being a good canopy pilot should "Not" take rules.O.K.SAVING LIVES IS A GOOD THING,RIGHT?I think we need to just take some of "Recklessness Factor" out of canopy flying.For us old guys,that means still ask questions.Find out all you can about the subject.Teach what you have learned and hope somebody listens.Have Fun and always land Safe.rob

[wmw999 2,563]

Dozens never burned in due to low or no pulls.
It was generally in the single digits. High single digits sometimes, but single digits.

Just a data point.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[billvon 3,090]

>This isn't about 100 jump newbies jumping with a wing loading or 2.0.

That is exactly what it's about. There ARE 100 jump newbies trying to get on 2.0 loadings; the Square One staff has a new story a week about someone with very few jumps trying to get the tiny canopy du jour. The Square One staff is both experienced and responsible enough to not give it to them. But then they call Ralph or talk to their friend or buy a main on line somewhere, and they are off and jumping. That's the problem we're trying to solve here - low time jumpers without enough experience jumping canopies they don't even understand. It's not that they know the risk and accept it - it's that they don't even know what they don't know.

So this new BSR would keep them on a 1.1 to 1 loaded canopy. And that would probably really piss them off. "But I'm an excellent canopy pilot! I've stood up most of my Manta landings!" And so they go off to test out under the new program. And lo and behold, they can't flat turn! They fail the test. They still really want to jump that Katana 107, so they go to a canopy control course. And after the course they're ready for a Sabre2 135. Which isn't what they wanted, but better than that Triathalon they were renting from the student program.

Then they try to flat turn that canopy - and they still have trouble. Hmm. What's going on here? So they make some more jumps, get some advice, and finally learn to flat turn and flare turn. And oddly, their landings improve. They start getting longer swoops even under their big boat of a 135. They start having more fun.

After a while they test out of the requirement and downsize to a Nitro 117. They're getting much better swoops than they ever would have gotten out of the Katana, had they gotten it right away, and they are ten times the canopy pilot they were - both because they got training and because they have really learned to fly a larger canopy before they got on a small canopy that scared them too much to fly it well.

That's the issue here - a way to get training to the people who need it most, and who cannot take advice.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Boy oh boy did you ever miss the point.
"you can be a damm good pilot and still fuck up bad,"

The proposed reg wouldn't have done a thing, because this person was well passed the cut off anyway.
It don't matter how good you are or how long you been jumping, for shit to bite you in the ass when you least expect it.
The person I was replying to was implying "it wouldn't happen to him" he is a good pilot and a lowtimer too.

~

I got your point and I appreciate the advice. I think about it on every jump I'm on. I could fuck up and die or even not fuck up and die. Thanks for the advice and I'd never say it couldn't happen to me but I see how you got that impression.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

>This isn't about 100 jump newbies jumping with a wing loading or 2.0.

That is exactly what it's about. There ARE 100 jump newbies trying to get on 2.0 loadings; the Square One staff has a new story a week about someone with very few jumps trying to get the tiny canopy du jour.

Then introduce regulations targeted at that. This IS about 1.1 @ 100 because YOU made it about 1.1 @ 100. What you're proposing as a conservative wing loading table that while preventing the scenario mentioned would go far beyond that. That's up to you if you think it is justified but don't justify it with extreme examples. This is always going to be about safety vs degrees of restriction and when that's the central issue it's essential to be clear about where the proposed restrictions are set.

It's going to be difficult to have a discussion over wing loading when extreme examples of idiots are intentionally used to confuse the debate over where the line is drawn like this.

[penniless 0]

Quote

Dozens never burned in due to low or no pulls.
It was generally in the single digits. High single digits sometimes, but single digits.

Just a data point.

Wendy W.

According to the data I saw, there were 25 NOPs in 1989, 14 in 1991, and 11 in 1994.

[stratostar 5]

I was replying to another, not you.
But thanks anyway. Yes I was getting that impression
but that is ok, you at least are going the extra step to canopy coaching, and would seem to be trying to be a safe pilot, thats more then some others would do. I hope you stay safe and have a long pain free time in the sport.

~

you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

[mjosparky 4]

Quote

Quote

Dozens never burned in due to low or no pulls.
It was generally in the single digits. High single digits sometimes, but single digits.

Just a data point.

Wendy W.

According to the data I saw, there were 25 NOPs in 1989, 14 in 1991, and 11 in 1994.

And your point is?

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[Scrumpot 1]

Quote

They start getting longer swoops even under their big boat of a 135.

(emphasis added is mine)...

That one was really funny Bill, and I LOVE this one!!
"Big Boat of a 135"!!!
Anecdotal story in support of this:

Recently, I went travelling to a DZ where poeple don't know me. I jump a canopy designed around the original ("old" ) Icarus competition team color scheme (all neon/lime-green with bby -ahem purple "ribs"). Came down and did a side-by-side swoop landing with one of the local 250-300 jump skygod swoop wonders who was under his crossfire 109. He got about 1/2 the distance I did before chowing it in. Scared the shit out of me as I was slightly above & behind most of the time (right up until the point I blew by him that is ) & I could tell with all the top-skin bucking & twitching, he was having a heck of a time at it. ...But apparently all the "locals" thought he was pretty much "the hot ticket".

Later in the packing loft, one of the complete newbs came up to me & asked me what I was jumping... and FX, or maybe a VX "HP" Canopy?

Nope.

Was my Safire. ...189!

FWIW.
-Grant

coitus non circum - Moab Stone

[Designer 0]

I agree 100%.It is to the point I think that if they can't show an up to date signed log book they are probably the accident ready to happen!Way back when(1996-1997)I got beat-up pretty bad for losing a sale.Screw em!This guy asked my honest advice AND I GAVE IT TO HIM.If he went elsewhere OH WELL!HE WAS NOT GOING TO DIE ON A PARACHUTE I BUILT FOR HIM!These are complicated issues for sure.The time between 100 and 500 jumps "Should" be a time to learn the proper canopy flying methods."Not" get the hottest thing out there and take your chances.rob

[penniless 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Dozens never burned in due to low or no pulls.
It was generally in the single digits. High single digits sometimes, but single digits.

Just a data point.

Wendy W.

According to the data I saw, there were 25 NOPs in 1989, 14 in 1991, and 11 in 1994.

And your point is?

Follow the "in reply to" links back and you will see.

[Designer 0]

The only ass I'm gonna kiss is my GF'S!Or any other shapely lady who likes butt smoches!(lol)rob.

[penniless 0]

I recall once seeing a plot on Barry Brumitt's site of fatality rate against year for around 25 - 30 years. I thought maybe I imagined it so I searched the archives, and found it is referenced in this post:

www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=420234#420234

Unfortunately that site no longer exists except as advertizing. Does anyone know if the data are still accessible anywhere? The DZ.com database doesn't have it, neither (as far as I can see) does cpoxon's site.

[mjosparky 4]

Quote

FAA took no action when dozens burned in each year due to low or no pulls. Although landing fatalities are now the largest category, there aren't as many as there were low/no pull fatalities 15 years ago. The overall rate of skydiving fatalities is way lower than it was 15 - 25 years ago.

FAA is primarily interested in protecting passengers, other users of the airspace, and people on the ground. I seriously doubt they care very much if a few skydivers kill themselves each year when landing.

You have not been around long enough to remember, but the state of California was in the business of regulating some aspects of jumping at that time. By reducing the number of glaring fatalities from low pulls or no pulls we were able to get that changed. If we continue to have people die under good canopies, without making an effort as a group to control it, some mid level bureaucrat will see a way that he can make his bones by "putting a stop to this silliness".

You just keep your head in the sand pretending there is not a problem and you won't even see it coming.

Do you really feel there is not a problem? Do you feel 10 to 15 deaths a year under good canopies is an acceptable lose? Do you feel changing this does not rate an effort?
If your answer to any of these questions is yes, I feel sorry for you.

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[Scrumpot 1]

In all fairness though Michael, wasn't that card for, and only IF you were looking to do "Exhibition Jumps"? Or are you saying that this card was necessary as well, in order to be just a plain old "fun jumper" (at the DZ) too, in California?

New Jersey, just up until fairly recently had it's hands pretty solidly in similar regulation too, FWIW as I recall.

-Grant

coitus non circum - Moab Stone

[pash 0]

WOW - that card expired when I was 5 years old!! I would hate to think we would have to go back to something restrictive like that rather than police ourselves as we should.