Safety and Training

[davelepka 4]

Why do I read threads? All they do is make me think of things to put in my own threads. Well, here's a few thoughts.

SAFETY

Awhile back a guy came to the DZ to make a jump. He was an older guy, with his own gear. He wasn't current, nor was his gear. Most everyone joked about his gear, and that even in-date, it didn't look safe. We've all seen this guy, and his gear, and we all thank god for whatever newer gear we have.

Here's the point, and I'm sure it's been said before: There are guys out there who are kept up at night trying to figure out ways to make us safer via better gear. Our equipment today is so good, and works so well, even without the simple maintenence it requires. The stuff just keeps working. It's like a miracle.

The trouble is that as soon as someone comes up with a way to make us 10% safer, someone else figures how to make us 10% more dangerous. Be it cutting corners in training, or pushing some limit or another, it happens.

The net result is that despite the hard work of smart people, we get nowhere.


AND TRAINING

It seems that if someone suggests that this area or that needs some more attention in the training area, a whole host of people have a protest that requiring additional training is infringing on thier freedom, and people can take care of themselves. Or that the training is too restrictive, and not everyone needs additional training.


AND THE POINT IS,

If you are interested in ANY of the following:

- 1000's of soft openings, easy landings, long swoops.

- 1000's of jumps on a container with no flaps coming open in freefall unitl you want them to.

- Cameras so small and light that you can jump them inside of a four-way with no problem.

- Wingsuits that allow fall rates in the 50's, freefall times over two minutes and glide ratios that let you cover miles, all without killing you.

- Jumpers with under 100 jumps pulling 10 points or more in a four way.

- Jumpers with under 500 jumps doing anything on a 100 way.

- Head down formations of over 40 people.

- Airplanes so fast you can make an easy 10 jumps a day.

Then you need to realize that all of these things were pipe dreams 15 years ago. Jumpers would sit at work and daydream of the day it would happen.

Well, all of it happened, and were all living the dream today.

The problem is that not everything has kept pace. The training we have in place for students hasn't chnaged much at all. Sure the methods have been shuffled a bit, but the content is still about the same as 15 years ago.

The regulations in place are all about the same. Again, some adjustments have been made, but to nowhere near the degree that the sport they regulate has changed.

I'm not a fan of restricitons. I like to be able to do whatever I want (and usually do). I have reached a point where I can regulate myself. Most people will reach that point, and will be fine. The trouble is that there are alot of jumpers out there, and even if 98% of them do succeed in jumping happily their enitre lives, that leaves 2% that won't, and thats a big pile of dead jumpers.

The fact is that modern day skydiving is an awesome sport with some incredible limits. If we could bring the training and regs. up to speed, we could open up those limits to even more jumpers. It wouldn't make it any less fun, it would enhance the learning process, and most likely accelerate it, allowing these jumpers to do more,and do it sooner. It would give those who already can do more that many more people to do it with. It's good for everyone.

To those that are against the changes, take a look at all the other changes (gear, types of jumps, etc),and ask yourself if it really makes sense for one thing to change without the other.

Completely unnecessary PA oriented text deleted by slotperfect to keep the thread productive instead of destructive.

[crutch 0]

I am not sure what you are trying to say here. What part of the training do you want to change? Twenty years ago, I was very lucky to make my first jump on a square. The drop zone an hour away was still jumping rounds for students. The student gear was always much different from the experienced jumpers, nowadays they are very similar.

As far as instruction, the AFF program was still being developed, now it has become the standard (it is hard to find a S/L program in Florida these days). Most places have videos of malfunctions, we didn't even have pictures. The instruction these days is much closer to one-on-one versus 30 people in a class with one instructor.

I guess what I am saying, is what else do you want to change? I honestly believe having taught people for the last twenty years, that the methods used are much different (maybe some due to equipement). So if you are going to throw something out there, tell us what you want to change and how!

blue skies,

art

[slotperfect 7]

Quote

He wasn't current, nor was his gear.

I'm assuming from context you mean his gear was old, not out-of-date. The debate over old gear being "safe" vs. "airworthy" has been raging on in the forums for a while now - if you do a search you will find it enlightening. My quick two cents: just because it's old doesn't make it unairworthy. Does the jumper incur more risk using his old airworthy gear rather than a spiffy new rig with all of the other attributes you mention? Yes - that's a no-brainer. It remains the individuals personal choice to assume that level of risk and to choose his reasons why. I'm sure he really doesn't care whether you and your buddies judge him or not. Have you thought to ask him why he jumps that particular gear rather than something more contemporary?

Quote

The net result is that despite the hard work of smart people, we get nowhere.

That is one man's opinion. Quality of gear, the quantity of safe gear, what the gear will do, and the number of ways people are using it have travelled light years since I started jumping. That's just one example. Availability of professional advanced level training in multiple genres is excellent. There you have it - another man's opinion.

Quote

It seems that if someone suggests that this area or that needs some more attention in the training area, a whole host of people have a protest that requiring additional training is infringing on thier freedom, and people can take care of themselves. Or that the training is too restrictive, and not everyone needs additional training.

The day our training has become "good enough," and we don't need to change it any more - it's time for me to go. Training is an evolving being with a personality all its own. The difficulty lies in deciding what's at the heart of it - driving the need for change. Putting a band-aid on a broken leg isn't as effective as keeping the leg from getting broken in the first place. The condition you described most likely comes from people not understanding others' motivation for wanting more training. There is a difference between training and regulation. Right now people are killing themselves under fully open canopies, and it is widely accepted that SOMETHING needs to be done. There are many ideas as to what - personally I hope somebody chooses from what's important and does something soon to send that trend in the opposite direction.

Quote

Then you need to realize that all of these things were pipe dreams 15 years ago. Jumpers would sit at work and daydream of the day it would happen.

Well, all of it happened, and were all living the dream today.

The result of "the hard work of smart people" - your words.

The thing you have in common with them is that you care. Many people don't, and they drag our sport down.

Quote

The problem is that not everything has kept pace. The training we have in place for students hasn't chnaged much at all.

Take a close look at the USPA A License proficiency card, then research what the A License requirements were 15 years ago. The tools only work if we use them, I admit. But there are more tools available to us than ever before, including this website.

Quote

The regulations in place are all about the same. Again, some adjustments have been made, but to nowhere near the degree that the sport they regulate has changed.

I am genuinely interested in what specific regulations you feel need to be adjusted, and how you think they should be adjusted.

Quote

The trouble is that there are alot of jumpers out there, and even if 98% of them do succeed in jumping happily their enitre lives, that leaves 2% that won't, and thats a big pile of dead jumpers.

You are absolutely right, and some of them in the pile were close friends. Join me in never giving up trying to keep the pile as small as possible.

Quote

The fact is that modern day skydiving is an awesome sport with some incredible limits. If we could bring the training and regs. up to speed, we could open up those limits to even more jumpers. It wouldn't make it any less fun, it would enhance the learning process, and most likely accelerate it, allowing these jumpers to do more,and do it sooner. It would give those who already can do more that many more people to do it with. It's good for everyone.

Your forward looking attitude is encouraging. A little advice - do some fact finding to fully understand where we (the sport of skydiving) came from, and communicate your ideas to people who can make a difference. You could even figure out how to become one of those people yourself. Be careful about judgements about people doing things outside your comfort zone . . . it may have a limiting effect both of them for you as well.

Arrive Safely

John

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

The trouble is that as soon as someone comes up with a way to make us 10% safer, someone else figures how to make us 10% more dangerous. Be it cutting corners in training, or pushing some limit or another, it happens.

The net result is that despite the hard work of smart people, we get nowhere.

AND TRAINING

It seems that if someone suggests that this area or that needs some more attention in the training area, a whole host of people have a protest that requiring additional training is infringing on thier freedom, and people can take care of themselves. Or that the training is too restrictive, and not everyone needs additional training.

Dave - I believe the first paragraph, often referred to as risk homeostasis, means that we may never be able to win. If no one ever died skydiving anymore, would we still view it the same? Or would it now be bungie jumping?

I've often objected that proposals to "save the children" keep coming in response to fatalities of more experienced jumpers, yet the dramatic increases in training and expense would only be applied to the next generation. IOW, the ones that can't vote on the proposal. Everyone else is grandfathered in. So it's no surprise that few object. People in the Bay Area are generally for higher ($5 for the Golden Gate) bridge tolls, largely because only a small percentage commute across one of the bridges to work. Same with taxes on smokers.

If the problem is serious enough to require such a sweeping change, then it's serious enough to apply to everyone. You want a strict WL requirement that would put the majority of first rig purchases out of standard? Fine. Let everyone meet it. Give em 6 or 12 months. Lead by example.

Scuba diving instruction used to be akin to water boot camp. Even when I did it 10 years back, it was typically a 3-4 week process. Now most do it in two consecutive weekends, or in 3 days total. I've bitched and moaned about PADI's watering down and their apparent desire to teach kindergarteners, but the death rate did not rise and in fact did quite the opposite, though the absolute numbers only dropped a little, to about 90/year.

Less than 2 years ago the USPA licensing standards changed, pretty substantially in some regards. Should some time pass to see the success? Or is it really obvious that they're not working? As Kallend has alluded to as well, changes need to have a justification and a reasonable likelihood of achieving their success. Random experiments are not appropriate.

[firstime 0]

You all, kelp, slot, crutch and Dave are doing exactly what
these posts are all all about. You cant change the whole
system with your posts here. But you can make an educated scenario with your experience. And yes "most"
of us always listen or should I say "read" with an inquisivitive ear. Don't get frustrated with the sport in a whole because you can't stop the one who wants to woo
the spectators. I can say one thing that no one can argue
" this forum has saved at LEAST one ass" I would like to think that those 2% would read (with interest) these forums not once but twice. Keep up the good work guys. Been there and done that beats any book.

[mjosparky 4]

Quote

The trouble is that as soon as someone comes up with a way to make us 10% safer, someone else figures how to make us 10% more dangerous. Be it cutting corners in training, or pushing some limit or another, it happens.

I think was you are referring to is Bill Booth's law #2.

"The safer skydiving gear becomes, the more chances skydivers will take, in order to keep the fatality rate constant."

It has been this way since we were jumping modified C-9 canopies as a main and a 24' twill as a reserve. I suspect it will continue as long as there is testosterone.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[Shark 0]

Quote

Quote

The trouble is that as soon as someone comes up with a way to make us 10% safer, someone else figures how to make us 10% more dangerous. Be it cutting corners in training, or pushing some limit or another, it happens.

I think was you are referring to is Bill Booth's law #2.

"The safer skydiving gear becomes, the more chances skydivers will take, in order to keep the fatality rate constant."

It has been this way since we were jumping modified C-9 canopies as a main and a 24' twill as a reserve. I suspect it will continue as long as there is testosterone.

Sparky

The more things change, the more the stay the same.

[chrisgr 0]

Quote

changes need to have a justification and a reasonable likelihood of achieving their success. Random experiments are not appropriate

Is that your reason for objecting to this proposal?

We are talking about a combination of canopy training and w/l restrictions that would provide all new jumpers with the necessary education to safely control and land their canopies.

I see nothing unreasonable or random about that.

Perhaps you would like to review another incident …

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1429707#1429707

[davelepka 4]

OK, I'll reply to my own post as a general response.

There were a few good points made in the replies, and if you had a chance to read the personal attack I wrote (before deletion, mdoerators just doing their job), it was 100% just for fun.

So, some of the replies were geared toward specific areas or ideas, but the post itself was ambiguous for a reason. What I'm addressing is the general attitude of some of the jumpers who read this stuff.

There seems to be an alot of protest to building in additional training or regs for things such as canopy control or camera flying. There are too many 'but I know a guy who' or 'some people are ready before others', when those responses really don't help to keep people safe.

Getting folks to slow it down a notch, and realize that any type of skydive is quite an event. You don't need to push your WL, or increase your workload with a camera to keep it interesting or exciting. Those things will come in time, and while you're waiting, there are a million other things you can do with your jumps.

With the modern skydiving enviornment, it's easy for a determined jumper to make 300 or 400 jumps a year. At that rate, their experience within 1 1/2 years would be such that nobody would question if they wanted to jump a camera or an eliptical canopy. The trouble is that less determined jumpers seem to lookat the time frame (1 1/2 or 2 years) as opposed to their experience when looking to undertake more advanced skydiving persuits.

With the top end of skydiving performance being what it is, people are making the mistake of wanting too much too soon. Years ago a guy with a 120 at 1.8 was a hotshot. In those days, a newbie looked at the range of possibilities,and could see that 1.2 was good place to be with a couple hundrd jumps. Today, most DZ's have a handful of guys at 2.4 on canopies under 90 sq ft. The new jumper looks at that figures that 1.4 must not be a big deal. The student canopies haven't changed, and 200 jumps is still only 200 canopy flights, but it seems that people have nudged up what is 'safe' just as the top end has increased. The trouble is that most of those guys on the top end were jumping a 120 at 1.8 years ago, and have the experience to be moving up. The newbie is still a newbie.

Those a a couple of examples, but I'm not looking to get into those specific subjects. They have thier own forums, and should be handled there. Here my point is that if people would realize what's happening, and modify thier attitude to reflect it, the culture of skydiving could change, which would be far more effective than any regulations.

Nobody would support a newbie who makes a habit of pulling low. In turn, most newbies have a healthy respect for pull altitudes. If there were even a few jumpers who supported them, a newbie interested in pulling low would have enough encouragement to do so. Since there is no support for it, and it's considered uncool, you don't see it too often.

If we had the same situation apply to other areas where newbies are pushing the limits, we could improve the skydiving enviornment in general. All things will come in due time, and the newbies can wait.

I know that skydiving will never be 'safe'. But there's no reason that we can't manage the factors we can control to limit the incidents we have to unavoidable freak occurences.

[Designer 0]

What he said.When there was static line training that is what we had and what we did.Now the training is lacking behind the equipment.It's common knowledge.How to fix is the real problem.Personally I like what Scott Miller,Brian Germain and Jim Slaton are doing.I'm all for it!Should we take money out of their pockets and require USPA to create a universal level of training for all A,B,C and D license holders?The work involved is staggering and time consuming.

[billvon 3,080]

>Should we take money out of their pockets and require USPA to create
>a universal level of training for all A,B,C and D license holders?

I think the only thing that is currently lacking from our current AFF/ISP progression is canopy training. Below is a letter a bunch of us wrote to USPA a few years back.

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

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.

[slotperfect 7]

Quote

if you had a chance to read the personal attack I wrote . . . it was 100% just for fun.

It was 100% not fun editing it out and taking the time and effort to reply to that part of your post.

Quote

Here my point is that if people would realize what's happening, and modify thier attitude to reflect it, the culture of skydiving could change, which would be far more effective than any regulations.

Well stated.

Arrive Safely

John

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

changes need to have a justification and a reasonable likelihood of achieving their success. Random experiments are not appropriate

Is that your reason for objecting to this proposal?

We are talking about a combination of canopy training and w/l restrictions that would provide all new jumpers with the necessary education to safely control and land their canopies.

I see nothing unreasonable or random about that.

Chris - I made my specific objections in the threads that concerned details. It's impossible for me to respond to your comments given its vagueness.

W/L restrictions can be justified if the current body of jumpers isn't exempt from them. I just wonder about the low end of <1.0 before 100 jumps when the typical first rig (at 40-60 jumps) is typically loaded at 1.05 to 1.1.

Based on my training and the comments often said here, certainly it seems like more emphasis on canopy training would be in order. But merely stacking up a laundry list of good to have's on students doesn't really do it. There are far more people that can instruct well on belly flying than there are on canopy flight.

Some of the proposals have substantial price tags associated with them, with only a fuzzy possibility of improving safety. Now that I'm nearly at B, it's great to make these students subsidize my jumping activities, but at some point reason needs to return to the equation.

[Scrumpot 1]

Actually, what (and more precisely) WHO Dave appears to be referring, at least in part to here Sparky ...even if in just some measured, and veiled way is indeed a jumper named Bill. Not Bill Booth though, although maybe someone just about as old!

Ant THAT, is about as far as I will go with that.

Some interesting discussion, and some interesting results, regardless of the impetus of Dave's original post.

-Grant

coitus non circum - Moab Stone

[chrisgr 0]

Please look at my profile and consider this ... I am completely ready to adhere to a w/l restriction myself. I am completely ready to pay for additional canopy control training if I am required to do so.

You may also be subjected to such requirements. If you do not like that possibility then you must consider that there are many people actively lobbying (in many ways other than this forum) for these changes.

If you do not want such changes, you may have to begin actively lobbying against them. And this means going beyond simply posting your concerns on dz.com.

FWIW: Skydiving is an expensive sport. As the equipment, jump tickets, etc. become more expensive, so too will the cost of training and education.

Hope I wasn't too vague.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Please look at my profile and consider this ... I am completely ready to adhere to a w/l restriction myself. I am completely ready to pay for additional canopy control training if I am required to do so.

You may also be subjected to such requirements. If you do not like that possibility then you must consider that there are many people actively lobbying (in many ways other than this forum) for these changes.

"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."

This is from Bill, just a few posts up. At his (and your's) jump numbers, a WL chart would likely not apply, but my strong objections disappear if the grandfather clause goes away. I'm not convinced it adds that much value, but if the majority of the USPA membership is willing to abide by it, so be it.

Otherwise, it's the small stuff, like how to treat small and large canopies with a simplistic ratio, how to implement, how to enforce. Will people just go over to Lodi as a result?

[davelepka 4]

Quote

Dave appears to be referring, at least in part to here Sparky ...even if in just some measured, and veiled way is indeed a jumper named Bill.

Well that may have been true, it was simply a refferal to his equipment, which was a few years off the pace in terms of technology (this was simply a function of having not bought gear for a few years).

I'm not saying that older gear will not provide a safe decent from an aircraft, just that it won't do it with the competency of more modern equipment.

[mjosparky 4]

Grant,

What Dave was saying sounded to me like Booth's rule #2

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[Scrumpot 1]

Yeah, I understood that too.
Dense or not!
-Grant

coitus non circum - Moab Stone