Re: [skyjuggler] Landing injury.

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

I feel no shame in saying I do not have one.

Then quit helping, because you are not helping.

Even the Vatican has a Devil's Advocate.

By shutting down criticism of your proposal you guarantee that it will never be optimized.

You are so attached to your idea that you are unable to comprehend that just possibly it may have flaws, or result in unintended consequences.

...

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

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

By shutting down criticism of your proposal you guarantee that it will never be optimized.

I'm not shutting down criticism, I'm shutting down useless bantering.

You both are simply taking shots at it, not pointing out flaw(s)/shortcoming(s), and offering fix(es). You want un-realistic, labratory experiments and piles of data. The problem simply doesn't require all that.

Your solution is incorporated into my proposal, over a year ago. I am beginning to wonder if you actually read my proposal and have been arguing for the fun of it.

Quote

You are so attached to your idea that you are unable to comprehend that just possibly it may have flaws, or result in unintended consequences.

It might. I doubt it, but it is possible. Can you show me your analysis of my proposal that demonstrates flaws or un-intended consequences?

Worse case scenario- my proposal doesn't work. That should be discovered during the trial period at a couple of DZ's and will be simple to abandon.

There is a problem. I have offered a solution (as have others) that has a very good chance of making an improvement. But you want to cut tails off of rats and make pretty little pie charts. Actually, you don't want to do that, you want us to do that, then present the results to you for grading. We aren't your students, proffessor. It doesn't work that way.

So, now that I have bold faced the part of my solution that you agree with, do you have any other ideas?

Derek

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

By shutting down criticism of your proposal you guarantee that it will never be optimized.

I'm not shutting down criticism, I'm shutting down useless bantering.

You both are simply taking shots at it, not pointing out flaw(s)/shortcoming(s), and offering fix(es). You want un-realistic, labratory experiments and piles of data. The problem simply doesn't require all that.

Your solution is incorporated into my proposal, over a year ago. I am beginning to wonder if you actually read my proposal and have been arguing for the fun of it.

Quote

You are so attached to your idea that you are unable to comprehend that just possibly it may have flaws, or result in unintended consequences.

It might. I doubt it, but it is possible. Can you show me your analysis of my proposal that demonstrates flaws or un-intended consequences?

Worse case scenario- my proposal doesn't work. That should be discovered during the trial period at a couple of DZ's and will be simple to abandon.

There is a problem. I have offered a solution (as have others) that has a very good chance of making an improvement. But you want to cut tails off of rats and make pretty little pie charts. Actually, you don't want to do that, you want us to do that, then present the results to you for grading. We aren't your students, proffessor. It doesn't work that way.

So, now that I have bold faced the part of my solution that you agree with, do you have any other ideas?

Derek

As far as I can see, looking back through last year's threads, you were still supporting jump numbers vs WL this time last year. This is what you wrote about canopy courses in June 2003.

In fact, that entire thread is well worth reading again because it clearly shows how the first WL BSR proposal was improved by nitpickers like me. If it hadn't been for us nitpickers you guys would have pushed a very poorly thought out proposal.

See Here
for an example. It looks remarkably similar to your current proposal that dates back to July 2003 (so this one pre-dates it).

And I still have a reservation that you have not shown that the targeted group of skydivers is more at risk (based on their numbers in the skydiving population) than any other group.

The onus is on the ones trying to impose regulations on others to show that their proposal works. The onus is not on me to prove that it won't work.

And you assume we're all evaluating your proposal, yet this has not been explicitly stated. There are other proposals out there (from Ron, for example) that have WL vs jump number as their central theme. These are the ones I particularly disagree with.

...

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

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

As far as I can see, looking back through last year's threads, you were still supporting jump numbers vs WL this time last year.

I still support jump number based WL restrictions with the option to exceed those limitations on a case by case basis. I also support mandatory canopy control training for the "B" through "D" licenses.

Quote

Finally, the onus is on the ones trying to impose regulations on others to show that their proposal works. The onus is not on me to prove that it won't work.

You are wrong. The onus is on us, as skydivers (in my case, ex-skydiver), to improve the safety of the sport any way we can. USPA, experienced jumpers, Instructors, S & TA's, DZO's all owe it to each other and new jumpers to continuelly improve the sport.

This is why your posts regarding this matter are so aggravating. You have a 'me' and 'them' mentantility. 'They have to prove to me this is a good idea and will work'. No. We have to work together to come up with a solution. You are not the 'proposal police' with veto power and your approval is not required. Your input is appreciated, your nit picking is not.

Quote

And I still have a reservation that you have not shown that the targeted group of skydivers is more at risk (based on their numbers in the skydiving population) than any other group.

You want proof that the proposal will work? Get a couple fo DZ's to try it on a test basis, same as they did with ISP. What could it hurt?

Derek

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

As far as I can see, looking back through last year's threads, you were still supporting jump numbers vs WL this time last year.

I still support jump number based WL restrictions with the option to exceed those limitations on a case by case basis. I also support mandatory canopy control training for the "B" through "D" licenses.

Quote

Finally, the onus is on the ones trying to impose regulations on others to show that their proposal works. The onus is not on me to prove that it won't work.

You are wrong. The onus is on us, as skydivers (in my case, ex-skydiver), to improve the safety of the sport any way we can. USPA, experienced jumpers, Instructors, S & TA's, DZO's all owe it to each other and new jumpers to continuelly improve the sport.

This is why your posts regarding this matter are so aggravating. You have a 'me' and 'them' mentantility. 'They have to prove to me this is a good idea and will work'. No. We have to work together to come up with a solution. You are not the 'proposal police' with veto power and your approval is not required. Your input is appreciated, your nit picking is not.

Quote

And I still have a reservation that you have not shown that the targeted group of skydivers is more at risk (based on their numbers in the skydiving population) than any other group.

You want proof that the proposal will work? Get a couple fo DZ's to try it on a test basis, same as they did with ISP. What could it hurt?

Derek

I'm sorry that you feel so strongly that you are correct and that new rules don't deserve nitpicking to get them right.

Testing your proposal is a great idea. I think I have been calling for proof of effectiveness all along.

...

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

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

I'm sorry that you feel so strongly that you are correct and that new rules don't deserve nitpicking to get them right.

Positive contributions, editing, revising, adjusting, finalizing, expanding, all of these things- yes! Nitpicking like an old housewife- no.

You are not the sounding board. You are not the proposed BSR foundation president. You are not grading this like a term paper. You are a peer. Act like it.

Contribute to the effort if you want to help. But don’t nit-pick.

So, as is, do you feel my proposal, that I copied earlier in this thread, needs more revising, or is it ready to be finished with all the missing details (WL & jump #’s, specific canopy control training requirements for each license, etc)? [This is an open question to everyone]

Derek

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

I'm sorry that you feel so strongly that you are correct and that new rules don't deserve nitpicking to get them right.

Positive contributions, editing, revising, adjusting, finalizing, expanding, all of these things- yes! Nitpicking like an old housewife- no.

You are not the sounding board. You are not the proposed BSR foundation president. You are not grading this like a term paper. You are a peer. Act like it.

Contribute to the effort if you want to help. But don’t nit-pick.

So, as is, do you feel my proposal, that I copied earlier in this thread, needs more revising, or is it ready to be finished with all the missing details (WL & jump #’s, specific canopy control training requirements for each license, etc)? [This is an open question to everyone]

Derek

Your proposal looks to me the best of the bunch. I assume it evolved from This since it appeared three weeks later. However, there are other proposals out there, and this thread has never been explicitly stated to be reviewing yours and yours alone.

...

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

[trigger 0]

Scientific analyis of a given situtation is all well and good..but skydiving contains too many variables for any analyis to yield useful re-world results.

i.e.I think it's wrong to pigeon hole people,everyones different.
Say just because someones over 50yrs of age doesn't mean they have crap reflexes or poor judgement,same goes for people under say 25yrs of age or under..Just because someone has a phd in say astro physic's doesn't automatically meen they've got one iota of common sense..

Skydiving to me is a simple case of risk management and with the best will in the world we'll[i if you like]will never prevent accidents,minor or major from happenning,but we can put in place as a system like an enforced[don't like that word]say under observation/mentorred version of Billvons skill check list with regards to canopy control..
Supervised education hopefully would reduce the chances/risk of people choosing to wear rose coloured spectacles and becoming victims of there ego with regards to canopy selection or simply getting in over theyre heads to soon with disciplines such as swooping...it will imo not illiminate accidents but a well thought out training system with regards to canopy control could go some way to reducing perfectly good canopy accidents which i think can only be a good thing..

Note.. this ain't directed at anyone

.CHOP WOOD COLLECT WATER.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Your proposal looks to me the best of the bunch. I assume it evolved from This since it appeared three weeks later. However, there are other proposals out there, and this thread has never been explicitly stated to be reviewing yours and yours alone.

I call it mine, but it is just a collection of mainly other people's ideas. Maybe you could collect everything on the topic, take the best of each and present a really, really good proposal that can then be presented to a few DZ's to see if they will try it and return the results?

Derek

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

It might. I doubt it, but it is possible. Can you show me your analysis of my proposal that demonstrates flaws or un-intended consequences?

Worse case scenario- my proposal doesn't work. That should be discovered during the trial period at a couple of DZ's and will be simple to abandon.

When we're talking about 10-15 fatalities a year and a rather unspecified number of major injuries (perhaps the more important target of all this), the results of a few DZs will be inconclusive, or at least statistically insignficiant. In other words, you won't know if it was the change or just random chance. Moreoever, the DZs that have WL restrictions right now did so in response to an event, so the people there already have stronger motivations to be cautious, and shunted the risk takers to other DZs.

Actually, little will change during a trial period at EVERY DZ because it looks like you've continued to grandfather in all current jumpers. While that guarantees easy passage and acceptance, it doesn't fix the current problems, but rather the jumpers 5 years from now. I've talked with Ron offline about this and I think we agree to disagree, but I'd like to hear why you think a problem serious enough to need this change isn't serious enough to make all C and D holders now meet the test requirement within a specified period of time. Give everyone 12 months to either do the challenge (could make it a DZ fun event) or get pencilwhipped by the DZO/ST&A. Impress upon the lowtimers the beauty of dropping that little chute right on target, not just somewhere on the field.

You have D holders out there with 250 jumps. That wouldn't qualify me to have a 190 under these new guidelines.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

When we're talking about 10-15 fatalities a year and a rather unspecified number of major injuries (perhaps the more important target of all this), the results of a few DZs will be inconclusive, or at least statistically insignficiant. In other words, you won't know if it was the change or just random chance. Moreoever, the DZs that have WL restrictions right now did so in response to an event, so the people there already have stronger motivations to be cautious, and shunted the risk takers to other DZs.

The DZ could see how the transition goes, and how well it would work. I could see a difference in the learning curve between AFF and AFP students. The trend should be obvious to the DZO and Instructors.

Quote

Actually, little will change during a trial period at EVERY DZ because it looks like you've continued to grandfather in all current jumpers. While that guarantees easy passage and acceptance, it doesn't fix the current problems, but rather the jumpers 5 years from now. I've talked with Ron offline about this and I think we agree to disagree, but I'd like to hear why you think a problem serious enough to need this change isn't serious enough to make all C and D holders now meet the test requirement within a specified period of time. Give everyone 12 months to either do the challenge (could make it a DZ fun event) or get pencilwhipped by the DZO/ST&A. Impress upon the lowtimers the beauty of dropping that little chute right on target, not just somewhere on the field.

Nothing is going to change overnight. I think in order for the proposal to be accepted and begin to make a difference, it would have to grandfather everyone in. I don't think it stands a chance if it didn't. Would it be more effective if it didn't grandfather anyone in? Yes, but it wouldn't be implemented then and wouldn't affect anyone. If it can be implemented without grandfathering everyone, that would be great and make a difference sooner, but I don’t think it would be. I think that is why the sooner it happens, the better. How many people have been injured, killed that this BSR may have prevented?

Derek

[billvon 3,111]

>In other words, you won't know if it was the change or just random chance.

Statistically you are correct. It is fortunate that we do not hold anything else in skydiving to that standard or we'd still be jumping T-10's with belly reserves out of Cessna 180's.

The purpose of a trial is not to get statistics; it's to get feedback on the education and implementation aspects of the system. Is the education effective, as judged by an observed increase in canopy skills? Are there any problems with people rapidly getting fatter? How many people will try to get around it? Some of these can be answered by looking at DZ's that already implement WL limits; some need a trial program to work out the bugs, much as AFF went through a trial period.

>but I'd like to hear why you think a problem serious enough to need this
> change isn't serious enough to make all C and D holders now meet the
>test requirement within a specified period of time.

Because:

1) the objective is to get the program in place, and it won't get put in place without such a provision.

2) it is a lot better to persuade someone to not buy that Xaos 98 before they get training than to tell them they have to sell the Xaos 98 they already have; someone with 50 jumps on a Xaos 98 has a little more HP canopy experience than someone who is trying to sell their Pilot 132 to _get_ that Xaos 98. Thus with a grandfather clause you better target the at-risk population.

[slug 1]

Hi Bill

I agree with you that this is a very serious subject seeing/reading about folks young and old, some more experienced than others, getting seriously busted up or worse is getting very old.

For some unknown reason the GMDZO's/USPA has failed to address this problem. Waiting for them to do anthing is a waste of human life, pain and agony.

>> we are trying to come up with a proposal that works in the real world of skydiving that both allows people to jump what they want and prevents people from dying. >>

I commend you guy's for trying to come up with a win win solution but I don't know if you can get there from here. There's a minimum opening altitude for a reason to give a jumper a second chance.

I never was a swooper and don't jump anymore but is it even possiable to allow people to jump what they want and stay safe.?The margin for swooping error is minimal maybe even less than a terminal opening at 1000'.

I guess the reason the sucessful swoopers can do it on a reguler basis is because they worked they way up over a long period of time and are making a big bunch of jumps/yr to keep their edge.

Sad old jokewhen this trend first developed: Who says skydivers are stupid? We invented a whole new way to kill ourselves!

At that time I never would have guessed that this crap is still going on.

R.I.P.

[billvon 3,111]

>I never was a swooper and don't jump anymore but is it even possiable to
> allow people to jump what they want and stay safe.?The margin for
>swooping error is minimal maybe even less than a terminal opening at
>1000'.

I agree, and I don't think there's a regulation in the world that will "keep people safe." The biggest thing about the regulations we're proposing is not the regulation part but the education part. I believe that education will help keep people alive, and thus the regulations are set up to entice people to get the education. An educated jumper jumping whatever he wants isn't 100% safe, but he is miles safer than the 300 jump wonder on the 2:1 elliptical who has never flat turned before.

[teason 0]

Wow
Nathaniel, buddy, you seen to be playing a equivocating game of stump the wizards here!

If you need some facts, I'll give them to you.

First Good judgment is directly proportional to experience, skill level and time in the sport. If you take the average judgment of people with 1000 jumps and people with 100 you WILL notice a difference.
To obtain proofs for this, one only has to observe the landing area for a few years and it will provide all the empirical data you need. As a DZO and instructor, I have been observing poor judgment demonstrated by novice and expert alike for years. The evidence is as follows; Experts demonstrate poor judgment due to complacency, novices demonstrate poor judgment due to the improper handling of a canopy in an unusual situations and intermediates exercise poor judgment due to attempting to fly beyond their skill levels. In the first and last example ego is a major factor. In a limited context, this would be naught but anecdotal, however a decade+ of observations is what moves this into empirical.

Secondly higher performance canopies reduce your margin for error. To prove this thesis simply fly a manta into the side of the hanger. After you heal fly a smaller higher performing canopy into the same hanger. If you survive, fly a crossbraced eliptical into the hanger. I'm sure your xrays and Doctors bills will demonstrate a smaller HP canopies' propensity for being less forgiving. (note: If you spend enough time in the sport, the previous experiment is not required as you will witness jumpers conducting their own experimentation)

With this irrefutable evidence based on empirical data, we can see that placing the average 1000 jump wonder and 100 jump wonder in juxtaposition, suspended under like canopies, proves the more experienced jumper with be able to better manage the greater risks involved.

These observations have influenced other regulations such as helmets, allowable wind speeds, birdman suits, camera helmets and other such things which can reduce the margin for error while skydiving. To put into place planform and wingloading regulation would be in direct cohesion with that which is already being facilitated.

Although canopy skills do exist in a bell curve, the mean jumper skills of each level are the topic here.
Is there a need, given the current performance climate, for canopy regulation and if so what are the mean skills of each level and what is appropriate.

Note; your previous reasoning that placing ludicrous wing loading regulations would save even more lives is intellectually consistent with saying that slashing a someones tires reduces his likelyhood of having a car accident. Locking yourself in you house reduces you risk of being struck by lightning.remember, intellectual consistancy is the hobgoblin of small minds.

No one is proposing to eliminate risk all together, but rather establishing what level of risk is appropriate for a given skill level.
Although arguments about individual rights will always abound in this topic, we must also realize that an injury/fatality affects more than the individual involved. It will affect the other jumpers on the DZ, student on the DZ the DZ business itself and the family of the injured or killed party. logically, if something out has the ability to affect me, I would wish to have some influence over it.

Conclusion;
1.)HP canopies present higher risk for the jumpers flying them.
2.)Less experienced jumpers have a greater propensity for error by flying beyond their skill level
3.) all those affected by accidents should have input on the factors contributing to them.

Now quit making write dry responses gawdammit!

I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

1) the objective is to get the program in place, and it won't get put in place without such a provision.

I agree it would be difficult. But it sets a poor example, esp for those types that already think they're being persecuted for being 'better quicker' than all of you.

The end result is still positive, but I have to say that running through my mind is that you have a voting population that is perfectly fine with passing the buck to the next population with the mistaken belief that they're not the reason it's needed. "Let's make them do all the stuff we should have done, but didn't bother with." Really the grandfathering decision is an expediency with very limited justification beyond.

Quote

2) it is a lot better to persuade someone to not buy that Xaos 98 before they get training than to tell them they have to sell the Xaos 98 they already have; someone with 50 jumps on a Xaos 98 has a little more HP canopy experience than someone who is trying to sell their Pilot 132 to _get_ that Xaos 98. Thus with a grandfather clause you better target the at-risk population.

Does it not also encourage some of them to run out and get that Xaos 98 while they still can? Would that involve enough people to counteract the gain with the current lowtimer population? I think how that clause is written needs to be very carefully considered. And will the DZOs go out and check shipping receipts? Lots of grey area coming into the picture.

(Seems much easier for you all to prove you're capable of landing it)

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

These observations have influenced other regulations such as helmets, allowable wind speeds, birdman suits, camera helmets and other such things which can reduce the margin for error while skydiving. To put into place planform and wingloading regulation would be in direct cohesion with that which is already being facilitated.

What are the regulations (as opposed to recommendations) concerning birdman suits and camera helmets, or any helmets at all for licensed skydivers?

...

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

[teason 0]

Regulations are not just rules but

Quote

a principle or condition that customarily governs behavior

I think what we are talking about is instituting recomendations and that wing loading would be an official recomendation.
I am not talking about BSRs after all, and one can get a waiver to the recomendations (or at least in Canada)
For example; Altimeter use in the CSPA is a recomendation. Anyone wishing to not jump with an altimeter can apply for a waiver in writing to the applicable technical commitee.

Quote

Waivers to these recommendations may require additional conditions in order that the prescribed deviation does not add an unacceptable compromise to safety

Other things in the CSPA that fall under this catagory include DZ clearances, Winds, Wind Drift measurements, Footwear, Instructor Headwear, Student dusk jumping, Student progression, Parachute Packing ... etc
The only difference in the CSPA between a Rule and a recommendation is that a rule is not waivable and is considered the bare minimum. Seeing that experience is a bell curve, piloting skills regulation should appear under the recommendation side. Unless the proper channels have been satisfyed recommendations are identical to a rules in thier function.
So, to better illuminate my perspective Recomendations are what I'm talking about, in the CSPA a rule regulating this is not an option but a recomendation regulating it is. I'm guessing the USPA may be the same!

As for Birdman suits, they self-regulate and that's what I ment.

Clear? Cause I can bore you some more! I got shitloads of useless facts!

I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

[billvon 3,111]

>The end result is still positive, but I have to say that running through
> my mind is that you have a voting population that is perfectly fine
> with passing the buck to the next population with the mistaken
> belief that they're not the reason it's needed.

It's not just the voting population. Nearly every skydiver thinks that.

>Does it not also encourage some of them to run out and get that
> Xaos 98 while they still can?

No doubt it would; the same thing happened when we changed the license experience limits. But it was a pretty minor effect overall if Perris and San Diego are any indication.

>Would that involve enough people to
> counteract the gain with the current lowtimer population?

Honestly, I don't think people could _be_ downsizing much quicker than they are now. People with 300 jumps are buying 90 square foot canopies - WITHOUT any impetus caused by an impending grandfather clause.

All that said, I agree that the grandfather clause is not a necessary part of the proposal. It's not that important one way or another; its effect will be negligible after a year or so.

>And will the DZOs go out and check shipping receipts? Lots of grey
> area coming into the picture.

Checking canopy size is lots easier than checking reserve repack dates, and they do that now. You can see a canopy and check it once the person lands if you're still not sure.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>And will the DZOs go out and check shipping receipts? Lots of grey
> area coming into the picture.

Checking canopy size is lots easier than checking reserve repack dates, and they do that now. You can see a canopy and check it once the person lands if you're still not sure.

By that I mean how will the DZO determine that the undersize chute is a grandfathered one?

Purchased by the date the BSR is effective?
A verified log entry using the canopy by same date?

[mjosparky 4]

Quote

Your proposal looks to me the best of the bunch. I assume it evolved from This since it appeared three weeks later. However, there are other proposals out there, and this thread has never been explicitly stated to be reviewing yours and yours alone.

Quote

I call it mine, but it is just a collection of mainly other people's ideas. Maybe you could collect everything on the topic, take the best of each and present a really, really good proposal that can then be presented to a few DZ's to see if they will try it and return the results?

Now, Now, boys and girls. If you keep this up you may end up agreeing on something meaningful. That could lead to a viable program that might, just might, save some lives. Where will that leave you?

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[dragon2 2]

Quote

Quote

These observations have influenced other regulations such as helmets, allowable wind speeds, birdman suits, camera helmets and other such things which can reduce the margin for error while skydiving. To put into place planform and wingloading regulation would be in direct cohesion with that which is already being facilitated.

What are the regulations (as opposed to recommendations) concerning birdman suits and camera helmets, or any helmets at all for licensed skydivers?

For us here it's 'wear a suitable hard helmet' untill your A, wear 'something suitable' (can be frap-hat) untill C, after that you can jump without. For freeflying tho you always need a hard helmet.

For camera you need: either a B and 10 canopy formation jumps and 200 jumps total if you want to do hop&pops with camera (ie film CReW), but for freefall camera you need C and 200 freefall formation jumps.

Rules for wingsuits follow the manufactures (BirdMen) advice, so it's 200 jumps with BMI approval, 500 jumps without.

But I think we have way more rules then americans do...... We now have a whole system of canopy types/WL/size/jumpnumber rules, which has been explained elsewhere on this forum a couple times.

ciel bleu,
Saskia

[trigger 0]

Hi,
i rememember reading something awhile ago regarding what canopy type/WL could be jumped in Holland.
Though[correct me if i'm wrong]it was solely based on jump numbers..which i tend to disagree with as i believe you can still be a crap canopy pilot with say 1000jumps and by equal measure could well be a v.competent pilot with significately lower numbers.
It [the Dutch system]could be enforce[the hate word again,sorry]for those who are not willing to progress through a structured system of canopy control progression..

Hope my drivel makes sense

.CHOP WOOD COLLECT WATER.

[Ron 10]

Quote

First Good judgment is directly proportional to experience, skill level and time in the sport. If you take the average judgment of people with 1000 jumps and people with 100 you WILL notice a difference.
To obtain proofs for this, one only has to observe the landing area for a few years and it will provide all the empirical data you need. As a DZO and instructor, I have been observing poor judgment demonstrated by novice and expert alike for years. The evidence is as follows; Experts demonstrate poor judgment due to complacency, novices demonstrate poor judgment due to the improper handling of a canopy in an unusual situations and intermediates exercise poor judgment due to attempting to fly beyond their skill levels. In the first and last example ego is a major factor. In a limited context, this would be naught but anecdotal, however a decade+ of observations is what moves this into empirical.

Secondly higher performance canopies reduce your margin for error. To prove this thesis simply fly a manta into the side of the hanger. After you heal fly a smaller higher performing canopy into the same hanger. If you survive, fly a crossbraced eliptical into the hanger. I'm sure your xrays and Doctors bills will demonstrate a smaller HP canopies' propensity for being less forgiving. (note: If you spend enough time in the sport, the previous experiment is not required as you will witness jumpers conducting their own experimentation)

With this irrefutable evidence based on empirical data, we can see that placing the average 1000 jump wonder and 100 jump wonder in juxtaposition, suspended under like canopies, proves the more experienced jumper with be able to better manage the greater risks involved.

These observations have influenced other regulations such as helmets, allowable wind speeds, birdman suits, camera helmets and other such things which can reduce the margin for error while skydiving. To put into place planform and wingloading regulation would be in direct cohesion with that which is already being facilitated.

Although canopy skills do exist in a bell curve, the mean jumper skills of each level are the topic here.
Is there a need, given the current performance climate, for canopy regulation and if so what are the mean skills of each level and what is appropriate.

Note; your previous reasoning that placing ludicrous wing loading regulations would save even more lives is intellectually consistent with saying that slashing a someones tires reduces his likelyhood of having a car accident. Locking yourself in you house reduces you risk of being struck by lightning.remember, intellectual consistancy is the hobgoblin of small minds.

No one is proposing to eliminate risk all together, but rather establishing what level of risk is appropriate for a given skill level.
Although arguments about individual rights will always abound in this topic, we must also realize that an injury/fatality affects more than the individual involved. It will affect the other jumpers on the DZ, student on the DZ the DZ business itself and the family of the injured or killed party. logically, if something out has the ability to affect me, I would wish to have some influence over it.

Conclusion;
1.)HP canopies present higher risk for the jumpers flying them.
2.)Less experienced jumpers have a greater propensity for error by flying beyond their skill level
3.) all those affected by accidents should have input on the factors contributing to them.

Now quit making write dry responses gawdammit!

Damn...does it hurt when you are so right?

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

[billvon 3,111]

>A verified log entry using the canopy by same date?

That's what I assumed. If you have a logbook entry (signed off per the usual rules about signatures) that shows you jumping that canopy before the grandfather date, then you can keep jumping it. But I'm sure there are other ways to do that.