Alternate Solution(s)

[MarkM 0]

Quote

People make REALLY BAD decisions - in all things. . .I don't think you can regulate peoples decisions - if they don't make them skydiving they will make them somewhere else. But if those same people are educated and informed - just maybe more of them will make good decisions. . .and less people will get hurt doing stupid stuff.

I think the point of limiting wing loading isn't so much to prevent stupid mistakes, but to limit the results of those mistakes. The higher your wing loading the bigger the crater you make when you hit the ground.

Education can help and should definately be a part of any solution, but limiting wing loadings on newer pilots will lessen the impact of any mistakes they do eventually make.

[Supergeil 0]

In Denmark we have rules for wingload and for flying elliptical canopies!

Under 200 jumps you may not load your canopy more than 0.47Kg pr sqft.and an instuctor should say good for it.

And you can't fly an elliptical canopy before you have 400 jumps.
You can hookturn from the very first jump but of course nobody does that.

[sducoach 0]

Derek,

Please note the last post I made on the "other" thread. I again will ask you to not blame S&TA's for the problem. If you want S&TA's to "enforce" anything you must give them the "authority".

Again, BSR's are not regulations and without the DZO leading the charge at this time, nothing will change until USPA and/or FAA steps up.

Nuff said brother, blues.

J.E.

James 4:8

[Hooknswoop 19]

"This isn’t true, just wanted to make a point."

Got your attention though.

And I sold it for $100 and threw in a certificate from PA for $100.00 The jumper I sold it to is qualified to jump it.

Derek

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Please note the last post I made on the "other" thread. I again will ask you to not blame S&TA's for the problem. If you want S&TA's to "enforce" anything you must give them the "authority".

Again, BSR's are not regulations and without the DZO leading the charge at this time, nothing will change until USPA and/or FAA steps up.

Absolutely true.

Derek

[sducoach 0]

Dave,

Please explain to me how to "decouple" the yaw and pitch axis.

Blues,

J.E.

James 4:8

[Ron 10]

Quote

Regulate training for HP canopy flight. Regulate WL won't work because the training could still be missing. Also, many skydivers don't have the need to fly HP canopy at high WL.

If I want to fly a high performance plane a private license by itself won't do it. I have to show FAA I can do it and I have the proper trainig. Same for a tail-dragger and so forth. Why can't we do the same? You want to fly a HP canopy at 2.6? Cool here is what you have to learn, show that you have learnt it both in theory and practice. There should also be some different training categories like .7-1.0, 1.1-1.3, 1.4-1.7 and over 1.8. The first two could be embeded in the licesing system. It does not seem like rocket science to me.

This is all I have ever wanted..Regulate them UNLESS they can prove they can handle it....

If they can prove it...Let the go as fast as they safley can.

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

[Ron 10]

Quote

Hooknswoop talked about the similarity between new jumpers and young drivers. Well, in military aviation (possibly civil too, I don't know), they have a similar phenomenon to the increased accident rate among skydivers with 500-800 jumps. At around 1500 hours, accident rates suddenly spike. It's all about overconfidence, trying new things, and complacency. Maybe now that the D license is up to 500 jumps, they should add a canopy control signoff. Just a demonstration of flat and flare turns. Make those "500 jump wonders" get some remedial canopy training if they can't do it properly.

From my observations the "Spike" is around 300 jumps with a 1.5 wingload.

I would LOVE to see canopy control sign offs....But I would like to see them as waivers to a regulation....That way if you don't want to push it you can procede "normally" and if you have a gift, or the training you can push it a little.

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

[mnischalke 0]

just found this thread, but my idea is to use those five extra jumps before a student can get his A as a 5-jump, focused canopy control course by a USPA Canopy Control Instructor.

How many people have even read the new section in the 2004 SIM about canopy control and progression? It's awesome info, but I bet 90% of skydivers out there don't even know it's there.

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[riddler 0]

Quote

Got your attention thoughCool.

Whew! Seeing as how I have exactly 267 jumps, I thought you were talking about me I had to check my gear to make sure you hadn't loaded it with your 60. And the point is well taken - I'm not a terrific canopy pilot, but flying a semi-elliptical 150 is still beyond my skill level. I can land it OK most of the time, but I've been practicing cross-wind landings and I hope to be able to do a downwind landing with it sometime this year! And that's before I start doing the braked approaches and other suggestions that billvon has for flying your canopy. I really feel that I want to stay at my current wingload for a few years at least.

Not to keep bringing up the FAA question, but I don't see any evidence that they're that interested in skydivers as a group. Has anyone seen/heard/felt anything to suggest that they might be considering more regulation for us?

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[peek 21]

Quote

1) There is a problem with people being injured/killled under good canopies.

2) The current system of common sense, good judgement and S & TS's is what has allowed this problem to develop and is not fixing it.

3) Some DZ's are enacting very restrictive, no exceptions, policies towards wing loading and experience.

4) A letter was published in this months Parachutist, suggesting a possible solution to the problem.

5) Some people feel this suggested solution is not a good solution.

Does ANYONE have an alternate (better) solution to fix this problem?

Derek

I have been thinking about this for some time now, and have come to the conclusion that we skydivers need "psychological" help.

By this I mean that we need professionals in psychology to teach us _what it is about the way we think_ that is causing us to do the things that are killing us.

I think much of this is ego related, but it's not that simple. It's not just people with big egos that are doing intentional hook turns that are killing themselves.

The ones that bother me the most are people that, for example, have a long spot, don't make it all the way back, and kill themselves landing somewhere inappropriate when they had much better options.

We need to know what it is about ourselves that cause us to do things like this, and how to prevent ourselves from making bad decisions.

Possibly the cause of accidents like in my example _are_ ego, but obviously of a type that is difficult to recognize by one's skydiving instructors, or difficult for one to understand _in themselves_.

Are there any psychology professionals out there that can shed some light on this subject?

Are my ideas about this valid?

You know what bothers me most right now, and is related to this topic?

In a couple of weeks I'm going to be sitting at a USPA BOD meeting, and sitting in on an S&T committee meeting where a bunch of highly experienced instructors that think they know a lot will be trying to use their skydiving instructional experience to solve these problems that I don't think can be solved solely with their knowledge and experience in skydiving.

Like I said, I think we need professional help.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

I have exactly 267 jumps

LOL- figure the odds.

I think public incidents is what would bring the FAA down on skydiving. It would be difficult for the FAA to ignore the Royal Gorge incident because it was so visible to the public. The FAA doesn't feel any heat over a hook turn fatality that gets little to no news coverage. If the FAA is forced to step in, they will make uneducated changes which would be bad for skydiving. Imagine if someone hook turns into a Senator, killing them?

Derek

[mnischalke 0]

Quote

Imagine if someone hook turns into a Senator, killing them?

Or imagine if someone hooked into a spacecraft full of the first load of the little green aliens who are coming to our planet to show us all sorts of alternative energy sources like string beans and cabbage...What then?

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

I have been thinking about this for some time now, and have come to the conclusion that we skydivers need "psychological" help.

By this I mean that we need professionals in psychology to teach us _what it is about the way we think_ that is causing us to do the things that are killing us.

I think much of this is ego related, but it's not that simple. It's not just people with big egos that are doing intentional hook turns that are killing themselves.

The ones that bother me the most are people that, for example, have a long spot, don't make it all the way back, and kill themselves landing somewhere inappropriate when they had much better options.

We need to know what it is about ourselves that cause us to do things like this, and how to prevent ourselves from making bad decisions.

Possibly the cause of accidents like in my example _are_ ego, but obviously of a type that is difficult to recognize by one's skydiving instructors, or difficult for one to understand _in themselves_.

Are there any psychology professionals out there that can shed some light on this subject?

Are my ideas about this valid?

You know what bothers me most right now, and is related to this topic?

In a couple of weeks I'm going to be sitting at a USPA BOD meeting, and sitting in on an S&T committee meeting where a bunch of highly experienced instructors that think they know a lot will be trying to use their skydiving instructional experience to solve these problems that I don't think can be solved solely with their knowledge and experience in skydiving.

Like I said, I think we need professional help.

That is very insightful and a great idea. Wish I would have thought of that.

A better understanding of the 'why' would help with the 'fix'.

Derek

[skyyhi 0]

Quote

Education, for drivers and canopy pilots is important. It is also severely lacking for both drivers and canopy pilots. There are schools for both that are not mandatory, but people can pay to attend. Not everyone that should does, in fact very few that should do. Unfortunately, education is not the fix-all.

I completely agree with you here Derek. It is definitely NOT a cure/fix all. Mandatory education would help more people make better choices - and the mandatory education should come at each licensing level. . .But of course there are still those that no matter WHAT you teach them. . .mandatory or not. . .they are not going to follow the guidelines and will still make stupid choices. But at the same time I definitely don't think jump numbers equates with canopy skill either. I know we all have seen the guy with 50 jumps who can do beautifully under canopy and the guy with 200 jumps who can barely save his own life or get his canopy to the ground.

________________________________________
Take risks not to escape life… but to prevent life from escaping. ~ A bumper sticker at the DZ
FGF #6
Darcy

[pilotdave 0]

Quote

Dave,

Please explain to me how to "decouple" the yaw and pitch axis.

Well, that's what a flat turn does. In a regular turn, the canopy will roll, yaw, and pitch, pretty much in that order. A flat turn is basically only yaw.

Dave

[Hooknswoop 19]

I think it might be beneficial to explain why I think the way I do about this issue.

I think back to when I had 132 jumps and jumped a Stiletto 107 at a 1.75:1 wing loading. Would the me ‘then’ have listened to the me ‘now’? No way. Why? Because I thought I knew enough. I can look back now and see what I thought I knew and what I knew weren’t even in the same ball park. The only thing that would have kept me off that canopy was enforcement of a BSR that said I couldn’t jump it until I was ready.

So I understand that all the education, talking to, explanations, etc, would not have stopped me and it won’t stop others from getting in over their heads. It is a matter of attitude and experience. The attitude is basically impossible to change and the experience too often comes too late.

How I survived, against the odds, I’ll never know. I shouldn’t have. I was ignorant of the risks I was taking and ignorant of how to fly a canopy at that level.

Derek

[sducoach 0]

Okay,

I thought you had some "rotorhead" answer.

You can rotate around only one axis however, you cannot "decouple" the axis or seperate them.

You scared me, like the old saying if your wings are flying faster than you are you must be crashing or in a helicopter!!!


Blues,

J.E.

James 4:8

[kallend 2,145]

Your entire post seems to be an argument in favor of restrictions by age, not by jump numbers.

As I have posted several times before (last summer) I don't think you have accurately determined the root cause of the problem. You focus on a couple of things that seem obvious without justifying that choice.

Maybe age is just as important as jump numbers.
Maybe gender is more important than WL.
Maybe where you trained is more important than either.
Maybe attitude is the key, as Gary suggests.

You just don't know. Nor does Bill, nor does Ron... And that is what bothers me about your proposal.

...

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

[Jib 0]

Quote

A better understanding of the 'why' would help with the 'fix'.

Why get the maximum performance out of a canopy before you downsize? After all, new canopies are cheap and pretty and new.

I am no fan of regulation of any kind and was generally opposed to a specific jump number/wingloading requirement in favor of education. And while I'm still in favor of education and with the wisdom or 150+ jumps and a canopy control class @ 26, I do not believe there is anyone at less than 200 jumps who can max out a canopy loaded at 1.3. Does that mean they can't pass a canopy control test? Nope, in fact, I think I can. Does it mean they can't handle a smaller wing? Nope. Is that going to stop someone from jamming a toggle at 50'? Nope, but it may give someone enough margin for error to keep them from smashing himself when there's more to be had from something larger and safer.

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Your entire post seems to be an argument in favor of restrictions by age, not by jump numbers.

I didn't mean it that way. I don’t think jump numbers is a perfect way to measure ability either. Demonstrated skills is the best way to determine ability.

Quote

As I have posted several times before (last summer) I don't think you have accurately determined the root cause of the problem. You focus on a couple of things that seem obvious without justifying that choice.

It isn't perfect. But at some point you have to fix the problem, even if the solution isn't perfect.

I understand your reservations. I don't see a better solution. If I am wrong, then he whole deal can be rescinded, no hard feelings.

The ISP was put in place without a hard study showing that it was necessary and the best fix. Changes were made after a pilot program and continue to be made. I think the ISP has been shown to be better than straight AFF or S/L or IAD.

I just think this is the best fix for the problems I see. With the increasing number of landing incidents. A pilot program at one or two DZ’s should demonstrate either that the idea is a good one or that the idea is a bad one.

A more formal downsizing progression in the spirit of aircraft pilot’s ratings would work, IMO.

Like was pointed out, S & TA’s need real authority to enforce this proposed BSR and the already existing BSR’s.

All I want is to reduce the number of unnecessary injuries and fatalities and I think this idea would do that.

Derek

[pilotdave 0]

Hehe, no I fly planes, not helicopters. I work in the helicopter world though, so sometimes I get funny looks when I say things that I assume apply to helicopters but really only apply to planes.

Dave

[murps2000 86]

Quote

A logbook endorsement would alleviate the need to demonstrate proficiency at a new DZ if the jumper did so at their home DZ

This is from your reply in the other thread. Do you mean logbook endorsement by the home DZ S&TA?

I think the intent of your letter is good, although I do share some of others' misgivings about further regulation. But I think it is necessary, something is necessary. I'm concerned now with the fact that some S&TA's, whatever their experience in other aspects of the sport, are not really qualified to accurately assess canopy piloting skills with regard to high performance landings. I've seen this a time or two.

Quote

In flying aircraft we have a system of endorsements that really does not impose that much grief in proving to an instructor that you can handle a more complex aircraft than your basic trainer. High performance, complex, multi-engine are all add ons to one's pilot certificate. It is not hard to track and it does give the visiting pilot some proof to a FBO that does not know them an idea of what their background may be. And maybe that's part of this system. To give DZOs a chance to see what their background was.

I think this point from Diverdriver in the other thread was well-made. Modern canopies are now really serious aircraft, and should be respected as such. And yet, a check ride is never possible when transitioning between types. You would never let a green pilot with 75 hours exp. take a King Air out for a spin just because they thought they were some prodigee of piloting abiliity. No reason you should allow a 75 jump wonder take a Velo out for a sunday jump at 2:1 WL just because they thought the same thing. And although the point can be made that any 75 jump wonder should be able to look at the incident reports, or listen to those in the know who discourage such decisions, and realise that they should not be attempting to fly such an advanced design, some still do. For years, people have implored dealers and private sellers to prevent it, but it hasn't worked.

My only suggestion for an alternative would be that rather than make canopy courses and wingloading requirements part of license criteria directly, make them something of an award. Or an endorsement of some kind that is visible on your USPA card. That way, whatever your license, evidence of adequate ability would be available. This award could be attained by having met course requirements, or demonstrating proficiency to a suitable examiner (probably S&TA). And it could be a requirement for an advanced license, in much the same way that a falcon award or style set is a requirement for a C license. But it would not require attaining a higher license to have it. This way I could swoop my heart out without having to make night jumps to get that "D" so I can jump a cross-braced wing.

Thoughts?

[Hooknswoop 19]

Very good input.

I was thinking of canopy training required for higher licenses, but available to anyone. For example, a jumper could attend the instruction and train at the highest canopy level with only an "A" license. If they do not want a higher license, no problem, they can still advance their canopy skills, etc.

The licenses are more tied to free fall skills than canopy skills. Jumpers prggress at theses two completely different skils at different rates. The admin of the licenses should address that.

I agree that the WL that the jumper is signed off to should be on their USPA card. The logbook endorsement would be for a waiver to the WL limits and so that the jumper could go to another DZ immediately and not have to wait for a new USPA card.

Thanks,

Derek

[Ron 10]

Quote

Well, true, but all the flying time in the world isn't gonna do me any good when I'm 40 feet off the ground and realize I'm about to slam into another jumper or something else

I disagree...Your pilot training will make it so:

a. you might not put yourself into that situation anyway.
b. you will react calmer than someone that really does not understand how a canopy flies.

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