Alternate Solution(s)

[winsor 236]

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 think I do.

Right now the kewl thing to do in canopy competition is swooping. Okay, so some of the best in the business occasionally break every bone in their goddamned bodies, winding up maimed or dead, but, hey, it sure is photogenic!

Before the NSL came about, RW competition had become nearly a professionals-only affair. If you weren't Airspeed or the Knights or some other heavily-sponsored group, you were wasting your time.

Now you have people training for Beginner or Intermediate class, and thinking it is a good investment of time, money and effort.

An equivalent "Canopy Rally Circuit," if you will, could make learning to fly one's existing canopy enough of a challenge and rewarding enough that you have fewer people downsizing to canopies that they then fly in a fatal manner.

If DZOs got on board and considered that these canopy skills were pivotal to keeping their customer base alive and in one piece, and if the challenges did not automatically give the advantage to Major Drop Zones with the attendant infrastructure, you could develop a canopy skill/safety movement from the ground up.

I'm still contemplating a syllabus that would serve the purposes I envision. The elements I want are that it should be fun, challenging, a bit humbling, sure to improve one's canopy kinesthetics and awareness, and an ego boost. If one dropzone has a score that demonstrates some real canopy skills, and is head and shoulders above another, this could be the kind of feather in the cap that keeps raising the bar (okay, I'll back off on the mixed metaphors).

The two areas that I would like to see are Sport Canopy Formation (as opposed to classical CRW, which has problems with microline and 9 foot bridles) and Sport Accuracy, which is better for canopies that don't like deep brakes.

I want to keep this the hell out of the USPA domain, since safety isn't a bureaucratically-mandated condition.

The Triathalon caught on as an all-around canopy, and I think the pendulum can't swing much more in the direction of Unlimited Class canopies as the standard. Going back to CruiseLites and whatnot is not the answer (though I still like to jump them), but a canopy flying standard that makes it hard as hell to do well on undersized equipment could make it clear (and unappealing) when someone has bitten off more performance than they can handle.

In any event, even though I haven't come up with a coherent overall approach, I think I have narrowed down the list of elements that could make it work, and I've had a lot of good input.

There is more going on than a lot of hand-wringing and regulation-proposing. I want to keep it as fun and free as possible. More goddamned rules have yet to be the answer to much of anything.


Blue skies,

Winsor

[JJohnson 0]

And what skills would someone have to demonstrate in order to get cleared to use a higher wingloading? To they demostrate these skills on their current canopy or on a smaller one on which they want the wingloading?
Are we just talking basics like flat turns, flared turns, rear riser landings? Or do you get into agressive piloting like swooping....where most of the mistakes by the "attitude" impaired are going to occur...

You got a good idea going, now how about some structure.

JJ

"Call me Darth Balls"

[Hooknswoop 19]

Good idea and I think it will make a difference. The problem I see is that the Pro swooping circuit is 'cool'. People want to be a Pro competetor. A Triatholon 150 isn't going to be competative on the Pro circuit. What if the Pro circuit got on board and required X number of beginner/intermediate competetions and/or standings at theose competetions before being allowed into the Pro circuit?

Derek

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

And what skills would someone have to demonstrate in order to get cleared to use a higher wingloading?

Basically Bill Von's list.

Quote

To they demostrate these skills on their current canopy or on a smaller one on which they want the wingloading?

Current canopy.

Quote

Are we just talking basics like flat turns, flared turns, rear riser landings?

It hasn't been defined yet, but Bill's list is the starting point.

Quote

Or do you get into agressive piloting like swooping....where most of the mistakes by the "attitude" impaired are going to occur...

Some people don't want to do HP landings, which is fine, so they won't vbe required to demonstrate them. Weather the low turn was intentional or not makes no difference, the turn that results in an injury has the same dynamics whether it was intentional or not. That would be a klarge part of the training, avoinding putting youself into a position where a low turn is necessary to avoid an obstacle, get into the wind, etc. Just like a good landing in an airplane starts on the downwind leg, a HP landing is all in the set up.

We are still trying to gain acceptance for the idea, details would be next.

Derek

[Ron 10]

Like Hook said its a great idea....

However, most skydivers I know all think they are "special" And think they are above the norm.

Most skydivers don't need booties, full face carbon fire hemets, or a Xbraced canopy...they WANT them.

As as long as they can just write a check or run up a credit card...they are gonna buy them.

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

[winsor 236]

Quote

Like Hook said its a great idea....

However, most skydivers I know all think they are "special" And think they are above the norm.

Most skydivers don't need booties, full face carbon fire hemets, or a Xbraced canopy...they WANT them.

As as long as they can just write a check or run up a credit card...they are gonna buy them.

I think it should be made a challenge and a certificate of demonstrated achievement - sort of like an SCR/SCS used to be (I just got my SCR & SCS, btw).

Like the Plains Indians would count coup to show off their bravery and skill, being able to bump end cells could be a demonstration of canopy skill. To do a right bump and a left bump (above the hard deck) could be a pretty solid demonstration that you know pretty much what you're doing.

Similarly, an accuracy competition with no turns allowed below 200 feet could really separate the experts from the tyros, and humble some of the wannabe skygods.

If you can establish some kind of scoring system where cocky types get frustrated and say "fuck, this is harder than it looks!," you may challenge them enough to focus on developing skills.

I shoot accuracy under my EXTreme 99 FX canopies, and do so straight-in. That allows me to keep an eye out for people who might try to occupy my airspace, and lets me skate through the peas.

I also go for the peas with a straight-in approach when I'm jumping my Blue Tracks, CruiseLites, and Raven IVs.

If it is seen as a challenge, and a serious merit badge to boot, you are likely to have more people trying to figure out how to do these things. The nice side effect is that in order to do these things, people must master lifesaving skills.

If you want to improve safety, appeal to people's egos. Consider your audience.

A kind of Darwinian suggestion is to incorporate some form of BASE into the mix (you SURE aren't going to get USPA to buy off on that...). I don't know of much of any BASE jumpers that can't shoehorn a parachute into a really tight spot.

BASE and CRW jumpers may have Class 5 canopies, but the skills they must have in order to pursue the other disciplines carry over to the Xbrace units. If the point is made that you have to have the skills BEFORE you screw with the postage-stamp parachutes, and provide the means to develop these skills, I think the rate of maiming and dying can be reduced significantly.

Any suggestions that will help make a "Canopy Skills Challenge" a reality are greatly appreciated.


Blue skies,

Winsor

[skybytch 273]

Quote

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.

That was USPA's response to the last time the idea of mandatory canopy control training was proposed. Great information, but in a place where 90% of the people who could benefit from it will never look.

How many people out there even own a 2004 SIM? My bet would be only those who are currently working towards a license or working towards a rating.

[yoink 321]

Sounds like a great idea to me, but you'll have to get all DZs to buy into the idea, otherwise the wannabe skygods who get frustrated will just go to a non-affiliated DZ to jump their tiny canopies.

[Ron 10]

This is why I always liked the PRO rating before you can downsize....

If you can land 10 times out of 10 standing in a 30 foot circle under the canopy you now have...Then I think you know how to fly that canopy, and you might be ok to downsize.

If you can't then you don't know how to fly that canopy.

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

[ryoder 1,590]

Quote

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.

Hey Riddler, where will you be jumping this weekend?
I don't know why, but Derek specifically asked me to video your next landing. He seemed *really* interested in seeing it.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[ryoder 1,590]

Quote

Like Hook said its a great idea....

However, most skydivers I know all think they are "special" And think they are above the norm.

This reminds of a study of automobile drivers that included asking the drivers to rate themselves.
As I recall, about 80% rated themselves "above average".

AKA "The Lake Wobegone Effect".

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[winsor 236]

Quote

Quote

Like Hook said its a great idea....

However, most skydivers I know all think they are "special" And think they are above the norm.

This reminds of a study of automobile drivers that included asking the drivers to rate themselves.
As I recall, about 80% rated themselves "above average".

I recommend giving these talented people an opportunity to prove it. Have a series of jumps where they are expected to do various canopy maneuvers, with their choice of canopies.

If they bitch that it's unfair for them to be expected to do it with their Stiletto 120, I could easily have video available of people doing the same thing with a Xaos 69 or a ParaCommander.

There's more to canopy control than the brinksmanship of swoop competition. You think you're ready for a 120 meter turf surf? I challenge you to demonstrate mastery of canopy control in a few other events first.

I flat guarantee that Rickster Powell or Charlie Mullins could ace any test I could throw at them (and both of them have biffed in their careers, as well).


Blue skies,

Winsor

[Hooknswoop 19]

But what if they don't bother, get the too small canopy anyway and then crater?

They can prove their skills on larger canopies before downsizing now, but they don't. They might think they did, but they didn't. They feel ready for the too small canopy and the only way to prove to them that they weren't is to described the curious angles their lower legs are making before the ambulence arrives. How do we prevent jumpers from downsizing too quickly and without the necessary training/education?

I think offering a venue is a great idea, but if they choose not to participate it won;t affect them. Or even if they do, don't do well and decidie that it isn't their fault, but the wind, traffic, their canopy is too bug, etc?

It will make a difference, but my target audience will be missed.

Derek

[benny 0]

Quote

I think offering a venue is a great idea, but if they choose not to participate it won;t affect them. Or even if they do, don't do well and decidie that it isn't their fault, but the wind, traffic, their canopy is too bug, etc?

It will make a difference, but my target audience will be missed.

Derek

You could easily have canopy categories that would eliminate blaming it on "my canopy was too big". That seems the logical way to organize amateur canopy competitions. It's pretty much the way the do amateur anything (auto racing for instance).

Never go to a DZ strip show.

[kallend 2,129]

Quote

Good idea and I think it will make a difference. The problem I see is that the Pro swooping circuit is 'cool'. People want to be a Pro competetor. A Triatholon 150 isn't going to be competative on the Pro circuit. What if the Pro circuit got on board and required X number of beginner/intermediate competetions and/or standings at theose competetions before being allowed into the Pro circuit?

Derek

What will this do for non-competitive people? As I read through the fatality reports I see a whole lot from people who aren't flying "HP" canopies and aren't making deliberate low turns.

A good safe landing starts about 1000ft agl with good observation, good judgement and good decision making. I don't see any of this featuring in any proposals.

It's like teaching pilots spin recovery without teaching spin avoidance.

...

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

[riddler 0]

Quote

make them something of an award.

I like the idea of presenting as an award, but I don't think most people would bother. USPA has a lot of useless awards that people can get if they send in some money, but those awards don't have real significance, other than you say you did them, so I don't think most people would bother. Unless you found a way to encourage the award. I have my D license, which entailed doing the skills for a variety of USPA awards (falcon, et al), but I never bothered with the other awards, because there was no motivation.

Licenses are encouraged by dropzones - i.e. you can't do such-and-such unless you have a certain license. I couldn't do a balloon jump at my home DZ until I had a B license. When winds pick up, the DZ manager sometimes says only B-license and above can jump.

If you established a series of canopy awards, and then DZs started employing rules, then that would be accomplishing something.

1. No swooping until you've achieved the USPA "whoooosh" award.
2. No pond swooping until you have the "wet-n-wild" award.
3. No hook turns to land until you have the "stomach-churner".

Whatever the case, it would have to be a combined effort of USPA and DZs. I don't think it's unrealistic considering USPA and many DZs work together on some issues now.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

What will this do for non-competitive people? As I read through the fatality reports I see a whole lot from people who aren't flying "HP" canopies and aren't making deliberate low turns.

Which is what I see as the flaw in the idea. I think keeping people off canopies they shouldn't be on until they are ready for them and education/training is the fix.

Derek

[slug 1]

>>Whatever the case, it would have to be a combined effort of USPA and DZs. I don't think it's unrealistic considering USPA and many DZs work together on some issues now. >>

IMO The solution is going to have to come from the USPA individual membership lobbying USPA to do something: SADS Skydivers Against Dumb Shits or some other group like MADD.

USPA and the DZ's are the one and the same and they haven't done anything about the situation up to now. USPA isn't requireing any reporting on the number of non fatal injuries, Read the DZ listings in this websight notice the number of DZ's that "permit hook turns without qualifications. etc etc.

Is there a liability issue if someone is aproved for high performance landings and then they get hurt?

This problem didn't happen overnight, it's been ignored to long, and folks need to continue to try on finding a solutition. Just don't count on USPA to do it with input from the individual membership SADS


R.I.P.
Who said skydivers are stupid we invented a whole new way to kill ourselves.

[bmcd308 0]

Quote

What will this do for non-competitive people? As I read through the fatality reports I see a whole lot from people who aren't flying "HP" canopies and aren't making deliberate low turns.

Sadly, this is a tough group to address. Some number of crashes from "unintentional" low turns will likely always be with us.

None of the various proposals address people at reasonable wing loadings who just make a mistake at a low altitude.

I biffed in hard when I knew better. I got lucky, and I learned a lesson without taking an ambulance ride.

Quote

A good safe landing starts about 1000ft agl with good observation, good judgement and good decision making. I don't see any of this featuring in any proposals.

This is the very thing that mandatory education seeks to address, and it is one way to cure the problem you mention above. To some extent, however, this is the current system. Of all the people who crushed in due to a low turn, I bet that there were exactly zero who did not know that low turns were dangerous. Every first jump student knows that already.

Quote

It's like teaching pilots spin recovery without teaching spin avoidance.

As I said, spin/low turn avoidance is taught. However, spins and low turns look cool and are fun, so people still do them.

Brent

----------------------------------
www.jumpelvis.com

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

None of the various proposals address people at reasonable wing loadings who just make a mistake at a low altitude.

The proposal does adress this through mandatory education and training for everyone.

Derek

[mnischalke 0]

Unless you already have a D license.

Those 20,000+ people don't have to worry about it.

mike

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

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Unless you already have a D license.

True, but with more and more people getting the training and more and more courses being held, a lot of those people that are grand fathered will attend and get the training even if it isn't required. I don't think it would work if they weren't grand fathered anymore than taking away people's "D" licenses that didn't have 500 jumps when USPA changed it from 200 to 500.

The sooner the change is made, the less people there will be that will be grand fathered in.

Derek

[bmcd308 0]

>.The proposal does adress this through mandatory education and training for everyone. <<

Later in the post you quoted, I said:

This is the very thing that mandatory education seeks to address, and it is one way to cure the problem you mention above [low turns under appropriate canopies]. To some extent, however, this is the current system. Of all the people who crushed in due to a low turn, I bet that there were exactly zero who did not know that low turns were dangerous. Every first jump student knows that already.



My point was that some number of people will always make mistakes and injure themselves. I do not think we need to be so ambitious that we try to eliminate all human error.

I would agree with you that better education would make for better decision-making, which would reduce the number of mistakes. However, mistakes are a fact of life. Joel Mullins is a case in point - he knows that hitting a building at speed is not a good thing. However, he did hit a building at speed. A lack of education or canopy training was not the problem there - a mistake was.

Anyway, before you get the idea that I am arguing with you, I'm not. I agree that canopy skills are a weak point in the current system, and I also agree that lots of people are flying canopies too small for their level of experience.

I am considering downsizing myself right now, and it is a decision that I have been delaying all winter. In all likelihood, I will not downsize until this summer. But despite the fact that I think of myself as conservative, I want a smaller canopy that I may or may not be able to handle when things go wrong.

It is easy, when things are going right, to handle a smaller wing. Even if this does not lead jumpers to believe that they can always handle the smaller wing, it does make them want it.

I have jumped a fairly highly loaded canopy myself when conditions were great. It was fun, and I would love for every canopy ride to be like that. However, each time I think I am ready to list my current canopy in the classifieds, I wind up chasing a cutaway main for someone and landing off and being glad that I have the extra 20 to 40 square feet.

I'll also go on record here saying that I, for one, would enjoy canopy competition that was structured for resaonably sized sport mains as suggested above. I can't do "real" accuracy under my canopy, nor can I do "real" swoop competitions. However, if there was a way to match skills with others who are loaded at 1.15, I would happily do that.

Brent

----------------------------------
www.jumpelvis.com

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Earlier this year I sent an email to the NSL proposing both a Freefly and Swooping circuit - I volunteered my time and energy to help organize it in the Chicago area.

No one from the NSL got back to me.

Oh yea, we have "Swoop Club" at Skydive Chicago - an event where we welcome all levels of canopy pilots to fly a course with blades. It happens first thing in the morning and is usually done before most jumpers make it to the hanger, and it happened early enough that other DZ jumpers came out to it, then went back to their DZ for a full day of jumping. The idea is much like scrambles - newbies learning from the pros. Plus it helps the DZ realize who are the ones that are trying to get to the hotshot level and can keep an eye on them and work with them.

Regulation is NOT the way to go - no one will follow it. It just won't work - I'm surprised that those that have been in the sport the longest are the ones suggesting this. I realize the frustration level of watching people get hurt year after year....but you can't save all of them.

Want to know the best way? Get the "cool" swoopers involved in a very education vocal campaign - something that is altruistic and isn't an advertisment for their coaching program.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[pilotdave 0]

Quote

1. No swooping until you've achieved the USPA "whoooosh" award.
2. No pond swooping until you have the "wet-n-wild" award.
3. No hook turns to land until you have the "stomach-churner".

How do you define swooping? On a no wind day, my sabre2 will "swoop" for a little bit whether I want to or not. It may not be a very long swoop, but I've leveled off on one side of the peas and touched down on the other. Is that a swoop? How do you know if I meant to do it or not?

Is pond swooping more dangerous than swooping over the ground?

How do you define a hook turn?

My issue with an awards or license based system is cost. When I see USPA, I see $$$$. Not that it HAS to cost a lot. But unlike an SCR award or any other, this one would come with privaleges so it would be a totally different ballgame requiring verification and all that.

To me, a logbook signoff by whoever is deemed appropriate would have the same result and would be much simpler. But I agree anything that's done needs to be implemented at the DZ level. If a DZ lets people jump with canopies that they clearly aren't ready for, and doesn't even ground them when they NEARLY hook it in on jump 30, the problem won't go away.

Dave