Ron 10 #26 May 1, 2003 QuoteThis discussion makes me wonder if we might borrow a page from the old Driver's Ed book and do a section at the end of training when people are being signed off to dive solo, covering the dangers and possible effects of landing mistakes and throwing in some better canopy control training while we're at it. Kind of a 'Red Dropzone' effect - perhaps if more newbies fully understood the dangers, and had SEEN the possible effects, they'd be less inclined to start trying to swoop right away. I doubt that would work...Almost everyone thinks THEY are above the norm. "It won't happen to ME...HE was stupid". Ron"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #27 May 1, 2003 and i guess its to much bother for those involved to ACTUALLY READ the waiver they signed where it says THEY MIGHT DIE doing this.. you'd think everyone involved in skydiving would understand it is potentially a lethal activity and that the choices they make and the canopies they fly can make it more or less so, but i guess its to much effort to really read & accept that fact before you get on the plane. i doubt anyone thinks they are going to be the one who hooks it in, but if arent willing to accept that as a possibility then DONT GET ON THE PLANE..____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #28 May 1, 2003 Quoteany canopy can be hooked in no matter what the wing load, Agreed. Quoteand low ground turns kill just as fast on lightly loaded squares. No, they don't. A turn low to the ground on a lightly loaded canopy is significantly more survivable than a low turn on a highly loaded canopy. Why? Because you'll impact the ground at a lower speed on the lightly loaded canopy than you will on the highly loaded canopy. If what you just said was true then there would be absolutely no reason to keep students and low timers off of highly loaded parachutes. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freakydiver 0 #29 May 1, 2003 "I doubt that would work...Almost everyone thinks THEY are above the norm." They're students for crying out loud. They are adults that are in a learning environment. They obviously pick up on everything else that goes into an Instructional course that gets them to the point of being able to purchase the herein said high performance canopy. If it was presented to a student in this fashion, "Look, you will have a hundred jumps from now, right now that seems like alot to you, but really its not. When you get there, you will start to take notice of people landing their canopies at very high rates of descent. It looks badass, its alot of fun. HALF OF THE PEOPLE THAT DIED LAST YEAR DIED TRYING IT AND HAD UNDER 500 JUMPS (a lie, but screw it, scare them). You will want to try these types of landings. GET INSTRUCTION FIRST AND TALK TO SO AND SO BEFORE EVER TRYING IT BECAUSE PEOPLE GET HURT AND PEOPLE DIE." Do you honestly think if we beat this into their heads that we wouldn't save JUST ONE life??? ONE, thats the goal here correct? Than two?? They are human freaking beings that can learn if we teach them. They seem to manage to follow reserve sequences even though those could seem pretty technical at first. I've seen jumpers with less than 20 jumps deal with having to cut away and dump their reserves. Why would teching them that going to fast too soon can kill more than anything else in the sport not sink into their brains??? -- (N.DG) "If all else fails – at least try and look under control." -- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #30 May 1, 2003 you'd think everyone involved in skydiving would understand it is potentially a lethal activity and that the choices they make and the canopies they fly can make it more or less so, but i guess its to much effort to really read & accept that fact before you get on the plane. QuoteWell, I agree that too many people don't think this sport can kill. I don't like AAD dependency (Which is when someone will not jump with out an AAD...Even though one of my best friends would have been saved by one...I still think it is a persons personal choice. But I agree that they should be required for students, and I recomend them to anyone that cares to listen.) This sport spends a lot of time trying to "pretend" that this sport is safe....You could not even pretend that 10 years ago." However with everything....You don't just give a kid keys to a car when he turns 16...He has to pass tests...High insurance costs keep a large number of kids from all getting Corvettes...skydiving does not have these things. When I went to go get a motorcycle license years ago in TN....I could only get a license for a bike UNDER 125 CC...until I was 16. In have a pilots license....I could not fly a HP aircraft, tail wheel or a twin with out more instruction, and I could not get behind the yoke due to insurance of many aircraft...Also I need 120 hrs to get my Instrument, and 250 for my Comercial....All of these requirements are for safety. Scuba Diving...Open water is only good for 60 feet..Want to go deeper? you need Advanced...Want to go in a Cave?..You need Cavern, then Cave 1 and then Cave 2...All of these were put into place because people with out the need knowledge were killing themselves...How many? not much compared to all the divers in the world, but it was too much. Pull atitudes...too many people were bouncing...The #1 cause of death in this sport before AAD....USPA said well we now have min pull altitudes based on EXPERIENCE. Regulation works.....It has been show to work many times.... And all this one would do is DELAY the canopy to the jr swoop gods. Education would be great, but it has been shown not to work. Making the person sign wavers didn't work....Being around people that screwed up and got hurt does not work... All I want is to delay when these people can get the highly loaded canopies that have PROVEN to be a major factor in these accidents. And that increase the chance of serious injurys. Like it or not...since you were a kid people have been protecting you...Lead paint...electric outlets....signs on cross walks...21 to drink, 18 to smoke, 16 to drive... The same argument that some us that it is unfair to those that have the skills could be said for the age requirments for everything..Maybe I was ready to drink at 12? Maybe I could handle skydiving at 11? Maybe I knew enough to vote whan I was 15? Something has to be used as a ruler...And jump #'s are the quickest, and believe it or not a fairly good way to guage a persons skills...Yes there are exceptions, but as a whole they are fairly good. It will work.... I can't believe that people are so against it...You scream that your personal freedom is being steped on... OH WELL.. You can always jump at non USPA DZ's....They are still out there. Ron"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites freakydiver 0 #31 May 1, 2003 "You scream that your personal freedom is being steped on..." I honestly DO NOT believe anyone is "screaming" that their personal freedom's are being stepped on except for a very small percentage of responses to these types of threads. If you'd care to prove me wrong do so. I believe what people are "screaming" is, people are dying, lets put something in place quick to educate them even just a little bit more than they are being educated now to try to prevent this from growing into a really large problem. In all honesty, I could give two shi*s if anyone put in regulation because I already learned how to fly a canopy, but it won't stop anyone from hooking a freaking parachute into the ground if we don't show them how to manuver their canopies in all sorts of conditions and take the instructional level further than, "yah so here's the downwind leg and thats the target and then you flare. Just listen to the radio and you'll be fine" THAT WON'T CUT IT. (That was shouting btw). Its like any "extreme" sport out there. Dirt bike riding for instance, you think these big dirt jumpers are putting regulations in place so the kids coming up don't hurt themselves on the bikes? NO! They are teaching CLASSES for them. You think these skiers and snowboarders that are tossing themselves 50-100 feet in the air are putting regulations in place to keep people from getting hurt on too long of a board? They put on clinics and gladly answer questions and suggest progressions to safely advance. In both of these instances, I believe people began to see the need for some sort of safety net before anyone could run out and hop on a bike and huck themselves off of a huge kicker. The riding community realized that it better start happening rather quickly or insurance problems would quickly begin to arrise. Education is the key. Education, education, education. -- (N.DG) "If all else fails – at least try and look under control." -- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zenister 0 #32 May 1, 2003 Quote Like it or not...since you were a kid people have been protecting you...Lead paint...electric outlets....signs on cross walks...21 to drink, 18 to smoke, 16 to drive... The same argument that some us that it is unfair to those that have the skills could be said for the age requirments for everything..Maybe I was ready to drink at 12? Maybe I could handle skydiving at 11? Maybe I knew enough to vote whan I was 15? well just as a personal example i was drinking at 8 (grew up in europe, i guess they let parents make those decisions there. was taught to drive at 12 (and drove quite a bit between 14-16 before the state said i was allowed to do so) smoked for about a month at 16 (before deciding it sucked) its not hard to cite examples of 12 year olds skydiving and i know people who arent qualified to vote at 30..all that points out is a simple number scale (age or jump #'s) is a insufficient measure of any ability. education hasnt been tried. whats funny is all the activities you mentioned have TRAINING PROGRAMS to allow you to participate in the more advanced levels, i guess its to much effort for us to have the same sort of SKILLS BASED system. all the anecdotal evidence from this forum alone says that instructors arent teaching canopy control like they should in the first place, but your all ready to create blanket rules without even attempting to bring anything else up to acceptable levels first.. the question you never answered. sure you have to pass a test at 16, but once you do you can go out and buy pretty much ANY car you can afford without restriction of any kind..FAR more people are killed driving cars that their ability is clearly not up to handling under all conditions, yet i dont see you lobbying the DMV for tighter controls on 16 year olds and muscle cars. i guess lives only the tiny fraction of lives lost under canopies are really important to you, or are you off on a crusade to save EVERYONE from doing anything that could possibly kill them. :rollseyes: actually i could still likely jump an "overloaded" canopy at USPA dz, its not like any DZ is about to put scales next to the loading area to verify wingloadings even if your shortsighted blanket resolution were passed. Dont waste time with regulations that are difficult or impossible to enforce (although you may be able to sleep better since you'll have convinced yourself you've done something to promote safety) Take a step to promote education and ability instead with far better results than simply increasing the number of jumps the next divot has.. oh wait you might have to work to do that...____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites cloud9 0 #33 May 1, 2003 I have to say education is the only thing that works. Regulations don't mean a damn thing. First off compare apples to apples. Cars, trucks and planes have nothing to do with skydiving. Lets look at pull altitude, there is a min pull altitude but is that what stops you from going low the rule? I don't think so on any given jump you can pull where ever you want to no one can stop you until after the jump. You pull where you do because of education. Now after land the DZ can ground you, but they could do that after a low timer swooping too couldn't they? As for creating more rules because its thought that people are outside the norm trying to fly to small of canopies, it just isn't so. The people that bounce would bounce on anything, they might live but they would bounce. The truth is most 100 jump wonders can fly a 1.3 wing loading with no trouble. Very few try to go much more. Accidents on my DZ- broken leg female student under a Manta 288 very light wing loading. Broken leg male 150 + jumps Triathlon 190 light loaded. FUBAR 80 or so jumps Falcon 175 loaded at about 1.1 Uninjured- male 250 jumps downsized from a Sabre 170 to a Xaos 108 over 100 jumps on canopy no problems Male 500 jumps downsized from a Sabre 150 to xaos 108 no problems 125 jumps started jumping stiletto 135 loaded about 1.4 over 100 on canopy 150 jumps started jumping a Nova 120 (yes a Nova) loaded at about 1.4 no problems The list goes on. Be real and list the injuries at your dropzone your going to find mostly lightly loaded canopies, and the ones on higher loaded wings hook turning would have burned in on anything! - - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #34 May 1, 2003 Well, insted of just slamming any Idea I come up with... Lets hear your program for teaching canopy flight. The mike is on, and its your turn. Include Who, What, When, Where, at What cost... Establish a regulatory agency..Where do they get funding.. The plan has to be able to be implemented NATIONWIDE... Go.."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,107 #35 May 1, 2003 > low ground turns kill just as fast on lightly loaded squares. Nonsense. >i've seen AFF students biff in hard flaring too early, then letting the > toggles go, that's fugly. Did they die? Or was the canopy large enough to make that mistake survivable? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zenister 0 #36 May 1, 2003 i'm not slamming ANY idea you come up with, i'm slamming the idea that a blanket regulation based on jump numbers alone will significantly help reduce the number of fatalities. I wont begin to pretend i have the knowledge or expertise to design a comprehensive canopy control class with progression based on demonstrated ability instead of number accumulation, but i believe it certainly can be done, and would do infinitely more to help pilots of all experience levels learn to fly the wings they are on. again i'm not talking about restrictions, i fully believe it is your right to hook it in under any napkin you feel you can fly. It is our obligation to the sport to make sure the information is out there and available so that each jumper has can make an informed decision on their own.____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites freakydiver 0 #37 May 1, 2003 QuoteWell, insted of just slamming any Idea I come up with... Lets hear your program for teaching canopy flight. The mike is on, and its your turn. Include Who, What, When, Where, at What cost... Establish a regulatory agency..Where do they get funding.. The plan has to be able to be implemented NATIONWIDE... Go.. Ron man, whats with the negativity here. Read my posts from: May 1, 2003, 10:43 AM and May 1, 2003, 10:33 AM "Include Who, What, When, Where, at What cost... Establish a regulatory agency..Where do they get funding.. The plan has to be able to be implemented NATIONWIDE..." I suggested probable ideas in both. -- (N.DG) "If all else fails – at least try and look under control." -- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rgoper 0 #38 May 1, 2003 QuoteA turn low to the ground on a lightly loaded canopy is significantly more survivable than a low turn on a highly loaded canopy. tell that to the people who have died under big lightly loaded canopies. "low ground turn" does not mean striking the ground after the low ground turn, it can be a building, a hangar, a vehichle, there have been many instances of this in the last 5 years. QuoteIf what you just said was true then there would be absolutely no reason to keep students and low timers off of highly loaded parachutes. that's a hell of a statement, this thread has been all about low timers on small canopies. the whole thing is we cannot regulate the students and low timers, thus the casualties will continue to mount.--Richard-- "We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,146 #39 May 1, 2003 Quote. In have a pilots license....I could not fly a HP aircraft, tail wheel or a twin with out more instruction, and I could not get behind the yoke due to insurance of many aircraft...Also I need 120 hrs to get my Instrument, and 250 for my Comercial....All of these requirements are for safety. ... Pull atitudes...too many people were bouncing...The #1 cause of death in this sport before AAD....USPA said well we now have min pull altitudes based on EXPERIENCE. Regulation works.....It has been show to work many times.... And all this one would do is DELAY the canopy to the jr swoop gods. ... Education would be great, but it has been shown not to work. Ron But FAA doesn't give you a commercial license or a tailwheel sign-off just because you accumulate flight hours, and USPA doesn't lower your pull altitude just because you have a certain number of jumps. The LICENSES grant permission to do certain things based on demonstrated skills in addition to accumulated experience. I have over 1100 jumps on a Stiletto loaded at 1.3, but in no way do I think that qualifies me to go to a highly loaded napkin sized canopy. I am really uneasy with a purely jump number criterion. OTOH I have no problem in granting permission to jump a HP canopy to anyone that can demonstrate the necessary skills. The problem seems to be that no-one trusts the evaluators to give an honest evaluation on account of various perceived conflicts of interest. I'm sure that is a problem that can be solved.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #40 May 1, 2003 QuoteQuoteA turn low to the ground on a lightly loaded canopy is significantly more survivable than a low turn on a highly loaded canopy. tell that to the people who have died under big lightly loaded canopies. "low ground turn" does not mean striking the ground after the low ground turn, it can be a building, a hangar, a vehichle, there have been many instances of this in the last 5 years. Doesn't matter what you hit, you'll be going slower under a bigger canopy than you would be under a smaller one given the same conditions. QuoteQuoteIf what you just said was true then there would be absolutely no reason to keep students and low timers off of highly loaded parachutes. that's a hell of a statement, this thread has been all about low timers on small canopies. the whole thing is we cannot regulate the students and low timers, thus the casualties will continue to mount. That is a hell of a statement. But you were claiming that canopy size makes no difference in the result of a turn into the ground. The casualties will definitely continue to mount if that's what people believe. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 2 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
freakydiver 0 #31 May 1, 2003 "You scream that your personal freedom is being steped on..." I honestly DO NOT believe anyone is "screaming" that their personal freedom's are being stepped on except for a very small percentage of responses to these types of threads. If you'd care to prove me wrong do so. I believe what people are "screaming" is, people are dying, lets put something in place quick to educate them even just a little bit more than they are being educated now to try to prevent this from growing into a really large problem. In all honesty, I could give two shi*s if anyone put in regulation because I already learned how to fly a canopy, but it won't stop anyone from hooking a freaking parachute into the ground if we don't show them how to manuver their canopies in all sorts of conditions and take the instructional level further than, "yah so here's the downwind leg and thats the target and then you flare. Just listen to the radio and you'll be fine" THAT WON'T CUT IT. (That was shouting btw). Its like any "extreme" sport out there. Dirt bike riding for instance, you think these big dirt jumpers are putting regulations in place so the kids coming up don't hurt themselves on the bikes? NO! They are teaching CLASSES for them. You think these skiers and snowboarders that are tossing themselves 50-100 feet in the air are putting regulations in place to keep people from getting hurt on too long of a board? They put on clinics and gladly answer questions and suggest progressions to safely advance. In both of these instances, I believe people began to see the need for some sort of safety net before anyone could run out and hop on a bike and huck themselves off of a huge kicker. The riding community realized that it better start happening rather quickly or insurance problems would quickly begin to arrise. Education is the key. Education, education, education. -- (N.DG) "If all else fails – at least try and look under control." -- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #32 May 1, 2003 Quote Like it or not...since you were a kid people have been protecting you...Lead paint...electric outlets....signs on cross walks...21 to drink, 18 to smoke, 16 to drive... The same argument that some us that it is unfair to those that have the skills could be said for the age requirments for everything..Maybe I was ready to drink at 12? Maybe I could handle skydiving at 11? Maybe I knew enough to vote whan I was 15? well just as a personal example i was drinking at 8 (grew up in europe, i guess they let parents make those decisions there. was taught to drive at 12 (and drove quite a bit between 14-16 before the state said i was allowed to do so) smoked for about a month at 16 (before deciding it sucked) its not hard to cite examples of 12 year olds skydiving and i know people who arent qualified to vote at 30..all that points out is a simple number scale (age or jump #'s) is a insufficient measure of any ability. education hasnt been tried. whats funny is all the activities you mentioned have TRAINING PROGRAMS to allow you to participate in the more advanced levels, i guess its to much effort for us to have the same sort of SKILLS BASED system. all the anecdotal evidence from this forum alone says that instructors arent teaching canopy control like they should in the first place, but your all ready to create blanket rules without even attempting to bring anything else up to acceptable levels first.. the question you never answered. sure you have to pass a test at 16, but once you do you can go out and buy pretty much ANY car you can afford without restriction of any kind..FAR more people are killed driving cars that their ability is clearly not up to handling under all conditions, yet i dont see you lobbying the DMV for tighter controls on 16 year olds and muscle cars. i guess lives only the tiny fraction of lives lost under canopies are really important to you, or are you off on a crusade to save EVERYONE from doing anything that could possibly kill them. :rollseyes: actually i could still likely jump an "overloaded" canopy at USPA dz, its not like any DZ is about to put scales next to the loading area to verify wingloadings even if your shortsighted blanket resolution were passed. Dont waste time with regulations that are difficult or impossible to enforce (although you may be able to sleep better since you'll have convinced yourself you've done something to promote safety) Take a step to promote education and ability instead with far better results than simply increasing the number of jumps the next divot has.. oh wait you might have to work to do that...____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cloud9 0 #33 May 1, 2003 I have to say education is the only thing that works. Regulations don't mean a damn thing. First off compare apples to apples. Cars, trucks and planes have nothing to do with skydiving. Lets look at pull altitude, there is a min pull altitude but is that what stops you from going low the rule? I don't think so on any given jump you can pull where ever you want to no one can stop you until after the jump. You pull where you do because of education. Now after land the DZ can ground you, but they could do that after a low timer swooping too couldn't they? As for creating more rules because its thought that people are outside the norm trying to fly to small of canopies, it just isn't so. The people that bounce would bounce on anything, they might live but they would bounce. The truth is most 100 jump wonders can fly a 1.3 wing loading with no trouble. Very few try to go much more. Accidents on my DZ- broken leg female student under a Manta 288 very light wing loading. Broken leg male 150 + jumps Triathlon 190 light loaded. FUBAR 80 or so jumps Falcon 175 loaded at about 1.1 Uninjured- male 250 jumps downsized from a Sabre 170 to a Xaos 108 over 100 jumps on canopy no problems Male 500 jumps downsized from a Sabre 150 to xaos 108 no problems 125 jumps started jumping stiletto 135 loaded about 1.4 over 100 on canopy 150 jumps started jumping a Nova 120 (yes a Nova) loaded at about 1.4 no problems The list goes on. Be real and list the injuries at your dropzone your going to find mostly lightly loaded canopies, and the ones on higher loaded wings hook turning would have burned in on anything! - - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #34 May 1, 2003 Well, insted of just slamming any Idea I come up with... Lets hear your program for teaching canopy flight. The mike is on, and its your turn. Include Who, What, When, Where, at What cost... Establish a regulatory agency..Where do they get funding.. The plan has to be able to be implemented NATIONWIDE... Go.."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #35 May 1, 2003 > low ground turns kill just as fast on lightly loaded squares. Nonsense. >i've seen AFF students biff in hard flaring too early, then letting the > toggles go, that's fugly. Did they die? Or was the canopy large enough to make that mistake survivable? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #36 May 1, 2003 i'm not slamming ANY idea you come up with, i'm slamming the idea that a blanket regulation based on jump numbers alone will significantly help reduce the number of fatalities. I wont begin to pretend i have the knowledge or expertise to design a comprehensive canopy control class with progression based on demonstrated ability instead of number accumulation, but i believe it certainly can be done, and would do infinitely more to help pilots of all experience levels learn to fly the wings they are on. again i'm not talking about restrictions, i fully believe it is your right to hook it in under any napkin you feel you can fly. It is our obligation to the sport to make sure the information is out there and available so that each jumper has can make an informed decision on their own.____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freakydiver 0 #37 May 1, 2003 QuoteWell, insted of just slamming any Idea I come up with... Lets hear your program for teaching canopy flight. The mike is on, and its your turn. Include Who, What, When, Where, at What cost... Establish a regulatory agency..Where do they get funding.. The plan has to be able to be implemented NATIONWIDE... Go.. Ron man, whats with the negativity here. Read my posts from: May 1, 2003, 10:43 AM and May 1, 2003, 10:33 AM "Include Who, What, When, Where, at What cost... Establish a regulatory agency..Where do they get funding.. The plan has to be able to be implemented NATIONWIDE..." I suggested probable ideas in both. -- (N.DG) "If all else fails – at least try and look under control." -- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rgoper 0 #38 May 1, 2003 QuoteA turn low to the ground on a lightly loaded canopy is significantly more survivable than a low turn on a highly loaded canopy. tell that to the people who have died under big lightly loaded canopies. "low ground turn" does not mean striking the ground after the low ground turn, it can be a building, a hangar, a vehichle, there have been many instances of this in the last 5 years. QuoteIf what you just said was true then there would be absolutely no reason to keep students and low timers off of highly loaded parachutes. that's a hell of a statement, this thread has been all about low timers on small canopies. the whole thing is we cannot regulate the students and low timers, thus the casualties will continue to mount.--Richard-- "We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #39 May 1, 2003 Quote. In have a pilots license....I could not fly a HP aircraft, tail wheel or a twin with out more instruction, and I could not get behind the yoke due to insurance of many aircraft...Also I need 120 hrs to get my Instrument, and 250 for my Comercial....All of these requirements are for safety. ... Pull atitudes...too many people were bouncing...The #1 cause of death in this sport before AAD....USPA said well we now have min pull altitudes based on EXPERIENCE. Regulation works.....It has been show to work many times.... And all this one would do is DELAY the canopy to the jr swoop gods. ... Education would be great, but it has been shown not to work. Ron But FAA doesn't give you a commercial license or a tailwheel sign-off just because you accumulate flight hours, and USPA doesn't lower your pull altitude just because you have a certain number of jumps. The LICENSES grant permission to do certain things based on demonstrated skills in addition to accumulated experience. I have over 1100 jumps on a Stiletto loaded at 1.3, but in no way do I think that qualifies me to go to a highly loaded napkin sized canopy. I am really uneasy with a purely jump number criterion. OTOH I have no problem in granting permission to jump a HP canopy to anyone that can demonstrate the necessary skills. The problem seems to be that no-one trusts the evaluators to give an honest evaluation on account of various perceived conflicts of interest. I'm sure that is a problem that can be solved.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #40 May 1, 2003 QuoteQuoteA turn low to the ground on a lightly loaded canopy is significantly more survivable than a low turn on a highly loaded canopy. tell that to the people who have died under big lightly loaded canopies. "low ground turn" does not mean striking the ground after the low ground turn, it can be a building, a hangar, a vehichle, there have been many instances of this in the last 5 years. Doesn't matter what you hit, you'll be going slower under a bigger canopy than you would be under a smaller one given the same conditions. QuoteQuoteIf what you just said was true then there would be absolutely no reason to keep students and low timers off of highly loaded parachutes. that's a hell of a statement, this thread has been all about low timers on small canopies. the whole thing is we cannot regulate the students and low timers, thus the casualties will continue to mount. That is a hell of a statement. But you were claiming that canopy size makes no difference in the result of a turn into the ground. The casualties will definitely continue to mount if that's what people believe. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
