Wing Loading Restrictions? (Skydive Kansas)

[wmw999 2,565]

Quote

They have updated their web page which shuld help prevent future occurances, but they should simply change it to read "NO FUN JUMPERS ALLOWED".

Well, I'd have to say there are some jumpers who want to have fun and would fit within their wingloading restrictions. Updating their webpage was essential; they really ought to send him an email in response to his. It's polite. They also ought to mention it to people who say they're experienced jumpers looking to make a jump while they visit relatives. Kind of like DZs that don't want children need to make that clear, and ones where profanity is forbidden also should.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[quade 4]

Quote

I guess my real hang-up is they are being un-truthfull, which bugs me.

No.

I think the real issue here is that you have made an assumption about their original intent for creating the rule.

I don't think anyone has been able to definitely say they are Pro or Con fun jumpers in general or if they are a tandem factory or are simply people that don't like the idea of high wingloadings or ANYTHING. There has been no official statement made on this thread or anywhere else that I can see.

Why not give them the benefit of the doubt and just accept the rule as posted until proven otherwise?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Why not give them the benefit of the doubt and just accept the rule as posted until proven otherwise?

For the same reason no one would accept my sign in my Sandwich shop example. I probably wouldn't care if I wasn't 'unwelcome' because of the rule. They do AFF there and if a student can hit the landing area, most fun jumpers can. They must be aware that their rules prevent a lot of jumpers from skydiving there. Obviously the original poster felt his safety level was being called into question, as he felt he should defend his choice of main canopy.

You call it an assumption, I call it a conclusion. If they had a great reason, such as the airport management imposed the rule as a condition of continuing to operate on the airport, or their insurance company mandated the rule, then why not say that next to the 1.5:1 rule? I very well could be wrong and missing something that would change my mind completely, but in this case, I doubt it.

Edit: Maybe I am a bit untrusting of DZ's, but if every DZ had every jumpship they listed as having, there would be a lot more jumpships in the country.

Hook

[billvon 3,092]

>For the same reason no one would accept my sign in my Sandwich
>shop example.

If they said "no chinese jumpers" for whatever reason I'd agree with you. That's racist. However, prohibiting small canopies is just not, no more than an AAD rule is. Small canopies are arguably more dangerous than large ones, even if some people have no problems landing them.

> . . .they should simply change it to read "NO FUN JUMPERS ALLOWED".

I think stating their wingloading limits clearly is plenty. That way jumpers can make their own decisions as to whether to jump there or not. "NO FUN JUMPERS ALLOWED" would be lying, and I would prefer DZ's tell the truth in their ads.

[dreamsville 0]

I hate to get off the subject, but I'm lucky enough to have just been places where they have what they say they have (26 DZs). Maybe I missed someone's ad along the way. You have obviously been to places where you showed up and they didn't have the plane(s) (shame shame).

Back to the original thread. I don't care for the 1.5 rule either, even though out of luck I sqeak by with a 1.41. My conclusion is that the rule is probably there to stay for the forseeable future, and nothing on this forum will change that.
|

I don't drink during the day, so I don't know what it is about this airline. I keep falling out the door of the plane.

Harry, FB #4143

[Hooknswoop 19]

I could name 3 DZ's right now that don't have they advertise in jumpships.

Quote

Back to the original thread. I don't care for the 1.5 rule either, even though out of luck I sqeak by with a 1.41. My conclusion is that the rule is probably there to stay for the forseeable future, and nothing on this forum will change that.

You are absolutey right.

Hook

[skycat 0]

Hey lets put another kink in the machine....Lets say I have the 500 jump magic number and have lets say a velocity 80 which I would load at 1.5, now I'm going to be going a whole heck of a lot faster than lets say aggie on a stiletto (do they make a velocity this big) 190 at 1.5 (I think that is right for his WL). I'm well within any weight limits you can think of, so does this mean that they will start putting a limit on the size of canopy you can fly, meaning nothing smaller than a, oh lets say 105?

Fly it like you stole it!

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

If they said "no chinese jumpers" for whatever reason I'd agree with you. That's racist. However, prohibiting small canopies is just not, no more than an AAD rule is. Small canopies are arguably more dangerous than large ones, even if some people have no problems landing them.

But they discriminating. If their concern is safety, I could argue that I am safer at 1.6:1 (and other jumpers too), that some jumpers w/ 500 jumps at 1.5:1.

Quote

I think stating their wingloading limits clearly is plenty. That way jumpers can make their own decisions as to whether to jump there or not. "NO FUN JUMPERS ALLOWED" would be lying, and I would prefer DZ's tell the truth in their ads.

Their rule definately prevents a lot of jumpers from jumping there, safe jumpers. Why else would they make that rule othere than to keep fun jumpers away. You are correct, they allow fun jumpers, but they do discourage quite a few safe jumpers with this rule. I still haven't heard a good reason for this rule.

Hook

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

does this mean that they will start putting a limit on the size of canopy you can fly, meaning nothing smaller than a, oh lets say 105?

Ok I know I'm not helping out right now, but I think Skydive the Rockies shouldn't let Skycat fly anything smaller than a Manta 290 when the winds exceed 20 mph. Then she'd get blown right into Kansas and maybe be able to land at Skydive Kansas.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[Albatross 0]

If we lookat the article published about the performance of different canopies, sizes and wing loadings, we can conclude that the facts behind this are not very strong. A 210 at 1.5 and a 97 at 1.5 are no more the same than a Xaos and a Spectre. Now that I have made that side fo the argument. It is their dropzone and they can have any stupid rule they want. Why won't some DZ allow Vadiballs or rafts. Why do some require AADs. All these are rules that can be argued to make things safer in this sport. While i don't agree with the choice, I do see the argument and support their right to make it. Heck at least they are trying to address the isue of rising landing acidents.

Chris

[loughery 0]

They probably have the max exit weight set at 254 so they can always max out the number of jumpers on each load. they only have 2 cessnas.

TOT

TOT
www.SkydiveMoncton.com

To my wife: 'If you ask me to stop skydiving, you are asking me to move out!'

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

They probably have the max exit weight set at 254 so they can always max out the number of jumpers on each load. they only have 2 cessnas.

My DZ, Skydive Aggieland, is kicking ass and they don't set a max weight limit. We have 2 C-182s and we did 42 loads this past weekend, that with Sunday being a really slow day. My exit weight is somewhere right around 285lbs or so.

My point is, that's not a likely excuse.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[quade 4]

Didn't I already say that?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 3,092]

>My DZ, Skydive Aggieland, is kicking ass and they don't set a max weight limit.

I wish more DZ's did. For a while we were regularly overloading our airplane. We planned for an average skydiver weight of 190 lbs when figuring out max loadings, but for a while there half the jumpers were SEALs who average closer to 220. We had some close calls but nothing bad happened (fortunately.)

[AggieDave 6]

We actually keep jumper's exit weights in our manifesting software, it alerts us if the load may be close or over the weight limit (with max jump load fuel). So if a problem presents its self with weight limits, we deal with it (move people to other loads, or whatever). However, we stay with in our weight limits!

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[CanuckInUSA 0]

One aspect which is being over looked in this weight topic is fuel. A pilot has two ways to ensure they don't over load their airplanes. The first way is to ensure that the passengers and baggage are within limits and the second way is to calculate how much fuel is needed for the flight. Maybe it's possible that the pilot's at AggieDave's DZ don't carry full fuel loads and the average skydiver jumping there doesn't notice that the pilot is constantly refueling. In the meantime, the Kansas DZ might be filling the tanks to the top.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[billvon 3,092]

>We actually keep jumper's exit weights in our manifesting software,
> it alerts us if the load may be close or over the weight limit (with
> max jump load fuel).

That's the right way to do it, I think. We made the assumption that the weights would 'average' out, which they generally do (it's how most airlines calculate W+B; they certainly don't weigh everyone.) But in some cases, like having a bunch of SEALs at your DZ, they don't. And when you have smaller planes, like C182's, the laws of statistics don't help you as much. Manifesting SW that keeps track of weights is a good way around that problem.

[Hooknswoop 19]

I have yet to see a DZ fill the tanks to the top. most refuel every 3-4 loads. Not to say that some DZ's don't top off every load.

I think a max total weight is a great idea, an individual max weight isn't necessary, unless the DZ wanted to enforce the TSO'd limits.

Hook

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Maybe it's possible that the pilot's at AggieDave's DZ don't carry full fuel loads and the average skydiver jumping there doesn't notice that the pilot is constantly refueling.

I honestly can't think of a single jump pilot that fills his/her tanks to the top. Most put just enough for a couple loads and possible emergancies, so the plane will climb faster and not be over the w&b of the aircraft.

Remember tach time = money, lighter loads = faster loads, which translates to less money.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[nightjumps 1]

I got two strikes against me as far as they're concerned, 1) wing-loading is 1:7, and 2) my exit weight is 265#... (no, I'm not fat - 6'6" and 19 inch arms)

I guess Skydive Kansas is not an Anvil Borthers friendly zone. Course, I did notice a little caveat that one could rent gear to get below 1.5.... Things that make you go, hmmmmm

...Bigun

[CDRINF 1]

The argument about refusing service being likened to racial discrimination is convienient, but irrelevant. Discrimination based on race is illegal. There are plenty of exmples however, of businesses who refuse service based on behavior, dress, etc. ("No shirt, no shoes, no service") or a bar that forbids patrons to wear gang colors, for example. It's not necessarily logical, it's the owners judgement call. Heck, I have been asked to leave some establishments when my friends and I got too rowdy, too noisy, too profane, or refused to buy the two drink minimum. He's the owner and those are his rules. On a more skydiving related note: if you jump at a SD Arizona you follow their landing pattern and the set landing direction, even if it means a cross or down wind landing. If not, you get asked to leave. Again, I may not agree, but it's their rule.

As for the USPA GM angle, here is an interesting dilema: We don't want USPA to over regulate individual jumpers, but some appear to want them to regulate the DZs, by requiring the DZO to let all USPA members jump without restriction. How far down the road do we want to go of letting USPA dictate business practices? They do, to an extent, by requiring GM compliance with BSRs, but beyond that, I am not so sure I want USPA telling a DZO how to run his business and who he has to let jump.
As jump ticket prices climb, only the better off jumpers will be able to jump. Does USPA then get into the business of regulating prices so less well to do jumpers won't be prevented from jumping? This owner has decided to be stricter than the BSRs require, which is his call, not USPAs.

Again I say, it's the free market. Vote with your dollars. We don't have a socialist DZ system with guaranteed access to all. No one has a "right" to jump anywhere. It's a business. You pay to play and if you want to play at some places, you play by their rules. Maybe this situation could have been handled better, but in the end, it's the owner's call.

Just my opinion.

Chris Reed
D-15996

[skycat 0]

Quote

How far down the road do we want to go of letting USPA dictate business practices? They do, to an extent, by requiring GM compliance with BSRs

Oh you are about to open a can of worms with that one, especially since at the moment I'm not happy with a certain USPA official who gave a DZO back all his ratings even though right in front of that official he broke FARs and BSRs.

Fly it like you stole it!

[Hooknswoop 19]

I completely support and understand that a DZO has the right to make any rules they want to. I don't think anyone has said different. This argument keeps coming up, but no one is saying the DZO doesn't have the right to make any rules they want to. We all agree on this point. Let's move beyond that.

Quote

On a more skydiving related note: if you jump at a SD Arizona you follow their landing pattern and the set landing direction, even if it means a cross or down wind landing. If not, you get asked to leave. Again, I may not agree, but it's their rule.

And there is a very good safety reason for this rule. This rule only applies to one of 2 landing areas. If you don't agree with it, you can still jump, and you can either abide by it a land in the closer landing area, or not, and landing the larger landing area.

Quote

As for the USPA GM angle, here is an interesting dilema: We don't want USPA to over regulate individual jumpers, but some appear to want them to regulate the DZs, by requiring the DZO to let all USPA members jump without restriction. How far down the road do we want to go of letting USPA dictate business practices? They do, to an extent, by requiring GM compliance with BSRs, but beyond that, I am not so sure I want USPA telling a DZO how to run his business and who he has to let jump.

I didn't say USPA should require DZO's to let jumper jump at their DZ's, nor did I say that the USPA should prevent DZO's from running their business they way they feel they should. I did say that if you don't want fun jumpers at your DZ, you shouldn't have your DZ be a Group Member of USPA.

Quote

Again I say, it's the free market. Vote with your dollars. We don't have a socialist DZ system with guaranteed access to all. No one has a "right" to jump anywhere. It's a business. You pay to play and if you want to play at some places, you play by their rules. Maybe this situation could have been handled better, but in the end, it's the owner's call.

And that is my point. Either 1) They made the rule as a knee-jerk reaction to a landing incident or 2) they are trying to discourage fun jumpers from jumping at the DZ.

If it is #1, they are kidding themselves. Will they lower it to 1.4:1 if someone gets hurt at 1.5:1? Eventually the max wingloading will be 0.1:1, until someone gets injured at that wingloading.

If it is #2, fine, again, it's their DZ to do with as they choose, but don't wave the USPA GM banner and not let USPA members jump their.

I have in the past not allowed someone to jump a canopy that they couldn't handle, and I would do it again. I am not against safety. I am against the idea that a certain wingloading is safe and above that isn't, regardless of the pilot's skills.

Can we agree that it is a silly rule? I mean, c'mon, Airspeed couldn't jump there.

Hook

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Can we agree that it is a silly rule? I mean, c'mon, Airspeed couldn't jump there.

just to beat this point into the ground, neither could AZ Freeflight, AZ Surf flight, Arizona Flight Institute, Alchemy, Team Xaos, all the PD jumpers Ive met...on and on..

all of whom as individuals have more jumps than their entire staff does..

arbitrary, inflexible rules are ALWAYS stupid.

i guess they never want many world champions (who might be wandering thru, dropping by visiting relatives etc..) to ever jump there because by their definition they must not be safe canopy pilots

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[PhreeZone 20]

Where do they say above 1.5 they are unsafe? I've read the pages multiple times and its not there... thats an assumption that its an implied message. I'm at just under 1.5 on my 136 so its not an issue to me, but for those jumpers thats over the limits they do provide the option of gear rental. I've seen a member of a world class freefly team biff in under a Velocity multiple times in one week so I'm not going with the just since the rest of the teams are doing it they all can.

For the max weight limit if they are enforcing a TSO on gear are we suddenly all going to boycott them for make all of us safer by not overloading our gear? For rigs that are certified and labeled higher I'm courious of their policy on those.

As for the GM, being a GM (or used to) gets you a price break on the airframe insurance and in libility insurance. That alone is worth it to most DZO's. I'd rather jump at a DZ that has libabiliy insurance if something happens and causes airplane parts or a sky ball or what ever to crash into my property thats parked there.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com