billvon 3,121
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
Recommended Posts
John,
I don't think anyone said this BSR would say SDC could not continue with the current student training program. I think many (not all) see it as the way to go in canopy training for new jumpers. BUT....not every DZ has this and this is where people are getting hurt. Many of the suggestions here have said there would be an "opt out" program. Well, I happen to think that going through the program at SDC would qualify as that opt out clause. The ISP was supposed to bridge the gap between the old style AFF and take students to their A license under supervision like SDC's AFP program. Yet, the ISP got watered down and I don't hear of many people doing the canopy control training part of it either much. Not saying it doesn't happen. Just saying that I don't think many places teach it like SDC.
But just because you feel you had good training doesn't mean everyone is getting that same training. How many student programs have you been involved with other than SDC's? I have been ivolved with many just because of my travels. It's not done the same way as SDC so maybe outside of the SDC environment there are students that would benefit from a WL BSR while they go and get more training.
edited to add: Dang, Bill beat me to it.
I don't think anyone said this BSR would say SDC could not continue with the current student training program. I think many (not all) see it as the way to go in canopy training for new jumpers. BUT....not every DZ has this and this is where people are getting hurt. Many of the suggestions here have said there would be an "opt out" program. Well, I happen to think that going through the program at SDC would qualify as that opt out clause. The ISP was supposed to bridge the gap between the old style AFF and take students to their A license under supervision like SDC's AFP program. Yet, the ISP got watered down and I don't hear of many people doing the canopy control training part of it either much. Not saying it doesn't happen. Just saying that I don't think many places teach it like SDC.
But just because you feel you had good training doesn't mean everyone is getting that same training. How many student programs have you been involved with other than SDC's? I have been ivolved with many just because of my travels. It's not done the same way as SDC so maybe outside of the SDC environment there are students that would benefit from a WL BSR while they go and get more training.
edited to add: Dang, Bill beat me to it.
Chris Schindler
www.diverdriver.com
ATP/D-19012
FB #4125
www.diverdriver.com
ATP/D-19012
FB #4125
AndyMan 7
QuoteSo you'd add HP canopy manuevers to the licensing structure, and require all jumpers (regardless of loading) to demonstrate them? What sort of manuevers, and at what loadings? Would demonstration at a low loading "qualify" someone to jump a high loading?
In the model where it's tied to the license, well - no. It wouldn't qualify someone for a higher wingloading as no qualification is necesary! People either get the licence or they don't.
Those who don't want to demonstrate the skills don't get the license, or if they don't want to demonstrate them they get a exempted license, like night jumps are done now.
A good starting point of demonstrated skills would be your own world famous list of "downsize" skills. Add in 90 and 180 degree front riser turns, and you've got a robust high performance canopy course.
The manuevers should be done under whatever canopy at whatever wingloading the jumper has then they go for the license.
_Am
__
You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.
You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.
craddock 0
I want to correct the numbers I used when reffering to the canopy control course and the accidents that followed. There was actually between 12-15 jumpers that took the class. There was actually three seperate classes which I was unaware. I was only there Saturday as I got rather beat up landing a bi-plane under a ... well nevermind.
I also did not realize that another jumper who broke his leg a couple of weeks ago had taken the course. He has about 1300 jumps. So of the three broken legs, all three had canopy training and two of them had more than 500 jumps. We still have that other one that is not out of the woods yet.
I only bring this up as BillVon indicated by looking at the fatality reports that X number of fatalities could have been prevented with proper training and/or wingloading restrictions. And yes it could have. Or not. One could theorize from my small sample group that it could cause more accidents.
I also did not realize that another jumper who broke his leg a couple of weeks ago had taken the course. He has about 1300 jumps. So of the three broken legs, all three had canopy training and two of them had more than 500 jumps. We still have that other one that is not out of the woods yet.
I only bring this up as BillVon indicated by looking at the fatality reports that X number of fatalities could have been prevented with proper training and/or wingloading restrictions. And yes it could have. Or not. One could theorize from my small sample group that it could cause more accidents.
That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.
Ron 10
QuoteYou know, I don't go around telling people I have a PhD, maybe I should hire you as my agent since you're
doing a great job.
60,000 a year with flight benefits, set my own schedule...I'm yours.
QuoteAs for experience - I jump at a DZ that probably puts its students out at the highest WL of anywhere in the
world. I was jumping at over 1.1 by my 3rd solo jump, and at 1.3 by jump 12 - this is not untypical. The
idea is that students get to downsize a modest amount while still under the eye of their instructor. Since it
is a very busy DZ we have lots of experience doing this. If anywhere should illustrate this "problem" it would
be SkydiveChicago.
Nope, because you get taught from step one. Not ALL DZ's do this...In fact most don't. Roger was ahead of the curve...
Problem is that not EVERY place does this...
And the USPA can't even get the ISP everywhere....
Not every place has the level of instructors to teach this...
QuoteOnce again, the available data and experience at a DZ whose philosophy is opposite yours do not indicate
any evidence that the low time high WL individual is at any more risk for dying under a good canopy than
anyone else. I agree the data are inadequate for a decent analysis, but they are what we have.
Get away from Rogers place...Look at ALL the DZ's in the US.
Roger had a very advanced program...Again not ALL DZ have it. Nor will they even if the USPA tries to make it so...Check the ISP.
QuoteThere is indeed a canopy fatality problem, but I think you have misdiagnosed it and prescribed the wrong
cure.
Check the fatality reports...way to many people under HP canopies...Maybe not at SDC..But all over the US.
QuoteYour WL BSR will delay downsizing until a time long after the student has instructor supervision, and
right at the time they are starting to feel invincible. That, I believe, is the harm in your proposal.
Well they are downsizing now with almost no supervision any way... And WAY before they have the experience to do it. Not at the wonderland that is SDC...But ALL over the US.
All of the dead guys didn't think they would get killed.
And if SDC is so good at canopy flight...Why have there been so many canopy collisions? I can only think of ONE in the state of FL. in the past year...So even WITH education...shit happens.
QuoteThe proper cure is a thorough revision of the licensing system to include a greater emphasis on canopy skills
relevant to today's environment. This will improve the situation regardless of the underlying cause.
Oh my god John...we agree on something. How the hell did this happen? What can we do to prevent us from agreeing again?
However, how do you plan to make the ones that need it take the classes? USPA can't even make all the DZ's do the ISP.
Not everywhere has that level of instruction.
The WL BSR would MAKE the ones that want to go faster than the "normal" progression SHOW that they can handle it...If they can do it without the classes great..If they have to take the classes ot learn it..Better.
But I would make them PROVE they can do it, not just take a class.
And John, you should know this better than me...Just because someone takes a class...even if it was taught very well...Does not mean they will learn.
The Regulation would protect these jumpers, atleast for a while.
Would you agree to a WL to LICENSE structure more?
WITH performance based tests?
But then we get into the people like you that don't hook, but need a "D" to compete. Should you HAVE to learn how to hook?
The other program does not make people learn anything they don't want to. If you make it part of the license structure...you start making people do things they don't want to do.
You COULD make it like a HP endorsment for an airplane...You want to fly higher than 1.3 or so you need the endorsment..I could get behind that.
But it does not take into the fact that people CAN learn how to fly HP on their own if they can get the experience. Germains table does take that into account.
Ron
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
Hooknswoop 19
QuoteAs for experience-
Didn't you say: "You assume so based on your "experience". Experienced folks once clained the Earth was flat, that heavier than air machines would never fly, and that no use would ever be found for the study of radioactivity (among other things)."
So if experience works in your favor, you use it. If experience works against you, you discount and attack it.
Anyway, since you brought up your experience, how many students have you taught canopy control to? Are you an Instructor? Coach?
QuoteI jump at a DZ that probably puts its students out at the highest WL of anywhere in the world. I was jumping at over 1.1 by my 3rd solo jump, and at 1.3 by jump 12 - this is not untypical. The idea is that students get to downsize a modest amount while still under the eye of their instructor. Since it is a very busy DZ we have lots of experience doing this. If anywhere should illustrate this "problem" it would be SkydiveChicago.
The idea of the proposed BSR is the same, downsizing a modest amount under the supervision of an Instructor., but it doesn't stop at the "A" license. The problem isn't students, it the jumper with 120 jumps under the Stiletto 135 at 1.4:1.
QuoteWhile we have had several accidents at the DZ since this concept has been in place, not one of them involved a situation of a student or low time jumper at high WL. Not one.
Not one????? Not to harsh on Skydive Chicago, which I think is a great, safe DZ, but to counter your point;
"7/9/2001 Skydive Chicago, IL # Jumps: 50
Description: Best guess is that this jumper deployed extremely low, and then had her CYPRES-fired reserve entangle with her snivelling/malfunctioned main. She managed a cutaway somewhere below 250', but it failed to improve the situation. The prior weekend, she had been chastised for pulling too low, and otherwise taking too many chances. She was jumping a Safire 130-ish, at a wing-loading of around 1.1 lb/ft^2."
"10/14/2001 Skydive Chicago, IL # Jumps: 70
Description: Breakoff on this routine 6-way skydive came at 4500, with most participants fully deployed by 2000. This jumper was observed in a spinning configuration until a low cutaway at 150-250'. The reserve was deployed, but the slider was found right at the canopy. The main was found with one brake unstowed; this may have caused or exacerbated the malfunction. Ground witnesses report main deployment was at or above 2000.
USPA Conclusions: As with most fatalities, this one resulted after a series of mis-steps and not just one isolated error or problem. First, the skydiver was jumping an elliptical canopy, many of which are often associated with more violent malfunctions than more rectangular planforms.If one brake releases prior to or during opening, the resulting spin sometimes causes a line twist, which may or may not be recoverable in the remaining altitude. Second, the jumper's wing loading was calculated at 1.26:1, which the manufacturer considers acceptable for an advanced to expert canopy pilot. Yet, this jumper had only 80 jumps.Third, he deployed the main parachute at least 1,000 feet lower than USPA requires for an A-license holder, who, according to the USPA Basic Safety Requirments, must initiate deployment by 3,000 feet"
QuoteOnce again, the available data and experience at a DZ whose philosophy is opposite yours do not indicate any evidence that the low time high WL individual is at any more risk for dying under a good canopy than anyone else. I agree the data are inadequate for a decent analysis, but they are what we have.
So now that lack of data means that there isn't a problem? If there is no data regarding incidents from pulling low, then there isn't a problem and the minimum pull altitude BSR's should be repealed?
QuoteThere is indeed a canopy fatality problem, but I think you have misdiagnosed it and prescribed the wrong cure. Your WL BSR will delay downsizing until a time long after the student has instructor supervision, and right at the time they are starting to feel invincible. That, I believe, is the harm in your proposal.
You say we have misdiagnosed the canopy problem, (at least you admit there is a problem, even without hard data to support that………) , so what do you feel is the diagnosis? Again, the idea of the proposed BSR is the same, downsizing a modest amount under the supervision of an Instructor, but it doesn't stop at the "A" license. It won't delay downsizing unless the jumper can't handle the smaller canopy, which is good. It will require additional canopy training for each license, from an Instructor, which is good. And if someone desires to downsize faster than recommended they will either have to prove they have the ability, or get additional canopy training from an Instructor. Your concern is that people will downsize while not under the supervision of an Instructor, they are doing that now, under the proposed BSR, they will downsize with more training or under supervision. The proposed BSR addresses your concerns.
QuoteThe proper cure is a thorough revision of the licensing system to include a greater emphasis on canopy skills relevant to today's environment. This will improve the situation regardless of the underlying cause.
That is in the proposed BSR.
Hook
kallend 2,158
QuoteQuoteAs for experience-
Didn't you say: "You assume so based on your "experience". Experienced folks once clained the Earth was flat, that heavier than air machines would never fly, and that no use would ever be found for the study of radioactivity (among other things)."
So if experience works in your favor, you use it. If experience works against you, you discount and attack it.
Ron asked, so I responded. I still maintain that people who just claim "experience" to compensate for no data are full of baloney.
Quote
Anyway, since you brought up your experience, how many students have you taught canopy control to? Are you an Instructor? Coach?
Nope - just a trained observer.
Quote
QuoteI jump at a DZ that probably puts its students out at the highest WL of anywhere in the world. I was jumping at over 1.1 by my 3rd solo jump, and at 1.3 by jump 12 - this is not untypical. The idea is that students get to downsize a modest amount while still under the eye of their instructor. Since it is a very busy DZ we have lots of experience doing this. If anywhere should illustrate this "problem" it would be SkydiveChicago.
The idea of the proposed BSR is the same, downsizing a modest amount under the supervision of an Instructor., but it doesn't stop at the "A" license. The problem isn't students, it the jumper with 120 jumps under the Stiletto 135 at 1.4:1.QuoteWhile we have had several accidents at the DZ since this concept has been in place, not one of them involved a situation of a student or low time jumper at high WL. Not one.
Not one????? Not to harsh on Skydive Chicago, which I think is a great, safe DZ, but to counter your point;
details snipped
I thought we were dealing with canopy control, not low pulls or emergency procedures.
Quote
QuoteOnce again, the available data and experience at a DZ whose philosophy is opposite yours do not indicate any evidence that the low time high WL individual is at any more risk for dying under a good canopy than anyone else. I agree the data are inadequate for a decent analysis, but they are what we have.
So now that lack of data means that there isn't a problem? If there is no data regarding incidents from pulling low, then there isn't a problem and the minimum pull altitude BSR's should be repealed?
There are lots of data about pulling low. The SSK web site has a whole bunch, for instance. Gary Peek's site has lots of info about canopy opening behavior. Your continual harping on low pull issues is just a smokescreen.
Quote
QuoteThere is indeed a canopy fatality problem, but I think you have misdiagnosed it and prescribed the wrong cure. Your WL BSR will delay downsizing until a time long after the student has instructor supervision, and right at the time they are starting to feel invincible. That, I believe, is the harm in your proposal.
You say we have misdiagnosed the canopy problem, (at least you admit there is a problem, even without hard data to support that………) ,
Don't be ridiculous - there are lots of data to indicate a canopy problem, I even have some posted on my own web site.
There are no data that say low time jumpers at high WL are dying at a rate greater than their numbers in the skydiving population would suggest, though.
Quote
so what do you feel is the diagnosis? Again, the idea of the proposed BSR is the same, downsizing a modest amount under the supervision of an Instructor, but it doesn't stop at the "A" license. It won't delay downsizing unless the jumper can't handle the smaller canopy, which is good. It will require additional canopy training for each license, from an Instructor, which is good. And if someone desires to downsize faster than recommended they will either have to prove they have the ability, or get additional canopy training from an Instructor. Your concern is that people will downsize while not under the supervision of an Instructor, they are doing that now, under the proposed BSR, they will downsize with more training or under supervision. The proposed BSR addresses your concerns.QuoteThe proper cure is a thorough revision of the licensing system to include a greater emphasis on canopy skills relevant to today's environment. This will improve the situation regardless of the underlying cause.
That is in the proposed BSR.
Hook
Yes, along with an unenforcible WL rule that can't be justified. If you could justify it, you would. Instead you throw up a smokescreen about the pull altitude rules every time you're asked.
I already told you my diagnosis.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Hooknswoop 19
QuoteThere are lots of data about pulling low. The SSK web site has a whole bunch, for instance. Gary Peek's site has lots of info about canopy opening behavior. Your continual harping on low pull issues is just a smokescreen.
No, not a smoke screen. It is a parallel to the debate. The SSK site lists Cypres fires. How many of those fires would the jumper have walked away if the Cypres hadn't been in their reserve container? They would hve only opened low? This is the same argument you used about how many of the incidents would have happened anyway if the jumper had been at a lower wing loading. We can debate this all day long, but all we have is the experience of jumpers that have been around to different DZ's and have been dealing with the problem for quite a while. If you don't believe that I am correct in my diagnosis of the problem, then I don't think there is anything I can say that would convince you. You sure can't convince me that I am wrong about the diagnosis. I have seen it.
You say there isn't enough data to support my (our) claim that the problem is not enough experience and education and too high of a wing loading. The same argument can be used against the minimum pull altitude BSR's.
QuoteNope - just a trained observer.
We have observed different things then. I have taught AFP. I have seen the difference it makes. I wholeheartedly endorse the program. Very few DZ's use it and few DZ's use the ISP. Because it isn't mandatory, not because it isn't better.
QuoteYes, along with an unenforcible WL rule that can't be justified. If you could justify it, you would. Instead you throw up a smokescreen about the pull altitude rules every time you're asked.
Again, it would only have to be enforced for the small percentage of jumpers that choose to break it. It can be enforced the same way pull altitude BSR's are enforced. It isn't a perfect solution, but I believe it is the best solution we have.
Justification: Others and my experience, S & TA's, Instructors, etc. We have a different perspective on the problem. I am not against high wing loading, obviously. But people need the education and training. It is available, but people are not going and getting it and they are getting injured because they are not armed with it. As mentioned in another thread, mandatory incident reporting was torpedoed in the last NPRM for part 105. It is undeniable that people are hammering in because they are in over their heads with their canopy. They will not seek out further training and education unless it is mandatory. The BSR will eventually affect every jumper in the U.S., making him or her safer.
I think we are making progress. I think you are in agreement with the adding more canopy control education and training requirements to the "B", "C", and "D" licenses part of the proposed BSR. And you only oppose a wing loading restriction based on licenses with the option to test out, be waived, or receive additional education and training to exceed the wing loading limitations. Is this correct?
Hook
Zenister 0
QuoteThanks for posting this....It is better written than the one I have posted before.
I see 18%-19% possible "Save" rate....
If this were a buisness, it would of already been put in place.
no a business WOULD take the time to do a formal study and the math to go along with it, businesses fail by making hasty decisions, even if they "seem" correct in the experience of people in the field...
i'd be interested to see the rest of the numbers you used to come up with any "save rate" since i think your (as is everyone else on either side, since they havent been gathered) missing a few very important factors for that kind of calculation
otherwise it falls into the "made up on the spot" statistics..which just isnt very useful to anyone..
____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.
kallend 2,158
I said that about a week ago when this series of threads started. I have always been in favor of more canopy control in the license criteria; I wrote about it about three years ago on rec.skydiving (when that was still a useful forum).QuoteI think we are making progress. I think you are in agreement with the adding more canopy control education and training requirements to the "B", "C", and "D" licenses part of the proposed BSR.
Quote
And you only oppose a wing loading restriction based on licenses with the option to test out, be waived, or receive additional education and training to exceed the wing loading limitations. Is this correct?
Hook
I think the WL rule may turn out to be counter productive. Delaying unrestricted WLs to the point where a jumper is feeling invincible (happens around 300 - 600 jumps, right) could be an invitation to disaster. It also provides an "out" to avoid the further training that IMHO is absolutely necessary.
Nor does it deal with someone with poor skills (visual/motor) who nevertheless achieves 500 jumps. Essentially you are saying to this guy "It's OK to jump that Velocity now, you have the necessary experience".
Finally - it simply doesn't fit in the general philosophy of a progressive series of licenses granting additional privileges as you demonstrate skills (in addtion to accumulating jump numbers). I didn't get my "D" at 200 jumps, because I still hadn't completed the accuracy requirement... that was quite fair.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Ron 10
Quoteno a business WOULD take the time to do a formal study and the math to go along with it, businesses fail by
making hasty decisions, even if they "seem" correct in the experience of people in the field...
i'd be interested to see the rest of the numbers you used to come up with any "save rate" since i think your (as is
everyone else on either side, since they havent been gathered) missing a few very important factors for that kind
of calculation
Zen get off of it.
There are numbers...they show a problem.
If a buisness spends all its time trying to get the whole picture..many times they go out of buisness waiting.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
Ron 10
Quote
While we have had several accidents at the DZ since this concept has been in place, not one of
them involved a situation of a student or low time jumper at high WL. Not one.
Not one????? Not to harsh on Skydive Chicago, which I think is a great, safe DZ, but to counter your
point;
And if SDC is so good at canopy flight...Why have there been so many canopy collisions? I can only
think of ONE in the state of FL. in the past year...So even WITH education...shit happens.
Care to explain that one John?
QuoteThere are no data that say low time jumpers at high WL are dying at a rate greater than their numbers
in the skydiving population would suggest, though.
what about the fact that the jump #'s for people dying under good canopies is moving down every year?
That not enough info for ya?
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
kallend 2,158
Quote
Quote
While we have had several accidents at the DZ since this concept has been in place, not one of
them involved a situation of a student or low time jumper at high WL. Not one.
Not one????? Not to harsh on Skydive Chicago, which I think is a great, safe DZ, but to counter your
point;
And if SDC is so good at canopy flight...Why have there been so many canopy collisions? I can only
think of ONE in the state of FL. in the past year...So even WITH education...shit happens.
Care to explain that one John?
One collision fatality had 9000 jumps (and the other jumper had 2200). The other collision double fatality involved someone with >900 jumps hitting someone with about 200, and both were on lightly loaded canopies. Only one of the four was trained at SDC. Care to explain how your proposed BSR would affect these?
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
> been in place, not one of them involved a situation of a student or
> low time jumper at high WL. Not one.
That's because you have HP canopy training as part of your student training program. Your experience does not apply to most DZ's in the country; attempting to extend that experience to other DZ's isn't valid.
>The proper cure is a thorough revision of the licensing system to
> include a greater emphasis on canopy skills relevant to today's
> environment. This will improve the situation regardless of the
> underlying cause.
So you'd add HP canopy manuevers to the licensing structure, and require all jumpers (regardless of loading) to demonstrate them? What sort of manuevers, and at what loadings? Would demonstration at a low loading "qualify" someone to jump a high loading?
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites