FliegendeWolf 0 #26 June 26, 2003 QuoteNobody needs a D license "if all they ever want to do is land a lightly loaded canopy straight-in." Come on, Bill. I am not the least bit interested in high-performance landings. I am interested in eventually working towards becoming an AFF instructor. Should I give up on my goal of becoming an instructor because I'm not interested in swooping?A One that Isn't Cold is Scarcely a One at All Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #27 June 26, 2003 Quote>I would go one step further, and mandate having a high >performance landing requirement for the 'd' license. I like the idea, but I would not want to see someone injured or killed trying to perform a high performance landing just to get a license, if all they ever want to do is land a lightly loaded canopy straight in. Is it OK for someone to be killed or injured making a night jump just to get a "D" if all they ever want to do is skydive during daylight hours?... 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
skybytch 273 #28 June 26, 2003 QuoteWhat will keep someone from not doing this, and getting a high WL? Nothing, besides peer pressure. It would be possible for someone to get only an A license and then purchase whatever they want (assuming they can find someone to sell it to them). But by tying training to licensing, I think the majority of new jumpers will get at least the basic stuff; it seems to me that most jumpers who stay in the sport for more than a couple of years end up getting at least one license higher than the A. My opinion about wingloading and lack of experience being a big part of the problem hasn't changed. What I've outlined above is a compromise - an attempt to come up with something mare palatable to those who are worried about losing their "freedom" while still addressing the issue at hand. Not sure if what is outlined above would affect the numbers of landing injuries/fatalaties in the kind of numbers I'd like to see, but it achieves my primary goal - which is getting canopy training available to every jumper, on every dz. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #29 June 26, 2003 QuoteIf you're competing at the National Level for CReW, then presumably you're one of the best canopy pilots in the United States. Shouldn't you be able to perform a high performance landing to meet a mere 200 jump D license requirement? D. James Nahikian CHICAGO I've watched the last two CRW nationals, and I didn't see any "high performance" landings. Most of them just pounded in. They say it's the Lightning that does it!... 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
skybytch 273 #30 June 26, 2003 QuoteIs it OK for someone to be killed or injured making a night jump just to get a "D" if all they ever want to do is skydive during daylight hours? It is possible to get a "night restricted" D license. Not easy, but possible. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #31 June 26, 2003 QuoteQuoteIs it OK for someone to be killed or injured making a night jump just to get a "D" if all they ever want to do is skydive during daylight hours? It is possible to get a "night restricted" D license. Not easy, but possible. Are you suggesting a "HP Landing Restricted" equivalent if this comes to pass?... 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
mikeat10500 12 #32 June 26, 2003 Crazy When I approach the ground with any canopy, of any size" or shape for that matter", I know that I could get hurt. I prepare for landing in my head before putting my gear on...looking at wind indicators, etc. I know I actually have a greater chance of getting hurt under my own 210sqft canopy, than a borrowed hot rod due to jump freq. I believe 2 things have kept me in one piece over the years...attitude and luck. Instructors can teach skills but how do you instill attitude? ...mike P.S. Good post! Quote SNIP..... From a completely different point of view, I also personnally think that there is a question of attitude WRT landing fatalities. When people blame the landing fatalities on the high wing loading, lots of people think "i'll be fine, i have a conservative wing loading" (almost half the fatalities are at wingloadings from extremely conservative to reasonable). When people blame the landing fatalities on the low timers, lots of people think "i'll be fine, i have more than 500 jumps (more than 1/3 of the landing fatalities involve skydivers with more than 500 jumps). When people blame the landing fatalities on low turns, many people think "i'll be fine, i don't do low turns" (most of the deadly low turns were not planned). If you acknowledge that landing emergencies can kill everybody, including yourself, then it's difficult to hide the scary reality behind misleading thoughts. There is not much choice left than be prepared for these emergencies. Landing emergencies deserve at least the same attention as freefall emergencies, in the training, the recurrency, and our pre-jump preparation.----------------------------------- Mike Wheadon B-3715,HEMP#1 Higher Expectations for Modern Parachutists. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #33 June 26, 2003 Quote>I would go one step further, and mandate having a high >performance landing requirement for the 'd' license. I like the idea, but I would not want to see someone injured or killed trying to perform a high performance landing just to get a license, if all they ever want to do is land a lightly loaded canopy straight in. Yeah...I thought of including that in the skill test, but didn't for the reason Bill wrote. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #34 June 26, 2003 QuoteNobody needs a D license "if all they ever want to do is land a lightly loaded canopy straight-in." Confirmed. D. James Nahikian CHICAGO I'd like to do some beach jumps on the 4th of July but can't because I don't have my D. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skybytch 273 #35 June 26, 2003 QuoteAre you suggesting a "HP Landing Restricted" equivalent if this comes to pass? I think that would need to be considered if HP landings for the D are made part of it. Not sure how easy it would be to "enforce," but then again those who would go for that option would seem to me to be the type that are less likely to "break the rule" and do high performance landings with a restricted license. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #36 June 26, 2003 QuoteI've outlined above is a compromise - an attempt to come up with something mare palatable to those who are worried about losing their "freedom" while still addressing the issue at hand. No offense Lisa...But to water it down to make it better for people to swallow is not my idea of a good thing. I don't think it we should put out something that does not address the problem just because it is easy to do. The easiest thing to do would be to just keep calling 911 every weekend. Education is the answer...I agree, but unless we make it manditory we will miss the target audience...Besides three years after it goes into effect no one will be bitching about it. They will not know anything different...Which is why new student don't complain about the ISP (Where it is being done) They don't know any other way. 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
Ron 10 #37 June 26, 2003 Whats wrong with a progressive (although not to much) WL that has been written? If you want a higher WL than allowed test out of it. This would allow people to increase the WL in relation to Experience, or proven skills...And not make people do things they don't want to do (HP landings,CRW..ect). I think it is the best answer. The actual WL's and the way of determining experience could be ironed out a little more. I personally think it is already a good balance..If you don't like it, PROVE you can do better and you would be allowed. How is that not a good system? 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
PhillyKev 0 #38 June 26, 2003 QuoteHow is that not a good system? Because I don't think that restricting wing loading based on jump numbers is going to make people better pilots. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #39 June 26, 2003 QuoteBecause I don't think that restricting wing loading based on jump numbers is going to make people better pilots. The restriction is to keep unqualified people from flying wings that have been shown to increase the chances of death and injury before they have the experience or training to fly them. The restriction is not the goal...the goal is to make the ones that want to fly high WL's to get additional training before they attempt it. The graduated scale relates to WL so that people that want to progress slowly are allowed without the hassle of the classes..But they can progress"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 #40 June 26, 2003 "Because I don't think that restricting wing loading based on jump numbers is going to make people better pilots." Afukkingmen. People - look at the drivers on the road. They have to pass tests, and most of them still couldn't handle a highspeed hairy/scary situation even though the chances of getting in one are pretty decent. BUT, perhaps restricting wingloading with a caveat that one could test past the restrictions is a great idea. Force them to seek out the appropriate knowledge... -- (N.DG) "If all else fails – at least try and look under control." -- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #41 June 26, 2003 I understand exactly what you have proposed. But I still disagree with it, even though you have more experience than me. My opinion is that we would be better served by promoting education rather than creating restrictions. I just don't think your proposal is the best way to do that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FliegendeWolf 0 #42 June 26, 2003 I think that most would argue that the stupid road test that drivers have to take in order to get a license is akin to the minimal canopy training requirements for licensing.A One that Isn't Cold is Scarcely a One at All Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FliegendeWolf 0 #43 June 26, 2003 As I understand it, Ron wants the restrictions put in place to encourage people to get more education.A One that Isn't Cold is Scarcely a One at All Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyMan 7 #44 June 26, 2003 Quote If by that you mean a complex landing scenario, starting with front risering in, maybe (although that's hard for people with canopies that are hard to front riser). .deletia. And if you mean that someone ought to be able to fulfill the famous, patented Billvon landing safety criteria (well, other than the uphill/downhill one where hills don't exist), I could easily see including that. Somewhere inbetween these two is what I had in mind. _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaMan 0 #45 June 26, 2003 Agreed! Along those lines, anyone following the new program could say, "I'm practicing (learning) high performance landings for my _ license on my own because there's no one around here qualified to train me". Larger DZs could make this training happen, but the smaller ones are going to have a real problem getting the people with the skills on a regular basis. The small DZ doesn't want to lose one of the few "regulars" they have so they "let it slide" while the jumper learns on their own... A few weeks later it gets bad when the jumper has a canopy collision with someone because they didn't know how to carve during their swoop - Who's to blame? The DZO, the DZ staff, the S&TA or the USPA for putting requirements in place without additional facilities to train? Just a thought...Z-Flock 8 Discotec Rodriguez Too bad weapons grade stupidity doesn't lead to sterility. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,110 #46 June 26, 2003 >Is it OK for someone to be killed or injured making a night jump just > to get a "D" if all they ever want to do is skydive during daylight > hours? Nope. If they desire to get a D, and cannot (due to poor night vision etc) do the night jump, they can get a restricted D. That way they can do everything a normal D jumper can do with the exception of night jumps (and late day jumps presumably.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverdriver 7 #47 June 26, 2003 QuoteWho's to blame? The DZO, the DZ staff, the S&TA or the USPA for putting requirements in place without additional facilities to train? Just a thought... The jumper who was injured because we ARE responsible to ourselves to follow the rules set forth. Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,110 #48 June 26, 2003 >Because I don't think that restricting wing loading based on jump >numbers is going to make people better pilots. It will not. Essentially forcing them to get training before they can jump higher loadings, though, _will_ make them better pilots. The restriction will not make them any better, but it will likely keep them alive longer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #49 June 26, 2003 Right, and I'll say what I said before. I have no problem with requiring training/proficiency to downsize. My issue is with the exception to that requirement based on jump numbers. And what I proposed doesn't require training if you can learn it on your own, it requires demonstrated proficiency. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,110 #50 June 26, 2003 >A few weeks later it gets bad when the jumper has a canopy collision > with someone because they didn't know how to carve during their > swoop - >Who's to blame? The DZO, the DZ staff, the S&TA or the USPA for > putting requirements in place without additional facilities to train? No different than what happens now. Say someone pulls at 1800 feet all the time, and they get away with it. One day they have a mal, can't react in time, and they go in - and take someone on the ground out when they hit. Who's to blame? The guy who pulled low. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
