WL recommendations

[quade 4]

Well, it's like any paradigm shift isn't it?

Change the mindset of those in control and the rest will fall in line. They'll have to.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Ron 10]

Quote

Well, it's like any paradigm shift isn't it?

Change the mindset of those in control and the rest will fall in line. They'll have to.

Yes, but why would they do it if they don't have to?
They are not doing it now.

Ron

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

[billvon 3,080]

>Here I disagree.

>I'll admit that I don't get around to a lot of different drop zones, but
> in my limited experience and opinion, people do not get grounded
> anywhere nearly enough.

No, that's not what I meant. The _plan_ is to talk to someone, then ground them if they keep doing the dangerous thing. That's an S+TA's job. Skydivers are experts at getting away with shit, though, and so that system doesn't often work as designed.

[billvon 3,080]

>Change the mindset of those in control and the rest will fall in line.
>They'll have to.

The people 'in control' of what others are jumping are JC Coclasure, Omar, Airmoves etc - the people new jumpers want to emulate. So yes, if you got them to all jump Spectre 150's, everyone else would fall in line. Unlikely to happen.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

The people 'in control' of what others are jumping are JC Coclasure, Omar, Airmoves etc - the people new jumpers want to emulate. So yes, if you got them to all jump Spectre 150's, everyone else would fall in line. Unlikely to happen.

But if restrictions are put in place, they may very well discourage their up and coming successors, and personally, I like having them in the sport.

[billvon 3,080]

>But if restrictions are put in place, they may very well discourage their
> up and coming successors, and personally, I like having them in the
> sport.

I do too, but having them dead isn't good either. A compromise that doesn't discourage too many people while keeping more jumpers alive would seem like a good idea. Under my proposal, JC wouldn't have been slowed down in his progression. However, Brett (a different one) would have been. He won the slalom at the last Perris swoop meet. At that meet he said something very interesting to me:

"Bill, I remember you were always giving me shit because I was jumping canopies that were too small, and you were always telling me to get coaching. I ignored you, and I really fucked up my leg. When I got back, I got coaching from some people, and even upsized. And that made a huge difference. I should have listened to you."

So there's another possibility - that by pushing canopy control, this proposal will generate MORE people like JC. I think that's more likely.

A question for you - if you object to coercing them to take a canopy control course, what's your take on the ISP? In terms of money, time and inconvenience, the ISP is ten times the burden of any proposed canopy control course. Do you see this preventing the "cool people" from entering the sport?

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

A question for you - if you object to coercing them to take a canopy control course,

I don't. My main objection is to relating this to jump numbers. If you're going to have an exception to the jump number rule by allowing someone to proove competency, then why not just go with that?

Skydiving is an expression of individuality. There are lots of different disciplines and paths that people can take with the sport. I don't think jump numbers have any measurable correlation to canopy piloting skill other than more is usually better. But equating that to wing loading is pointless and deceptive. I said in another thread that I think licensing for wing loading is not that bad of an idea if implemented properly. But it should be based on education and skill, not jump numbers. If that's too hard to implement, then there shouldn't be any regs. If that's the case, then there should be a massive educational campaign instead. Bad regs often do more harm than no regs at all.

[quade 4]

So then, what you're suggesting would be some sort of "Rating" for progressive steps in higher wingloading?

For instance, a person get's his "A" and is automatically granted an "A" license and rating that allows him to jump canopies up to 1:1.

Beyond that each time he wants to load higher he must then make a few landings in front of a coach or maybe an instructor who then signs him off for his "1.1:1 Rating" and so forth.

Actually, I like this idea a heck of a lot better, but how does the guy get competency at 1.1:1 if he's only allowed to jump 1:1? OR is his competency jump at 1:1 the authorization for him to now move up to 1.1:1?

Obviously, there are some details to work out, but I actually like this basic idea better than a system based on either simple jump numbers or "letter" licenses.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 3,080]

>But it should be based on education and skill, not jump numbers.

That's why I proposed basing it on licensing; licenses have education requirements (i.e. water landing class, night jump briefing) and canopy skill requirements (i.e. accuracy.)

>If that's the case, then there should be a massive educational campaign instead.

That sounds good, but what does that _mean_? Will USPA become pro-canopy-education? Are they anti-education now? What will change?

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

OR is his competency jump at 1:1 the authorization for him to now move up to 1.1:1?

That's what I was thinking. And have the competency be more than just a few straight in landings. Have specific objectives. Just as examples, cross wind landing and declared accuracy (but not as stringent as Pro rating).

[craddock 0]

Quote

The people 'in control' of what others are jumping are JC Coclasure, Omar, Airmoves etc - the people new jumpers want to emulate. So yes, if you got them to all jump Spectre 150's, everyone else would fall in line. Unlikely to happen.

Do you really believe this? I never knew who the hot swoopers were until I felt I was ready to compete. I had jumped a Velocity before I had ever seen one jumped before. Even so I would not have traded my canopy in after I met them because they did not like the speed. I liked it. I swoop for me. Some of my favorite landings have been landing of by myself swooping through trails and around obstacles.

Josh

That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

That sounds good, but what does that _mean_? Will USPA become pro-canopy-education? Are they anti-education now? What will change?

I don't know, I just like poking holes in other people's ideas. Seriously, I haven't really put much thought into it because I don't feel I'm qualified to outline the details. I just don't like the existing proposals as they stand and was hoping to prod you guys into coming up with something better. I'll put some thought into it and let you disect it at will.

[craddock 0]

Under my proposal, JC wouldn't have been slowed down in his progression.

Please! JC Colcalsure? Is this who you are reffering too? If so, he started ten years ago. I do not think the Stiletto was even made yet. Nobody progressed back then like we do now. Years ago there was a minimum number of jumps required to jump a square. Some one told me the other day they could not jump a round at their DZ until they had more experience. Times change and JC started jumping in a different time so to speak.

That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

[billvon 3,080]

>Do you really believe this? I never knew who the hot swoopers were
>until I felt I was ready to compete.

I suspect if you never saw anyone swoop you would not have tried it.

>I liked it. I swoop for me.

No doubt. However, if Jari wasn't around, and no one was building bird suits, I doubt that there would be as many people making their own birdsuits and flying them. We all build on the experience of others, whether it's explicit (i.e. taking a course) or more subtle (i.e. see a cool swoop, try that, become more conscious of other people swooping.)

[quade 4]

Would you also have gear stores jump on this bandwagon? Make the purchaser show the rating before he can order a canopy?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 3,080]

>Please! JC Colcalsure? Is this who you are reffering too? If so, he
>started ten years ago. I do not think the Stiletto was even made yet.

Well, the Blue Track was. But that's exactly what I mean. It was suggested that if we implemented restrictions that people like JC would not be in the sport. That's just not true.

>Nobody progressed back then like we do now.

Oh, I know - I was there. I remember when, a few years after I started, our DZO got a brand new Monarch 190. They had just come out. No one was allowed to jump it; it was way too dangerous for anyone with under 1000 jumps to even attempt.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Would you also have gear stores jump on this bandwagon? Make the purchaser show the rating before he can order a canopy?

I don't think so. There's plenty of second hand selling going on. Plus a lot of people purchase mail order. And I don't think parachutes should become a "regulated item" like guns. But if it's initiated at the dz level, gear stores would most likely at least advise customers that they need to order something they're permitted to jump. And if ordering an obvious pocket rocket, they would most likely ask questions.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Well, the Blue Track was. But that's exactly what I mean. It was suggested that if we implemented restrictions that people like JC would not be in the sport. That's just not true.

Actually I said that it may discourage their successors.

Quote

I remember when, a few years after I started, our DZO got a brand new Monarch 190. They had just come out. No one was allowed to jump it; it was way too dangerous for anyone with under 1000 jumps to even attempt.

Again, that worked before, why couldn't that work now? Self policing does work as long as the effort is there. Couldn't an educational campaign by USPA result in increased effort on the part of DZO's and S&TA's? I don't know, I'm merely wondering out loud.

[billvon 3,080]

>Actually I said that it may discourage their successors.

If they follow the same progression as JC, then it certainly would not. If they follow the same progression as Brett, then it would get them education sooner, rather than later, and prevent a broken femur. It might indeed discourage the guy who called Lisa at 39 jumps and tried to buy a Stiletto 97. I WANT to discourage those people.

>Again, that worked before, why couldn't that work now?

What? Having no one jump a 190 ZP canopy until they had 1000 jumps? You are seriously proposing a return to large F111 canopies as a way to overcome landing fatalities? Times change; we have to change with them.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

What? Having no one jump a 190 ZP canopy until they had 1000 jumps? You are seriously proposing a return to large F111 canopies as a way to overcome landing fatalities? Times change; we have to change with them.

Bill...don't be coy. I meant that a dzo/s&ta successfully kept you off gear they thought would injure you, without and regs.

[billvon 3,080]

>Bill...don't be coy. I meant that a dzo/s&ta successfully kept you off
>gear they thought would injure you, without and regs.

Oh, they didn't. I immediately got a PD190 and put myself in a wheelchair. I was no smarter than anyone else back then (not that I'm a whole lot smarter now, I just know how to not screw up in more ways.)

[skybytch 273]

Quote

If so, he started ten years ago. I do not think the Stiletto was even made yet.

Yes it was.

Quote

Times change and JC started jumping in a different time so to speak.

So that makes the fact that he spent a lot of jumps refining his skills on various lighter wingloadings before going really small irrelevant? Funny... weren't there were fewer jumpers involved in landing accidents (fatal or not) in 1993 than we are seeing in 2003?

Yup, times change alright.

[craddock 0]

Quote

So that makes the fact that he spent a lot of jumps refining his skills on various lighter wingloadings before going really small irrelevant?

Not in your mind I am sure

How many people were jumping high wingloading back then. How many jumps would JC have had to have to be jumping a highly loaded Stiletto. No need to respond. This has already been covered and I think you know better. You love to cut and paste and take the context out of shit don't you. Again not a question.
I wonder how many hours the current crop of fighter pilots log compared to Yeager before they break the Sound barrier?
How many jumps did the first jumpers have when they did the first baton pass? First four way? eight way?
According to you logic I should have never done my first four way at 14 jumps. Chasing Cessna 8 ways at 70 jumps. How about you? did you advance faster than the old timers. Shame on you Lisa!

Quote

Funny... weren't there were fewer jumpers involved in landing accidents (fatal or not) in 1993 than we are seeing in 2003?

Probably were fewer jumps done also. Probably has a bit to do with high performance canopies. It has to do with a lot of things and a couple of years is not a good collection of data.

Quote

Yup, times change alright

There you go Lisa

That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

[jceman 1]

I only have one question for you, sir:

would you please make me your beneficiary?

Oh and a request, too:

as a sponsor of the PST, please do not try to enter competitions with your know it all attitude. I hate cleaning up messes.

You have people with a whole lot more knowledge and experience saying one thing and you saying things to the contrary -- who is most likely right?

Faster horses, younger women, older whiskey, more money.

Why do they call it "Tourist Season" if we can't shoot them?

[skybytch 273]

Quote

According to you logic I should have never done my first four way at 14 jumps. Chasing Cessna 8 ways at 70 jumps. How about you? did you advance faster than the old timers. Shame on you Lisa!

Actually, I am an old timer.

There's nothing at all wrong with doing a four way at 14 jumps, chasing 8 ways at 70 jumps, etc. I know someone with 400 jumps who was on the 300 way record - she can outfly me with her eyes closed. There's also nothing wrong with learning to swoop early. It's all in the training the person received and the effort the person chooses to put into it.

What's being proposed is that newer jumpers that want to and/or are capable of progressing faster will have to seek training beyond the A license level - or at a minimum prove their skills to a qualified observer - before downsizing beyond a certain wingloading.

Quote

Probably were fewer jumps done also. Probably has a bit to do with high performance canopies. It has to do with a lot of things and a couple of years is not a good collection of data.

Ten years isn't enough? How many years worth do we need? How many injured and dead jumpers are you willing to help scrape off the landing area in the meantime?

Sorry if I'm coming off harshly, but I really can't understand how someone can be against reducing the number of times ambulances visit the dropzone.

What do you suggest? Do you think that a landing accident somewhere in the US every weekend is acceptable? What can be done to change that?