NWFlyer

I'm with you - of course the primary lesson learned is gear checks. But there's still value in discussing some of the "what if" scenarios, if only because it stimulates your critical thinking skills. As anyone who's been around even a little while knows, incidents most often occur because of a chain of bad decisions. Break one link and you live to talk about it. React well to your first bad decision and that can be the break you need. Prevention is the best approach, but once you fuck up, having some tools in your mental toolkit can save your life. "There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

As with all insurance policies, there's probably a ton of "fine print" that they can provide to those who are really interested. Hopefully they will. "There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

http://www.uspa.org/USPAMembers/Membership/Services/tabid/91/Default.aspx According to the USPA site, it's valid for claims in the US or Canada. (I don't know any more than that - I just did a quick search on the USPA's site to see if it was indeed "hidden" or easily accessible. A USPA staffer or board member might be able to give you more detailed info). "There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

Well, then they should have sponsored him responsibly (on the sapphire) or not at all, maybe? You don't have to fly a toys-r-us sized canopy to be a cool sponsored athlete......... or do you now? Maybe that is something wrong with the culture in that respect! My personal opinion is that you do, not sure whether it's a cultural issue or purely business (value of sponsorship)... You don't. I've known sponsored athletes (partially or fully) who I think are really cool, who've jumped moderate-to-sporty canopies loaded appropriately (or even conservatively) for their experience level, and which are appropriate choices for their chosen discipline. "There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

Some of it, I truly believe, just takes time. You can only absorb so much as a student/new jumper, which is why newbie instruction focuses on the most critical safety functions and attempts to control variables where possible. New risks and concepts are introduced slowly, but even then, at the end of A license training, even the best-trained, most aware student has probably only heard/absorbed a tiny portion of what he/she needs to know. Now, if said person bothers to read the rest of the SIM (or similar documents in their home country), they'll learn a lot about advanced concepts. Some people put away the SIM and don't ever realize there's a lot more to learn from it that goes beyond the basics they need for their A. Some people might cram a little into their noggins to pass a written test for B, C, D... which I think is kind of missing the point. But it's only being around the sport for a while that really helps you understand all the different variables, to see the big picture, to know all the different ways this sport can go to shit. It's having those "around the bonfire" chats about all the oddball scenarios that can really open your eyes up to the oddball scenarios. It's the "around the bonfire" chats about all the common scenarios that can open your eyes up, too. Maybe you heard something once when you were a student, but it really didn't stick, and it wasn't until that "What would you do?" conversation that it came back to you and you said "OH! THAT'S what they were talking about!" It's being on the dropzone to see when someone makes a mistake that kills them, hurts them, hurts or kills someone else, or just has a really fucking close call. And it's not just saying "Wow that sucked" but "What happened, what went wrong, and how can we prevent that from happening again?" It's that root cause analysis, continuing to ask "Why?" so it's not just "Wow, he broke his ankle landing out because the grass was really high and he couldn't see that the ground was rough" but saying "Why did he land out?" [didn't realize the winds were so high] and "Why didn't he realize the winds were so high?" [playing with canopy and not paying attention to how far away he was] and "Why didn't he turn towards the dropzone sooner?" [got distracted doing housekeeping] and "Why didn't he check where he was immediately on opening?" [had to do a rear riser turn to get away from another canopy] "Why was the other canopy so close?" [Group didn't break off high enough to get adequate separation given the skill level] "Why didn't they break off higher?" [No one considered the skill level of the least experienced jumper when deciding when to break off] It's that kind of thinking and questioning that helps to give you a bigger and bigger picture every day you spend in the sport. But until and unless you start doing that, you're not going to develop all that much as a jumper. I worry that we're going to get more and more folks coming into the sport who've grown up in today's educational environment having been spoon-fed answers who don't bring the kind of curiosity and critical thinking skills that are required to survive and grow. Every new variable, every new thing, adds another dimension to that critical thinking, and I feel like a lot of people don't recognize that, and just keep throwing things on the pile till eventually they're overwhelmed but don't even know it. I've been in the sport for almost 9 years, and when I think back to how little I knew in my first couple years, it's sort of remarkable that I didn't really have any big issues. In many ways I'm more conservative now than I was then. I'm a lot less likely to jump on a large jump with a wide mix of skill levels. I'm less likely to do a zoo dive of any sort. I'm wary of the "let's get a planeload of people and do a BFR" way of celebrating a milestone jump, especially if it's a 100th or 200th. I'm more likely to land farther out to stay out of traffic. I'm more likely to sit down when winds get wonky. It's all a matter of risk assessment, and the more you do it - with a true eye towards critical analysis - the better you should become at it. "There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

If you define "out" as landing off of the dropzone property, then I'd say I haven't landed "out" all that much. But I'll often take an alternate (designated) landing area on DZ property over the main landing area for various reasons (traffic, wind direction, etc). I don't consider that to be landing out, though I guess some do feel like if you don't choose to land on the primary pretty grass strip you've somehow failed. For those off-property landings, I've been pretty fortunate that none of them have been in planted fields, and as far as I know I've not damaged any private property. I've had to climb over a fence or two, and once I had to get picked up by the State Police (that's what happens when you land in their training facility on a day when it's closed ). Knowing that off-DZ landings can sometimes be riskier, if I see someone landing off and I'm able to watch them land, I'll do so to make sure they're up and walking about, and will let someone at the DZ know to go pick them up if they're not able to walk back reasonably. I hope someone would do the same for me. As others have noted, out landings run the risk of property damage, damaging relationships with the neighbors, and personal injury due to obstacles or rough ground. Even if the off landing area is flat and smooth, a jumper could still get hurt, and unlike in the main landing area, the injury might not be observed. Like malfunctions, I agree that out landings shouldn't be taken lightly, and they can often be an opportunity for further education. I always like to start any debrief with kudos for making a good decision to land safely, then step back and talk through the decisions that got them there in the first place. Same goes for mals - the person did what they felt they needed to do to get themselves under a safe parachute; we can talk about preventive measures, or any troubleshooting they might have done up to their decision altitude, but will still commend them for taking action when they felt they needed to in order to land safely. There does, however, seem to be a subset of folks in this sport who believe in and expect perfection in everything; that landing out should never happen and is always a result of grievous jumper error, and that all malfunctions can be prevented through perfect packing and body position. I'm one who believes you make the best decisions you can to stack the deck in your favor, but there's always a bit of shit happens that you need to be prepared for.

He didn't say which of them had the issues. "There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

Jazz hands. No, seriously. If you find yourself tensing up, wiggle your fingers. It actually works. I used to do it all the time in the tunnel and in the sky when I was new.

There's a comment in the "400 jumps velo 111" thread about why the jumper's current dropzone isn't checking. "Who looked at his log book, took his waiver, checked his repack, verified his wing loading and let him do this at their dz?" It got me to thinking through the check-in process at the 25+ DZs I've visited. Of all those, I can recall exactly one, SDAZ, that asked for my wingloading. My understanding is that's used by Mr. Burke in his ongoing analysis of incidents (fatalities, injuries, and close calls), but to be honest, I don't know for sure if they use that information to tell someone "You can't jump that here." I've seen SDAZ ground people, but what I've observed is that it's after some repeated violation of the dropzone rules observed by a ground safety officer, not solely because they're jumping a canopy they can't handle (though of course that might lead to a rules violation). At every other DZ I've visited, I have rarely even been asked about what I jump (main/reserve/container). My credentials are almost universally checked (license, membership, repack date), and currency is occasionally checked (though less often since I've had my D). But wingloading? Almost never. Is it because I don't fit the stereotype of a HP canopy pilot, and since I'm walking in to get my gear checked holding my container that is clearly not holding a small HP canopy that the conversation doesn't ever need to come up? Or is it because there really aren't any dropzones that are checking? "There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

Y'know if you ever do meet Bryan Burke, you'll find him to be fucking hilarious. Dry as a bone, but hilarious. But he does have a low tolerance for people who won't listen, even though he's probably got more data, well-analyzed, than anyone in this sport (including deaths, injuries, and close calls). But since you've already decided you don't like him, guess that's your loss. "There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

It has been, for the last couple of years. Where ya been? "There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

So USPA should just get rid of the BSRs? What else? "There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

I think you must have skipped over my post before the one you quoted where I state that HP landing areas should be sectioned off. Also, I fully agree that a person doesn't have the right to do something that may endanger you. However, if that person is engaging in an activity that does not jeopardize your well being, they have the right to do as they wish imo. But do you also agree that a DZO, as a private business owner, has the right to restrict activities on his or her dropzone, whether it be requiring an AAD, or limiting turns to no greater than 90 degrees, or kicking off the guy with 100 jumps who wants to fly his crossbraced at 1.8, even if he only ever does solo pass hop & pops? "There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

Kidding me, right? Take my GF for example. I don't want her to skydive because I don't want to see her get hurt, but if she desired to, then I would not say anything because she's an adult capable of making her own decisions. I don't want to see anyone get hurt. But it's not my right to police what grown, mentally capable adults want to do. It's not your right either. When what grown, mentally capable adults want to do might infringe on my right to stay alive, then I feel like I do have a say in the situation. It's why I strongly prefer to jump at dropzones that separate high-performance landings from standard landings; it gives me a safer place to do my standard landing, while having to worry much less about someone who's in over his / her head coming outta nowhere on a pocket rocket and taking me out, and taking away my right to enjoy the sport. Is the DZO who set up a separate landing area for high performance landings "policing?" Damn straight. If I (random fun jumper who is not a DZ employee) gives you shit about busting 270s in the main landing area, am I policing? Or am I just asking you to respect the rules that you (implicitly or explicitly) agreed to follow when you showed up to play at this DZ. If the DZO kicks you off for repeatedly busting big turns in the landing area, again, he's not taking away your rights, he's telling you that you broke one of the rules you agreed to when you wanted to play at his playground. Don't like those rules? Go to another playground or start your own. But at pretty much every DZ, it's their DZ, their rules. But don't kid yourself that you have unlimited rights because you're a grown, mentally capable adult. For the record, I do care when people kill themselves in this sport, even when they ignored repeated warnings and got themselves in way over their head. But I get pissed off when they kill someone else because they ignored repeated warnings and got themselves in way over their head. Landing is a team sport unless every single jump you do is a solo exit on your own pass. "There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

http://sfbay.iflyworld.com/ Assuming your user name = location, this is your local one. Indoor skydiving - great training tool! If you book some time, tell the tunnel instructor that you're a student skydiver and they can help you with the basics.

NEOS and Crossfire are NOT crossbaced canopies. Sorry, my bad, I was misinformed (nowhere close to a high-performance canopy pilot myself, so I was just parroting what I heard someone else say). Sorry to set the thread off with inaccurate information in the first post. "There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

There aren't, but there are more advanced canopy courses available through a number of sources that you can voluntarily take. Don't let the lack of a requirement stop you. It's also good to get back to a basic class every so often - a refresher and a day focused on you and your canopy skills is never a waste of time. "There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

One of the interesting pieces of the recent Snohomish fatality was that the jumper was not only jumping a small crossbraced canopy, he and his teammates were apparently sponsored by a canopy manufacturer. In this case, the manufacturer's support of the rapid downsizing was explicit, through sponsorship of the jumper on a small, high-performance canopy. In other cases, it might be implicit, if the manufacturer doesn't consider experience when selling a high-performance canopy to a jumper. There might be a valid argument in new canopy sales that the dealers ought to be the ones checking on experience to ensure that it's appropriate (and I truly believe that an awful lot of dealers are doing that because it's the right thing to do and it's to their benefit to keep their customers alive for additional purchases). A manufacturer can influence their dealers to do that kind of validation. Of course, the used market is still out there, and while there are an awful lot of individual sellers who will, like dealers, do the right thing and validate experience, a determined jumper can still find a way to get the "wrong" canopy for their experience. No system will be perfect, but I'm trying to get a sense of what role the manufacturers can play in influencing the culture. So I guess the question is - what role should manufacturers (and their network of dealers) play in keeping high-performance canopies out of the hands of those who have no business jumping them based on their experience level? Where would they draw the line? We know PD's selling the Peregrine on a "don't call us, we'll call you" basis, but should that rule apply to other high-performance wings as well? What about sponsorship? Do they have a higher duty to ensure their sponsored athletes have appropriate canopies, given that the sponsored athletes are now representing the company and setting an example for other jumpers as to what's appropriate? (edited to add screen shot of the page in case it gets taken down) "There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

I'm not convinced it's USPA's problem to solve. To me this is more of a cultural shift our sport needs to make, and that's driven on the individual dropzone level. I can't tell you how many people (experienced) feel they don't need any canopy education whatsoever. Until people believe they need better training (whether they're doing HP landings or not) I don't expect to see much change. Ian I agree that there's a big cultural component to it, but it seems like we haven't made a huge amount of headway on it over the years that I've been in the sport (admittedly not as long as many others). You see it in the way we talk to new jumpers about buying gear. We say things like "You're going to want to downsize" and "You'll get bored with your first canopy in 100 jumps." We set up that expectation from the beginning, without really giving anyone (let alone the hotshot who wants to downsize really fast) the tools and education they need to fairly assess their readiness to downsize. It's been a couple years since I took a canopy course, but I don't recall that topic really coming up in any of the intro type courses (equivalent to today's B course). So where is that education taking place? Where should it take place? How can we drive people to seek that out? I do, however, find the low pull analogy interesting, whereby old-timers tell me that USPA drove a cultural shift; by making pull altitudes part of the BSR, they changed the culture. By the time I started in 2004, dirty low pulling was seen as passe, not cool, etc. I feel like USPA might have a role to play (certainly not the only role) in driving cultural change here, too, if they do it right. "There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

How can USPA help to support that, Ian? You, and your teammates, were the types of folks I was thinking of when I mentioned getting the high-profile names engaged in generating ideas. I guess I should say how else can USPA support that, because the B license canopy course is one step they've taken already. "There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

Really? You can't come up with a better argument against the ad than a gay joke? Are you 12? "There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

Hey, Jan, first of all, thanks for having the guts to take this on; as you've noted, this is probably not a "one meeting" solution, but I hope you're successful in getting a dialogue started. It took us a long time to get to the canopy course requirement for a B license; I expect any attempt at a broader solution will also take some time. Written tests are pretty straightforward, once they're developed, assuming they're multiple choice, administering them is pretty much a no-brainer and doesn't require any skill to administer other than being able to check a test against an answer key. I'm more interested in the performance tests; how might those be administered and evaluated? By whom? Who would be qualified to administer the tests? I suspect this might be one of the biggest points of discussion, as the question of "should an instructor/S&TA/whoever who doesn't do high-performance landings be able to evaluate my fitness to move onto a high(er)-performance canopy?" Another question comes around measuring wingloading - seems like something that could get a little dicey if you've got someone who always comes back at the start of the season with an extra 15 lbs. Or if you've got someone who sometimes wears lead, sometimes doesn't. I think as long as we don't try to be too prescriptive on wingloading it might not be that big a deal (I'd hate to see someone who goes from 1.19 to 1.21 have to upsize every time they fluctuate within a small weight range). My other comment is a political one regarding the USPA board and how any proposals might be received. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you're a high-performance canopy pilot, Jan. Because of your years of experience in the sport and serving USPA, you obviously have a ton of credibility on a lot of issues, but I wonder if this is the type of proposal that almost requires the support of your board colleagues who are highly-experienced, well-known high-performance canopy pilots (I'm thinking of Al & Luke off the top of my head, but there are probably others I'm not thinking of). If ideas come from and/or have the support of guys like that, to me it seems they'd be harder to ignore/dismiss/write off than if they come from people who are perceived to be "fogeys" who are "out of touch" with what's happening with the sport. Similarly, there may be high profile supporters outside of the board that can help to develop & move this idea forward. You may already be on that, but just thought I'd throw that out there. I'd also like to comment on Chuck's idea that enforcement should be local. I totally agree with that, but I can't say that I've ever really seen it happen. I haven't been around nearly as long, but I've been to a lot of DZs, and it seems like every single one has a DGIT or 10 that everyone knows about and no one's doing much about (other than telling him he's a dumbass; no one's grounding him or making him fly something else). I don't really know if Jan's proposal (or some flavor of it) will help to drive better enforcement at the local level, but I'd like to see the board at least give this some serious thought and discussion. "There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

There's nothing like that up here. "There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke