ozzy13

And that would include you. What is your agenda? Sparky Glad you asked. I don't want added regulation placed on my sport cause someone thinks they no best. Show where any of these propose chart would of helped or changed any of the canopy incidents. Just to assume that it will help change what's going on is stupid. Give me data showing it. If that can be done I would support it. Until then I'm againest any more regulations. Now you know Never give the gates up and always trust your rears!

WELL, in post #2 of this thread I asked: "Do you have any data on how many accidents (fatalities, since that's what we know about) occurred in each of these experience levels in the past, say, 3 years, and what % or those involved jumpers violating the proposed limits? " No answer received. Before imposing any rules on the community, the proposers need to make a very clear analysis of the scope of the problem and the likely impact of the proposed "solution". That has not been done. Imposing rules without research is SOP these days, Perfesser. Please don't further confuse these peeps by asking them to apply something as quaintly archaic as scientific method to their musings. 44 LOL confuse such folks lol ok high and mighty. This website is a joke. One more week and you wont see me until i get bored next winter. So flame on!!! I took your comment as a insult. I am the only one that has shown any kind of stat in all of these proposal WL threads. Again 45% on fatalities were from people with 2000 plus jumps killing themselves. So all these charts would not helped any of them There are three or four of them on this site right now. Your so smart show me different. No insult intended. especially since you say you do NOT support the charting process being discussed. My point is simply that there's a lot of blah-blah without any kind of research. Yours is limited only to fatalities, and in fact, I totally agree with you: This whole discussion is pretty silly because the majority of the action taking place these days happens to people who are far beyond the reach of the proposed restrictions. That is why I keep beating the basic aerodynamics horse and the private-pilot-level ground school horse: If you don't get them dialed into the fundamentals of flight -- ANY kind of flight -- early on, then no amount of bandaids in the form of the proposed charts and restictions is going to change anything. So if I understand your last post correctly, we be on the same page, so chill, my brothuh from anothuh mothuh. 44 Trust me I find this website entertaining more so then anything else. Don't get me wrong there is some good info here but most people posting have their own agenda behind their posts. This whole typic is being discussed in three threads. Anyway I'm chill just took your comment like it was directed at me. I'm far from that. Piece. Never give the gates up and always trust your rears!

Not really. There were a few collisions last year so it's not as safe as one might think. Never give the gates up and always trust your rears!

http://www.dropzone.com/fatalities/ There is your data you are looking for. Have at it No - that raw data does NOT contain the analysis appropriate to justify imposing a new rule on the community. Agreed but you were the one asking for data. That's the only data avalible here. Never give the gates up and always trust your rears!

Actually are you sure about that? You know that all of them have not taken canopy courses. If not neither your restrictions or the new canopy courses for B would of helped them. There is no way of knowing if what we will put in place would of help the past. We cant get any real data on what is the real problem. We need to know everyone's history to do this. For someone to say this would of help them is just talking out your ass. (Im not saying you per say)Im sorry. We see a problem and everyone has there opinion on how it can be fixed. No one has showed me anything that will support their idea in fixing the problems we are having in this area of our sport. I do see a deficiency in our progression. One big one is the only canopy education you needed was on your A card. Bare minimum if you ask me. So we are moving in the right direction at least. Will it help? Not sure. Again no numbers to go by. I do think it will eventually make it a safer sky in the future. Never give the gates up and always trust your rears!

So out of the 23 19 of them were above 1000 jumps. So all wing loading restrictions would not apply to any of them. With the stats we dont know of those how many took canopy courses. How many were restricted by there instructors ect. The data can only give a small window of the big picture. We would need to know each jumpers history to make numbers give us the whole picture. Im against any restrictions. I think education is a better way. wing loading charts are a good guideline. Just against it being any kind of BSR. Never give the gates up and always trust your rears!

http://www.dropzone.com/fatalities/ There is your data you are looking for. Have at it Never give the gates up and always trust your rears!

WELL, in post #2 of this thread I asked: "Do you have any data on how many accidents (fatalities, since that's what we know about) occurred in each of these experience levels in the past, say, 3 years, and what % or those involved jumpers violating the proposed limits? " No answer received. Before imposing any rules on the community, the proposers need to make a very clear analysis of the scope of the problem and the likely impact of the proposed "solution". That has not been done. Imposing rules without research is SOP these days, Perfesser. Please don't further confuse these peeps by asking them to apply something as quaintly archaic as scientific method to their musings. 44 LOL confuse such folks lol ok high and mighty. This website is a joke. One more week and you wont see me until i get bored next winter. So flame on!!! I took your comment as a insult. I am the only one that has shown any kind of stat in all of these proposal WL threads. Again 45% on fatalities were from people with 2000 plus jumps killing themselves. So all these charts would not helped any of them There are three or four of them on this site right now. Your so smart show me different. Never give the gates up and always trust your rears!

WELL, in post #2 of this thread I asked: "Do you have any data on how many accidents (fatalities, since that's what we know about) occurred in each of these experience levels in the past, say, 3 years, and what % or those involved jumpers violating the proposed limits? " No answer received. Before imposing any rules on the community, the proposers need to make a very clear analysis of the scope of the problem and the likely impact of the proposed "solution". That has not been done. Dude i didnt answer the first time and wont answer this time. Do the work yourself if you want to know such data. I looked and 45% were low turns with jumps over 2000. There is not much more info then that. So I dont know. Im not proposing anything so dont need to do the work. I dont think we should use a chart as a restriction. Never give the gates up and always trust your rears!

I agree with some of what you are saying. It is why I keep saying how is these charts going to help these guys from turning themselves into the ground. Everyone of them had 2000+ jumps. I think a few years from now this will happen less. None of the guys had to do anything once they got their A. Now you do. This will help with this stat. Again just my thoughts. I have 2500 jump. The last 2000 or so were swoop type of landing. I have landed off where i had to come straight in. I also couple jumps back came straight in cause of too much traffic. Again I have taken a few canopy courses. Im the type that wants to learn about everything that im doing. So I looked for the education. But I see with people all the time.They go threw the FJC get their A and jump and keep jumping. They don't care about anything but jumping. Is there anything wrong with that. I dont know. I think now everyone having to take a basic canopy course after all the pressure of just getting your A. There will be better canopy pilots out there. Restricting one from doing something is just not a direction I would like our sport to go. Never give the gates up and always trust your rears!

It has changed as the 1st of the year. So i dont get your point. People are forgetting a whole other side of this. The manufacturers. You guys will be putting limits on what they can sell to who. At least asking them too. Just food for thought. Never give the gates up and always trust your rears!

I teach my students how to flat turn before they get their A. So yes I think it important. The problem is after their A they didn't have to learn anything else if they didn't want to. Just hit the pees a few times. The facts are how much do they retain in those 25 jumps is not much. I think now that you as a skydive having to take a course t after getting your A to get your B is perfect. They will retain so much more cause its the only thing they are fouced on. You don't see that yourself? Never give the gates up and always trust your rears!

I don't have a problem with jump numbers. I think they are important. I have a problem with restricting anyone that takes the time to learn something and shows they are capable of doing what they learned. Jump numbers are not a end all that you are making it. With tribune dzs out there it's really easy to get jump numbers high. With your charts that all these guys are making those guys can be on a crossbraced canopy in a year or so. So how is that helping. Teaching someone how to fly and then evaluating then is the best way. I don't understand why people don't see this. What's next put a year limit on when you can jump this or that. Come on. You want people to stop dying then teach them in my opinion. Never give the gates up and always trust your rears!

You also posted here http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=4285932;page=1;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25; and you didnt get enough suggestions here http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4284723;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread I guess being a greeny lets you keep posting the same topic over and over and over. Everyone know where you stand on this topic that's for sure lol Never give the gates up and always trust your rears!

My bad I thought it was changed to a BSR Never give the gates up and always trust your rears!

I do and to be honest didnt even look at it. I had my fill of charts in the other thread. Again dont think using a chart as a guild line is a bad Idea. Just having it a a BSR I think having people going threw courses learning all these drills and explaining why they are doing them. Another perfect example is the couple posts behind me both didnt understand why they didnt need to do double front if they are not swooping. If they took a canopy course they would understand why. We have different methods on how we think this needs to be done. I know we both want the same result. Less people dying. Never give the gates up and always trust your rears!

I do know last year 45% was 2000 plus jumps and this proposal would do nothing for them. Just sayin! Never give the gates up and always trust your rears!

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4284723;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread Are we not already talking about this here? Never give the gates up and always trust your rears!

Education not regulation. We have BSR's in affect. One is no camera till 200 perfect example. its gives you your scenario with a jump number BSR. This BSR is broke everyday. A guy died last year with 150 jumps and jumping with tandem. Yes low turn was his last mistake. Maybe if he wasnt doing all the other stuff he might not of turned low. I dont know. So what good is it. Some dont enforce it with Gopro's everyone accepts that its plastic screws ect. Love that picture of the AAFI with a gopro and lines around it. You guys want a chart and make it a BSR. OK but what good is a chart and bsr if people are not following it. Guys are even saying USPA is doing nothing. I think Differently on this. USPA has done more in the last two three years then the last six. The adv canopy sec that is in the sims is actually being used now. Instead of this is here if you want it. The other problem in this is who is qualified in teaching Adv canopy. I have seen AFFIs suck under canopy. so How are they teaching something that they suck at. In the sats last year most of the low turns were from jumpers with 2000+ jumps. Most likely pilot error on all these (im guess) these reports on here are not the best. Dont know time in sport on any. How do you get a jumper with XXXX amount of jumps not to smash themselves into the ground. that was 45% of them last year. As far as canopy collisions just plan stupid if you ask me. You are not looking. This is where I think USPA hit a home run. Now everyone with in 50 jumps in their career has to take a canopy course. I think this will help with collisions. Again with AFF progression there is not enough on canopy. Ill re word that. It teaches you enough to get you to the ground safely. I don't think you can teach anything more then that in 25 jumps. I wouldn't mind another course before D either. Your a professional skydiver at this point able to get all rating ect. You should have to prove your skills under canopy at this point regardless of wing loading Just food for thought at my DZ and a couple in the area. We have a proficiency card for new AFFI's its 20 jumps under the supervision of a seasoned AFFI. It works great. It takes the pressure off the new AFFI and gives them the confidence needed. So you dont have to wait for USPA to do something before you do. All Ideas I have read are great. Brian's chart is a good tool. Im just against any kind of regulations. I think they hold us as a whole and our sport back. Never give the gates up and always trust your rears!

BING BING BING we have a winner. This is why USPA is starting to use one :) Never give the gates up and always trust your rears!

clicky http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/tandem/ Never give the gates up and always trust your rears!

Agreed and your point is? Education is the best way. I don't understand the argument in this. I say black you say blue. Good luck figuring out what would be good in those charts and ill just teach them how too fly whats over their head. This has been beaten to death. Im moving on. Good luck! Never give the gates up and always trust your rears!

Thats all great but you will be under loading some of the canopy's say a x-braced canopy by manufacturers recommendation is higher loadings on them. Im just playing devils advocate here. By putting a number on anything. It will lock you in. Now someone gets hurt under your chart. Lawyers will come in a say USPA knows better then the manufacturer that built it? What about that 100 lbs girl? What about all the other exceptions that come into play? Im not trying to be a dick. Just looking at the whole picture and what the real problem is.In my option is lack of education. Never give the gates up and always trust your rears!

Agree so where does this chart fit in then? If everyone is taking canopy courses whats the chart for? How does that teach? So basically the chart is a glide line of the person making the chart Who thinks said wing loading is good for everyone based off of jump numbers and no other factor. I don't see how you can do this with all variables out there that comes with it. If you do include all the different situation in the chart. Whats the point. Either they are ready or they are not. A chart will never be able to tell you this. A course will. Just got home man im sorry about all the typos in my posts. Never give the gates up and always trust your rears!

lol I get that all the time. I tell them if that's what he wants to do so be it just not here. I know you will say its restricting them. I think it's just making the decision for them because they are not educated enough to make the decision themselves. Your question is a open ended question. Is it a guy that has 200 jumps or a guy with 1000. I would defiantly sit them down and explain the steps to get to said size canopy. Again I think we are arguing the same point that something needed to be done. I think a chart would be more of a headache with all the exceptions and what's the point if there is exceptions. What good is a chart if this guy or that girl can go outside the chart. Having everyone go threw a advanced course will change things Never give the gates up and always trust your rears!