Marisan

Hi Marsha d-s, So you list a rack of canopies that were involved in fatalities and you mention that banning them realistically is not going to happen. Astute observation. So banning these canopies and nopbody gets killed under them, just the next rack of canopies on the list!! Why do you even care who gets killed?? You don't jump any more no way no how!! Well I havn't jumped in a few years after a shoulder injury but now it's pretty well healed and I have enough other stuff settled in my life that I can dust off my "Stiletto" and go jump again, Oh no I cant because you are "Banning them!!" Get serious Marsha!! I will jump my Stiletto and I doubt seriously Marsha that you will stop me, Just Try!! I have no intention of stopping you from jumping your Stiletto. But given your rabid rant I will find a certain SCHADENFREUDE. when YOUR name turns up on the incident list. I, however, will mourn the people that die on HP Canopies because they had no right jumping them and people like you didn't stop them!

You're making an incorrect comparison. The Pinto had a design flaw that prevented it from being safe, even with the best driver. In canopy terms, the Nova was a canopy that was 'unsafe at any speed' in that even the best pilot could not stop it from collapsing. The original Crossfire was similar in that it exhibited a tendency to collapse (though not as bad as the Nova). The Nova went out of production, and the Crossfire has an update issued, and eventually was replaced by the Crossfire II. A Velocity, like I jump, and many other HP canopies do not have design flaws, and can be flown safely be the right pilot. I have jumped every HP canopy on the (US) market over the course of 1000's of jumps without incident. It's not the parachute, it's the pilot. You still have not responded to my quesiton about your actual experience with modern, ZP canopies. If you have none, come forward and admit it. Many of your comments about the nature of modern canopies are incorrect and your arguments are, in turn, also flawed because they're based on those incorrect conclusions. Okay Dave, I admit that I have no experience with modern ZP Canopies. The last canopy I jumped when I gave it away after 2,500 jumps and 20+ years was a Pegasus. I am not putting down your skills or Aggie Dave's. But I am saying that both of you have had an "Oh Shit" moment that you survived by pure dumb luck. (Not now but when you were first learning about HP Canopies) See the table below. Nearly 20 people per year have been killed under HP Canopies and the Velocity is over a third of them. Top 5 w/ number of fatalities per: Velocity 24 Stiletto 12 Sabre2 11 Katana 7 Spectre 7 So how are these stats to be changed? Mentoring doesn't work because otherwise you wouldn't have these stats. Banning these canopies is, realistically, not going to happen unless someone with a really big stick enforces it. (And I can see this happening because what you are doing now is NOT working) So what is to be done? How about MANDATED training before you downsize. (With a qualified trainer) ie before every downsize you MUST attend a training course on that wingloading and specific canopy and pass said course. Until then you CAN'T buy or jump that canopy. This is going to take a lot of co-operation between Gear Manufacturers, Resellers and DZO's (And cost the Manufacturers, Resellers and DZO's a lot of money) This is what Base Jumpers are starting to do to keep totally unqualified people from their sport. So Dave, how are you going to do that and ENFORCE it? As I said earlier, Mentoring doesn't work otherwise we wouldn't be having this argument.

Canopies themselves are not lethal; slamming oneself into the ground or colliding with someone else can be lethal - under any canopy. The lethal canopies thread is titled in a very misleading manner. The data is pretty meaningless unless we know how many jumps have been made under each canopy. It should be titled something like "Canopies most commonly being flown at the time somebody fucked up." BTW - do you think by capitalizing lethal canopies you have somehow made your claim more valid? We could do the same for autos. Which ones are most commonly involved in accidents and/or fatal accidents? Let's identify them, classify them, establish a DL rating system, etc. Pretty silly. Re Cars: The Ford Pinto springs to mind as does Ralph Nader's book " Unsafe at Any Speed"

I'm going to shoot it down, and I'll tell you why - complexity and lack of scope. It's too complex in that you end up needing a coach/mentor for each jumper looking to progress, and that's just not feasbile. You cannot count on having that many people, available on a reliable basis, willing to work for no money. It leaves too many 'cracks' for jumpers to fall through if nobody is around or paying attention. It lacks scope in that you're only looking at one set of jumpers, those looking to swoop and with the pre-set qualifications to swoop. What about jumpers with 100 jumps? 200 jumps? Jumpers who don't want to swoop? What oversight and education do they get? What's needed is an effort right from jump one to both regulate, educate, and impress upon jumpers the importance of quality canopy piloting skills, and prudent canopy selection. WL restrictions are a snap. You write up a chart, and jumpers simply follow the chart. Easy. Continuing education is also easy to administer. Let's say there are 3 canopy control courses required to advance to the 'unlimited' catagory. DZs can simply schedule the different classes once or twice per season. Just because a jumper has the jumps to advance in WL, they smiply have to wait until the next calss to get the educational requirement met, and advance to the next class/size of canopy. It's not all the different than live water training. You need it for a B license, but most DZs only offer it once or twice per year. If you're otherwise B qualified, you just have to wait for the next training session. Ditto for night jumps, if you want your D, you have to wait for the next round of night jumps. Back to the canopy contol classes, when you run it like a class, you need one instructor for the entire class. one guy can teach a room full of people all at once, as opposed to a coach/mentor, where you need a bunch of them, all working in an unstructured environment. If make things too complicated, it's not going to work. If you try to involve too many people, it's not going to work. If you don't make it a requirement for all jumpers, it's not going to work. What's needed is a shift in the thinking and approach to canopy flight for all jumpers on every DZ, and you can't make that happen by only targeting a select few. Dave, at last a reasonable response. This is what I've been trying to get. Now lean on the USPA and tell them that, if they don't finance this, they won't have a job. Jumpers HAVE to be seen doing something about this carnage otherwise the FAA WILL do something about it. Public servants tend to react to something that is annoying them by making the whole problem go away ie: ban jumping. ( See the thread on the FAA Letter) With no jumping USPA will have nothing to do. Then they are all unemployed. Don't think it won't happen. It did happen in the late sixties in New Zealand. Jumpers became such a pest that jumping was banned for 6 months. People are now talking about the problem which they weren't before. All the flaming was worth it (I hope) I don't want to take you all back to my days, I just want the carnage to end.

It's Marisan not Marsha! My point is that you guys are KILLING yourselves under these canopies. We didn't under our canopies. Don't you think this may just be a problem?

Hi, My personal opinion is to ban them but I'm realistic enough to realise that will not happen. Jumpers lost that chance 15 years ago. It is a stimulating debate though. My biggest concern is that someone else will ban them and thereby finish the entire sport. All it will take is some mad swooper to take out X number of spectators on a demo and then your version of the FAA will ban it for you. If every jumper then has to buy a new rig to suit those regulations how many jumpers will be left?

It's the change of category that scares me. Back in the day, if it was square and flying straight the dangerous part was over. With the exception of wraps you were safe for your next jump.

Hi Crotolus01. You are of course correct and I shouldn't have discounted his input but I read that article differently and frankly it horrifies me. That is what I meant by " You don't know what you don't know. Or to quote one of your former Defence Secretaries. "It's an unknown unknown")

Hi Pablo, at 130 jumps you don't have enough experience to know what you don't know.

I suggest you go back and read the article! 75% of their incidents are under a fully open, functioning canopy. Not the nearly 50% that I quoted. Still, that article is a good first step in reducing the carnage. Maybe DZO's are starting to think after all!

Fuck, I can't believe the sheer selfishness and ego demonstrated on this thread! Nearly 50% of fatalities now are under a fully opened and functioning canopy. You have a thread about which is the most lethal canopy. And you guys DON'T SEE THAT AS A PROBLEM? All you people defending Lethal Canopies, are you trying to tell me you've never had an "Oh Shit Moment" where the only thing that saved you was pure dumb luck. If that is what you are trying to say, well, I don't believe you! By saying the problem is training you are merely exacerbating the problem. You are accepting putting people with less experience than you on canopies that are quite capable of killing them and you. When the inevitable happens you say it was lack of training. No training organization would accept the dangers to their students and instructors that you, as a sport so blithely accept. Now, for God's sake' grow the fuck up.

What canopy has the most fatalities? Any sport that has a thread like the above has major problems. But it shows that people are, at least, starting to think about it

I agree with you Bill but what I am saying is that, on the older more benign canopies the margin for error was huge, compared to today's canopies. On the modern canopies an error of judgement, turbulence or a myriad of other factors can have you in a world of hurt before you have time to react. There is NO margin of error.

All that is old is new again.

N/A

And now we have a winner!

You can't mentor someone unless you are with them seeing what they see. (Tandem Swooping Training anyone) When I put out static line students back in the day they were on their own with only their training to keep them alive. I had some scares but I never lost (Or injured) one.

And we're back to my point. The problem isn't the gear, it is the person flying the gear. I almost agree Dave with one caveat: It's the training the person flying the gear has received. In the States the FAA is already looking and, if they are worried enough, the response will be DRACONIAN.

Nope, I'm not obfuscating, the truth just stings sometimes. Some of us have called for mandated training. The problem, at least in the US, is that the BOD would rather hand out $10,000 to their friends who want to start a demo team then approach comprehensive and positive change to the sport. So we're left with people like me, passionate, able and willing to teach how to fly a canopy safely and well. We're like the kid walking on a beach throwing starfish back into the sea. We can't save everyone, but I can save THIS one! That's the problem Dave. And it's not just in the States, it's all over the world. Nothing will be done until some hotshot stuffs up a demo and takes out 5+ of the general public. THEN you'll see a response. Jyro and the other manufacturers have a lot to answer for (And I first met him when he was a student on rounds)

"They" didn't ban the Bonanza... Ahh Aggie, now you're obfuscating. No one can go from a Cessna 150 to " The Fork Tailed Doctor Killer" without, at least , a type rating. Might not stop them killing themselves but at least they have had some MANDATED training. Where is the MANDATED training for jumpers? "They" would probably just create a type rating. If you have enough money you can buy a high performance jet as a private pilot. You can even buy it with no license what-so-ever. It just costs a lot more than a $3500 Velocity.

The Airforce doesn't take people with a Private Pilot's licence and put them in an F16. But that appears to be what jumpers are doing. Mandate training yourself or someone else will do that for you! And they will do it the easy way. They will just ban the canopies and solve it overnight

I can understand the student fatality rate. They don't know what they don't know. That's what AAD's are for. Why are 1000+ jumpers dying though. Do you want to see H&P's from 12,000'

Hi Aggie Dave, Since most jumpers are, by definition average, wouldn't it make sense to limit their access to those HP Canopies?

Well, I can see that you're ready and willing to have a constructive conversation with a canopy pilot, swooping competitor and canopy coach like me... So since you have all this experience can you tell me why so many people are dying under a fully functional canopy? Your input would be much appreciated.

When I started jumping it was C9's in B4 harness's Yes it was a dick waving competition (I'm brave, I jump out of aeroplanes) but C9's and B4's did not kill with the regularity that is seen now.