Hooknswoop

Good idea and I think it will make a difference. The problem I see is that the Pro swooping circuit is 'cool'. People want to be a Pro competetor. A Triatholon 150 isn't going to be competative on the Pro circuit. What if the Pro circuit got on board and required X number of beginner/intermediate competetions and/or standings at theose competetions before being allowed into the Pro circuit? Derek

Some DZO's allow the S &TA to ground someone, some don't. The DZO could allow a Chief Instructor, Instructor Loader, anyone to ground people if they wish. That is a DZO choice. Being an S & TA does not mean you can ground people. The DZO saying you can ground people means you can ground people. One has nothing to do with the other. Derek

Very good input. I was thinking of canopy training required for higher licenses, but available to anyone. For example, a jumper could attend the instruction and train at the highest canopy level with only an "A" license. If they do not want a higher license, no problem, they can still advance their canopy skills, etc. The licenses are more tied to free fall skills than canopy skills. Jumpers prggress at theses two completely different skils at different rates. The admin of the licenses should address that. I agree that the WL that the jumper is signed off to should be on their USPA card. The logbook endorsement would be for a waiver to the WL limits and so that the jumper could go to another DZ immediately and not have to wait for a new USPA card. Thanks, Derek

A parachute rigger's rating does not lapse. You are a rigger for life. If you haven't rigged for 90 day, all you have to do to get current again is..........rig. “f) Exercise the privileges of his certificate and type rating unless he understands the current manufacturer's instructions for the operation involved and has -- (1) Performed duties under his certificate for at least 90 days within the preceding 12 months; or (2) Shown the Administrator that he is able to perform those duties.” I was an AFF I/E, Tandem I/E, S/L I/E with a “D” license and a PRO rating. All have expired because I did not renew them or my USPA membership. I did not change my profile for two reasons;1 ) I earned the ratings and 2) When people check my profile to see who is posting information, they give me credibility I might not otherwise have even though my knowledge didn’t disappear on October 31, 2003 when my ratings did. Not having packed reserves for a while does not mean someone isn’t a rigger or should not have their posts read as thought the information contained in them comes from a rigger. Derek

I didn't mean it that way. I don’t think jump numbers is a perfect way to measure ability either. Demonstrated skills is the best way to determine ability. It isn't perfect. But at some point you have to fix the problem, even if the solution isn't perfect. I understand your reservations. I don't see a better solution. If I am wrong, then he whole deal can be rescinded, no hard feelings. The ISP was put in place without a hard study showing that it was necessary and the best fix. Changes were made after a pilot program and continue to be made. I think the ISP has been shown to be better than straight AFF or S/L or IAD. I just think this is the best fix for the problems I see. With the increasing number of landing incidents. A pilot program at one or two DZ’s should demonstrate either that the idea is a good one or that the idea is a bad one. A more formal downsizing progression in the spirit of aircraft pilot’s ratings would work, IMO. Like was pointed out, S & TA’s need real authority to enforce this proposed BSR and the already existing BSR’s. All I want is to reduce the number of unnecessary injuries and fatalities and I think this idea would do that. Derek

Yes, it would have. Instead of "don't do it." It would have been, "You can't jump that." I thought you were of the opinion that there wasn't a problem? So your objection is that other BSR's aren't enforced and therefore no new ones should be made? Derek

I think it might be beneficial to explain why I think the way I do about this issue. I think back to when I had 132 jumps and jumped a Stiletto 107 at a 1.75:1 wing loading. Would the me ‘then’ have listened to the me ‘now’? No way. Why? Because I thought I knew enough. I can look back now and see what I thought I knew and what I knew weren’t even in the same ball park. The only thing that would have kept me off that canopy was enforcement of a BSR that said I couldn’t jump it until I was ready. So I understand that all the education, talking to, explanations, etc, would not have stopped me and it won’t stop others from getting in over their heads. It is a matter of attitude and experience. The attitude is basically impossible to change and the experience too often comes too late. How I survived, against the odds, I’ll never know. I shouldn’t have. I was ignorant of the risks I was taking and ignorant of how to fly a canopy at that level. Derek

That is very insightful and a great idea. Wish I would have thought of that. A better understanding of the 'why' would help with the 'fix'. Derek

LOL- figure the odds. I think public incidents is what would bring the FAA down on skydiving. It would be difficult for the FAA to ignore the Royal Gorge incident because it was so visible to the public. The FAA doesn't feel any heat over a hook turn fatality that gets little to no news coverage. If the FAA is forced to step in, they will make uneducated changes which would be bad for skydiving. Imagine if someone hook turns into a Senator, killing them? Derek

Also, you can either stay up all night and roll WDI's or you can just go take the 80-100 that they want each day out of one of the refrigerator boxes they have full of them and ‘recycle’ them. Just make sure you roll a couple of good ones that you take to the DZ. There is hell to pay if toss one and it doesn’t work. After the first round of re-painting the curbs on GK Blvd all night (and I mean ALL night) and being told it sucked. We decided to dump the paint and go to sleep the second night. The next day the cadre told us good job and that we should have done it that way the first time. Pay the $1-$2 to have your boots polished for you. Have one or three gas powered blowers to clean GK Blvd of pine tree needles (the street is line with pine trees). It will save you a lot of time than sweeping it every morning. If they tell you to do something stupid. Just do it and act like it is a good idea and you are enjoying cutting grass with a swingblade as a huge lawnmower purposely doesn't mow near your AO because the cadre asked the drive not to mow that area. In a word: Cheat. Or you won’t get any sleep and don't get caught. Derek

Absolutely true. Derek

"This isn’t true, just wanted to make a point." Got your attention though. And I sold it for $100 and threw in a certificate from PA for $100.00 The jumper I sold it to is qualified to jump it. Derek

Didn't mean to put down S & TA's. They work hard to help others for no pay and get zero respect. (Which is why I turned down the position here in CO.) I would like to see the role of the S & TA to include enforcing the BSR's. If they don't, who will? Derek

I can tell a low pull very easily. Not difficult at all. When I was an A & TA I talked to several people about low pulls. They all stopped pulling low. I tried to ground someone for pulling at about 500 feet (very short canopy ride, fortunately he was jumping a hard-opening Sabre) and was over-ridded by the DZO ($). Eliminate, no. I don’t think that is possible. Reduce, yes. Because the jumper w/ 26 jumps and a Velocity loaded at 2.6:1 will still hammer in. They can read, they don’t think it applies to them. They also put themselves in a higher category on the label than they should. He beginner/intermediate/advanced, etc categories are not defined. If every jumper that was outside those recommendations gave me a dollar, I would make a lot of money. Derek

I agree that is part of the problem. Jumpers can buy canopies they shouldn’t be flying. I recently sold my VX-60 to a guy with 267 jumps and is downsizing from a Stiletto 107. If the S & T A has the authority to do anything and doesn’t, then he will be jumping it this weekend. See a problem here? This isn’t true, just wanted to make a point. Jumpers will be able to get any canopy they want, regulating it at the acquisition level won’t stop very many people. {quote] it would be apparent that this jumper had not been told that xxbraced hp @ 2.6 WILL kill him. this should be part of a compulsory CC class. = part of the solution. Same jumper as above, has been told but doesn’t believe it will kill him. He thinks he is good enough handle a VX-60. He doesn’t know what he doesn’t know, until after he has an incident if he is lucky. Mandatory CC instruction/education/training is part of the letter. You can stop him from jumping it very easily. “Nice canopy. Can I see you USPA card?” “Sure, here you go.” “I’m sorry, you can’t jump that nice canopy here.” I agree completely. Now how do we make canopy instruction/training/education mandatory. How do we prevent someone from taking the training deciding they can no go fly a VX-60 with 267 jumps? I agree. But that won’t help Mr. 267 jumps with the VX-60. It isn’t a tremendous administrative chore. I don’t see ‘bandit’ DZ’s with people pulling at 500 feet being popular. The minimum pull altitude BSR works, why not this? Same teeth as the minimum pull altitude BSR. Pull low? Grounded. Sneek a canopy you shouldn’t? Grounded. Some DZO’s are enacting their own policies. They choose to, without any outside influence. They seem to be able to do it and handle the administrative part without a problem. Me too. I do think this is worth pursuing though. It needs to be fixed and I haven’t seen anyone put forth a better idea. Derek

Exactly, it is not nice at all. This is why the letter was written. To lower the rate of not nice incidents that can be prevented. If you do not see that a problem exists, you will. Go to other DZ’s, get some more time in the sport, experience more than enough not nice moments, you will change your mind. Because I feel that I have the experience to comment intelligently on this issue and owe it to the sport I was involved in for 8 years to do something about it. I added my name to that letter before I quit, so this issue is sort of a loose end for me. I think it unwise of you to not only not seek, not listen to, but want my years of experience to be unavailable. I would think that someone that was serious might listen to others with much more experience than yourself. I wouldn't be a know-it-all. But that’s just me. If that were true, then the letter would never have been written. Derek

Are minimum pull altitude unenforceable? No, they are enforce all the time. We do not simply ignore someone that is pulling low and when they bounce, shake our heads and say, “bad him.” We talk to and if necessary ground someone that is pulling low. Why? Because it is very unsafe and if they don’t see that, then someone has to step in and either show them or not let them jump, for their own good. Nothing, but that is the current system, which isn’t working. If there was no minimum pull altitude BSR, then an S & TA that told someone that he pulled too would be in for an argument. “I can handle it, I know what I’m doing.”, etc. With the BSR, the S & TA can simply say, “Pull above X,XXX from now on or you are grounded.” No argument. Plus the S & TA has a guideline that is easy to enforce. Above X,XXX, no problem, below X,XXX, problem. Of course judgement must still be exercised. For example if a jumper is pulling at 2,000 feet with a canopy that takes 1,500 feet to open, he can still step in and tell the jumper to pull higher. Of course, this all hinges on the DZO giving the S & TA the authority to enforce the BSR’s. If the S & TA does not have the authority to enforce the BSR’s, then they (all of them) count for nothing. If the BSR’s are enforced at the DZ, it would work. It will also give newer jumpers official guidelines for canopy control ability and WL that doesn’t exist on the national level now. Derek

I'm sure DZ's would take your word for it. I suppose that would be up to the DZ. But if you switched canopies or lied about your canopy, I suppose they could do anything they wanted, ground you, tell you to leave, nothing, etc. Same as if you broke any other BSR. Derek

When you check in at the DZ, they would check your ID, USPA card, and logbook, and gear. An alternative is putting your WL waiver on your USPA card. Derek

I see a very comparable situation between new drivers and new canopy pilots. New drivers have seen a lot of vehicle accidents, on the news, in person, etc. They have been shown the consequences of driving like an idiot. They still drive like idiots and get into accidents. Education, for drivers and canopy pilots is important. It is also severely lacking for both drivers and canopy pilots. There are schools for both that are not mandatory, but people can pay to attend. Not everyone that should does, in fact very few that should do. Unfortunately, education is not the fix-all. From: Young Drivers: The High Risk Years "Unfortunately," Dr. Simpson added, "the problem is that so many crashes involve their attitude, not their skills." “Dr. Simpson points out that what is needed is some kind of system that allows teens accessibility and mobility, but that at the same time gives them an opportunity to gain much-needed experience under conditions of 'controlled risk.' This concept is known as 'graduated licensing.'” “Peer pressure can, and usually does, override adult rules concerning issues such as obeying the speed limit or using turn signals.” “With such serious statistics, parents want to know what they can do to minimize the risks that come with teenage driving. Consider these suggestions:” “Be sure teenagers get plenty of supervised driving even after getting their licenses.” “Ease teens into more challenging situations, such as highways and mountainous roads, or wet, snowy and icy conditions.“ “Make sure teens stay out of unsafe cars, especially small cars and high performance cars.“ From: Graduated Licensing for Teen Drivers “Driving is a complicated skill to learn; it takes time and practice.” “Sometimes young drivers lack driving experience to safely react to traffic situations.” “Drivers in this age group also commonly engage in more risk-taking behaviors, exposing themselves to dangerous situations on the road.” The concept is to break the driver’s license down into stages: “Stage 1: Learner's Permit” “Stage 2: Intermediate or Provisional License” “Stage 3: Full License” http://www.usaweekend.com/99_issues/990905/990905drivers.html is another good reference. Showing newer drivers pictures of vehicle accidents won’t stop very many from driving poorly. Education would help a lot, but without experience it doesn’t do much. If they don’t use that training, it doesn’t help at all. Pictures/video/meeting jumpers that have had an incident and education will all help, but will not make a big difference Derek

To be determined. Derek

I see. How long have you been jumping? How many DZ's have you been to? How many times have you performed CPR on someone with a broken neck and jaw? How many times have you been a first responder to someone with a broken femur? Two broken femurs and a broken neck? How many people do you know have died under a good canopy? How many of your friends have died under a good canopy? How many people have you taken aside because there were flying a canopy either too aggressively or too small of a canopy, only to be told, “I know what I’m doing.” Then had to call 911 for? Because you do not see a major problem does not mean it does not exist. It does. I would like to see a solution put in place that will reverse the current trend of needless injuries and fatalities under good canopies. I am fully aware of the risks of jumping from airplanes. I have also put the effort into making 3333 incident free skydives. Injuries from landing under good canopies do not have to happen, they can be prevented. BTW- As of recently, I don’t jump from airplanes anymore. Too many people with your attitude. Derek

Correct Incorrect. A logbook endorsement would alleviate the need to demonstrate proficiency at a new DZ if the jumper did so at their home DZ. It would and it is not a perfect solution. Nor is 2,000 feet a safe minimum pull altitude for some canopies, regardless of the jumper’s experience. In this same manner, the idea is not perfect. Derek

That would be great, but there is 2 problems with that: 1) All the best high-speed up-to-date training from the best Instructor(s) in the world would not prevent a 50 jump skydiver from hammering in under a Velocity loaded at 2.6:1. 2) You said it yourself: "before i knew better i got lucky." Newer jumpers don't know what they don't know. A close call can wake them up to that fact, but all too often it goes beyond a close call to injury/fatality. Then it is too late to learn that lesson. BTW- thank you for focusing on the solution.

How would I benefit financially? BTW- you are still just complaining and not offering solutions. I even made it clicky for you. You obviously have an opinion on the subject, what is your idea for a solution? Or would you just rather whine and complain, which I admit is a whole lot easier than actually putting forth the effort to try and fix the problem? Part of the problem or part of the solution............. Derek