Hooknswoop

Like the Minimum Pull Altitude BSR's, these are maximums. A WL BSR shouldn't relieve S & TA's, etc from their responsibility. If someone jumps a canopy that takes 1,500 feet to open and has a D license that doesn't mean they should pull at 2,000 feet. Just becaue someone can fly at a higher wingload doesn't mean they should. A WL BSR would standardize a policy between all DZ's and remove a lot of the problems before they arise and are either delt with by S & TA's, etc or fall through the (very wide) cracks. Making the BSR too complicated and cumbersome will reduce it's effectiveness and implimintation. Look what happened to the ISP when it was first released. Derek

Correct, you could be 'waivered' to an unlimited WL with only an A license. You are not forced to get any license beyond the A. Edit: You would still have to meet/complete the canopy training requirements for each license. Derek

Skydive Coastal Carolinas Skydive Kansas Skydive Myrtle Beach Are the 3 that I know of. Derek

The USPA is not going to fund a study to determine if a Wing Loading Basic Safety Requirement (WL BSR) is necessary and to what extent to restrict WL's if they determine it is. DZO's are not going to submit incident reports if thy feel they could be jeopardizing their business, regardless if their DZ is a Group Member DZ and if USPA requires them to be submitted. This eliminates the possibility of a track-able incident database from being created. If you disagree with how BSR's are made, that is the topic of another thread. At least 3 DZ's have implemented WL restriction, none are the same, but all are more restrictive than what is being proposed. The current system of Instructors and S&TA's advising skydivers about canopy choices is broken. A conflict of interest exists with the DZO prohibiting someone from jumping a canopy they feel is too aggressive for the skydiver. They lose income in the form of lift tickets and future gear sales because the skydiver goes to another DZ. Not all S&TA's grounding decisions are backed by the DZO. The system lacks uniformity between DZ's across the country. I fly a highly loaded canopy and do not want to prevent anyone else from doing the same. I want to ensure they have the experience and training to handle the canopy. Minimum pull altitudes ensure that skydivers begin their deployment high enough to deal with a malfunction based on jump numbers. There are no waivers or exceptions to the minimum pull altitude BSR's, nor any option to lower a skydiver's mpa based on a practical exam/demonstrated performance. The proposed WL BSR allows for not only a waiver to be granted prior to the specified number of jumps based on a practical exam/demonstrated proficiency, but also allows waivers to be granted upon completion of a cc training course, yet to be designed. There is nothing to stop a DZ from exceeding the proposed limitations, but they are less likely to institute stricter requirements if a nationally recognized WL BSR is in place, accepted, enforced, and followed. In short, the proposed WL BSR may prevent a more restrictive over all and different from DZ to DZ WL restriction policies. DZO's and experienced skydivers have recognized the need for these limits and more canopy training. One way or another, limits will be put in place. Skydiving is at a crossroad. We can either develop and implement a WL BSR and required cc training that allows for exceptions that is acceptable and not overly restrictive, or deal with the no-exceptions and very restrictive WL policies more and more DZ's are implementing. If we don't to it, it will be done for us and I fear it will be far worse than if we do it. We hear about skydivers either in over their heads with their canopy, or wanting to downsize even though they can barely handle their current canopy. There is far too little resources newer skydivers can utilize to help them make wise canopy choices. The pressure to fit in and be 'cool' is stronger for newer skydivers. They watch the hot canopy pilots land, they hear how people react to their landings and desperately want to be admired, just like the swoopers are. Newer skydivers simply don't know hat they don't know. They don't know that small, high performance canopies require a lot of skill and experience to fly. They come with an added responsibility of collision avoidance because they come down faster than larger canopies, those pilots cannot see them coming nor avoid them if they could. Malfunctions are more violent and descend much faster with high performance canopies. Newer skydivers don't realize how dangerous high performance landings can be because very good pilots make them to look easy. Canopy design and accepted canopy progression have both changed in recent years. The next generation of canopies has arrived with incredible performance. Newer skydivers are moving to higher performance canopies sooner. 10 years ago, someone with less than 500 jumps on a Stiletto 120 was unheard of. Now it isn't uncommon. The performance of these canopies has not changed. Unfortunately, canopy control has not kept pace with these changes and the result is more incidents. Unless something changes, the problem will get worse. The lack of a WL BSR is allowing an increasing rate of injuries and fatalities. We cannot allow this to continue unchecked. I do believe in pushing limits and advancing the level of the sport. I also believe in calculated risks and being prepared. Taking risks impulsively and carelessly without analyzing and minimizing the risks beforehand will eventually result in an incident. Skydivers are subject to very little restrictions by the USPA, which aren't even mandatory. Skydivers are subjected to even less requirements by the FAA. They resist any intrusions into their perceived freedoms, even if they make sense. The fear that a WL BSR will open the door for more and more, tighter restrictions is unfounded. Skydivers do not need the freedom to make dumb canopy choices. The freedom to fly a canopy that stands a very good chance of injuring or killing the pilot due to inexperience or lack of skill is not a freedom, it is simply ignorant. Newer skydivers believe they can handle a small high performance canopy, but the truth is they are not equipped to make an educated decision about what they can handle and what they can't. How could they? They haven't mastered any canopy yet and have never flown a high performance canopy. A skydiver with 50 jumps convinced that they can handle an elliptical canopy at an aggressive wing loading is like me tying to convince Mario Andretti that I can handle a formula 1 race car at speed, having never driven a race car. Why would I not believe Mr. Andretti when he told me I should start with something not quite so high performance? What would lead me to believe that with my zero experience, I could possibly make a better decision about what type of race car I could handle than someone with a lifetime's worth of experience? Having never driven anything even close to a Formula 1race car, on what basis could I decide that I could handle one? None. I would be a fool not to listen to him and take his advice. Fortunately, drivers must prove themselves worthy prior to racing a Formula 1 race car. I'm sure everyone agrees this is a good idea. What if a WL BSR, with options for exceeding the restrictions, does cause some skydivers to be temporarily 'held back' on a lower performance canopy than they are capable of safely flying? Is it such a big deal? Must a skydiver downsize as soon as they are capable to? If a few skydivers being temporarily held back even though they could safely downsize is the price that must be paid to reduce the increasing number of cc incidents, then it is a small price to pay. Allowing anyone to jump anything in the name of freedom and the desire to push one's limits means that more and more skydivers will be injured or killed under good canopies, then that freedom isn't worth the cost. The proposal: I propose USPA develop a series of canopy skills requirements for the “B”, “C”, and “D” licenses that build upon the initial "A" license canopy skills. These requirements would need to be flexible enough to allow for aggressive canopy pilots and conservative canopy pilots alike. They would include canopy control classroom training, practical exercises, a written and practical test. I also propose USPA implement (grand-fathering in current license holders), canopy type/wing load restrictions based on the “A” through “D” license. As each license is obtained, the skydiver may jump a canopy with a higher wing loading if they choose to. The WL restrictions could be waiver-able to a certain, defined degree to allow a skydiver that wishes to advance more quickly, puts in the effort, and demonstrates the ability. A Canopy Instructor, AFFI, AFFI/E, or S &TA would be able to waiver a skydiver to a higher wing loading. A skydiver could also earn a canopy restricted "B" through "D" license if they choose not to demonstrate the proficiency required for the next license, in the same manner and similar to those restricted 'D' licenses for those unwilling or unable to perform night jumps. If a skydiver completes the canopy control training requirements for the next license prior to having the jump numbers required and demonstrates the ability, they may be waivered to a higher WL by a Canopy Instructor, AFFI, AFFI/E, or S &TA. When the USPA implemented the “A” license canopy skills requirements, they correctly determined that Instructors were qualified to teach these basic canopy skills, without the need for further training or certification of the Instructor. As a skydiver progresses through their skydiving careers, their initial Instructor who taught them basic canopy control skills may not be qualified, or have the skills to teach more advance canopy control without further training for the original Instructor. Therefore, I further propose the creation of the Canopy Instructor (CI) rating. A coach rating would be required to become a CI. Whereas the AFFI/ SLI/Coach rating courses focus on free-fall skills and instruction, the CI rating would focus on canopy skills and instruction. A one or two-day course where a Canopy Instructor Candidate learns how to teach more advanced canopy control. Each candidate will be required to demonstrate the ability to perform and teach advanced canopy control skills. A thought would be to simply add canopy piloting skills and canopy instruction skills to the current I rating courses. This brings up the dilemma of a great free-fall Instructor and flyer that can’t fly a canopy or teach canopy piloting very well not being able to teach free-fall skills, what a waste. Also, a CI would not be working with pre “A” license students, but licensed skydivers, and don’t require the free-fall skills and teaching ability to teach advance canopy skills. So the CI rating would be similar to the Coach rating, except focusing on canopy skills, not free-fall skills. License # Jumps Maximum Wing loading A license 25 1 psf max B license 100 1.1 psf max C license 200 1.3 psf max D license 500 no limit Skills covered for each license: High performance malfunctions Flat/Flared turns Collision avoidance/flying in traffic Sliders (Kill line, stowage, etc) Accuracy skills Basic Principles of Flight Recovery Arc Effects of wing loading Canopy Maintenance Adjusting Steering Line Length Preventing and Curing Line Twists Canopy Piloting Skills Long Spot Techniques Flying in Turbulence Dealing with Traffic Approach and Landing Accuracy Off DZ landings Crosswind/downwind landings. For each license, each topic will be covered more in-depth, building upon prior teaching and experience. Thoughts? Derek

I have a 150-foot Blue Water Static rtope I'll bring for rappeling. I'll set it up and teach rappeling if anyone is interested. Derek

How serious are you about CReW? If you are very serious, a dedicated CReW canopy would be a better choice. For casual CReW and more of a fun jumping/CReW on the side canopy, the Triatholon is OK. Derek

Oops, thought you were replying to this post: I didn't go back enough pages to find the earlier post, sorry. Derek

Does your Odyessey have the small type IV loops on the legstraps for the bungee? Derek

The most common thing people say after their first Hop and Pop is, "I had more time than I thought I would.". Relax, arch and pull. You'll be fine and you really do have time. Derek

I dunno, never used it (or heard of it). Derek

I completely agree. Exactly. Wing loading limits don't take away freedom unnecessarily any more than minimum pull altitudes do. You can push the edge without being stupid about it. Unfortunately too many newer jumpers don't know what they don't know ("I am going to wait until I have 30 jumps before lurking a tandem". "I have 50 jumps and want a Stiletto 107 loaded at 1.5:1", etc.). Anyone that knows me knows I have pushed my share of limits. I also (for the most part) have done it very carefully and without injury. Derek

Believe it or not, lighter fluid. Try to use as little as possible and don't smoke while using it I hate it when people put tape on their rigs instead of a proper repair. It makes the eventual proper repair a bigger job and more work. Derek

The only one Bill V mentioned that is an FAR is aircraft maintenance. Derek

"Too much freedom is not worth having if you don't live long enough to enjoy it after making a mistake."- Derek

There are other DZ's that have wingloading restrictions, some are much more restrictive than this DZ. I think this will happen more and more. Ironic that these restrictions are much more severe than what was proposed here on DZ.com and was shot down as being too restrictive, not enough data to support, the process to becoming a BSR, etc. Looks like it could end up being much more restrictive and variable from DZ to DZ than the proposed BSR would have been. Derek

Yes, it will. Derek

Well at that point you would probably be flying a side-by-side, hopefully with the brakes set on both canopies, using the rear risers of the main to make small corrections, preferably towards the reserve. To prevent the downplane, fly the main towards the reserve, using rear riser input. Probably going to be a very hard landing, but survivable. I didn't mean to suggest you should ever give up, I have gotten out of some very tight situations, even after thinking "So this is how I am going to die". Just that at some point things are not salvagable to the point of being able to walk away. Derek

Sounds like the RSL lanyard is either too short or isn't installed correctly. It may be that the RSL is for a different sixe container or from a different container altogether. (I've seen a Talon RSL installed on a Javelin witht he same result, a damaged reserve riser) Measure it and call Sunrise Rigging. They will need the container size also. Velcro damage to the reserve risers is serious and dramatically weakens the webing over time. Get this fixed now. Derek

On the Odyessey, there should be some Type IV (pull-up cord material) sewn to the legstraps in small loops. This is for bungee. Simply pass the bungee through each loop and tie a knot at each end to keep it from coming back through the loops. This is common practice for free flyers. Derek

LOL! "It's over-moderated." "It has tons of noise." "They wouldn't let me say anything I wanted like here on wreckdot." Obviously thier system (anarchy) doesn't work as well. WHAAAAAAA! Don't like DZ.com? Fine, don't play. Can't play within the rules? Fine don't play. Derek

I don't think there is a 'right' answer. We can discuss prevention (don't get into that situation), but that wasn't the question. If you have a side by side that you have decided to land in that configuration, you are taking the chance of the canopies down planing at a low altitude. At some point, there is nothing you can do (Q: what do I do if I find myself in freefall at 100 feet? A: Enjoy the groundrush). You can either cutaway or attempt to bring the downplane back to a side by side (or better yet, attempt to stop the downplane as they seperate). Either way you are probably going to get seriously injured. The smaller the canopies, the more it's gonna hurt. I you hoping for an answer along the lines of "Do this and you will walk away", I don't think you'll get one. At some point you are out of ideas and altitude and you might as well enjoy the groundrush. Derek

Yes, any little bit down the lines I think can make for a hard opening. Since your canopy nomally opens softly, leads me to suspect the slider. It isn't difficult for it to slip down the lines while putting the canopy into the D-bag. Derek

It comes in a normal spray-paint can. Black label, white cap. It is $4.99/can and the Ace # is: 12293. I checked their web page and couldn't find so I called a local Ace Hardware store and they had 5 cans in stock. That will probably work fine. Check and see if it attracts dirt to your cables. Derek

A building, high profile, or secured site may not allow for that. Derek

But you would still need an accurate way to measure the distance to the base of the object. A rangefinder and a little math is also very accurate. Derek