Hooknswoop

I agree that zero isn't realistic. That is the goal, unachievable as it may be. I would be happy with a reversal of the trend, which is what spurred these proposals in the first place. A declining fequency of landing incidents for all experience levels is a realistic goal. Hook

Part of my suggestion/proposal is to increase the amount of canopy education and training required for the "B", "C", and "D" licenses beyond the accuracy requirements that are currently the only requirements for the "B" through "D" licenses. So even if a jump stays within the proposed wing loading maximum for their jump numbers, they will still receive more canopy training and education and have to demonstrate canopy control skills as a requirement for the next license. If they cannot demonstrate the skills, they either can get a restricted license, limiting them to their current wing loading or not get the next license. True, saying that is this BSR had been in place this incident wouldn't have happened isn't a fair statement (and I didn't say that). I did say that with less than 500 jumps (the poster I was responding to misunderstood the proposed BSR as applying to the current licensing structure) he would have been affected. It is possible that with more training and education or maybe not being allowed at that high of a wing loading, the incident would not have happened or been less severe. It is also possible that it wouldn't have made a difference at all. I do know that it wouldn't have made it worse and it is probably that it would have helped. I would have never guessed that I would have been in favor of a new BSR, but without it, people will not get the training and education they need. As you well know, canopy training is available, but so many people that can really use it don't get it. How can we get these people into the classroom and working with an Instructor on their canopy skills without a BSR requiring it? Peer pressure isn't working. The current system of S & TA's isn't working. Hook

So are you saying that more education and training could not have made a difference in this incident? That is what the BSR would have done for this jumper. That is the whole point of the BSR, make canopy training and education mandatory. It would only limit jumpers that wanted to exceed the maximum for their license and could not demonstrate the ability to jump a smaller canopy and chose not to get additional canopy training. These are the people that should be limited. Hook

I don't tack them. I do set them though. I don't see any problem with tacking them, probably a good idea, even if it is never needed. If tacking was necessary, we would have seen main Slinks come undone. But it can't hurt. Hook

I prefer PD's Slinks and I won't pack a reserve without slider bumpers if it has rapide links. I am tired of fixing dents in slider gromets after a deployment. Those dents and/or burrs would then damage the lines on the next deployment. Hook

quote]All things being equal, you could reduce the severity of injuries to high time jumpers by restricting their wing loadings too. Plenty of high time (>500 jumps for the purpose of this proposal) jumpers are featured in the fatality reports. And with the new BSR, jumpers with less than 500 and more than 500 jumps will hammer in less. Initially because they are either limited to lower wing loadings, or must demonstrate the ability to handle higher loadings, and later because they have taken the time and put in the effort and received the training so that they don't hammer in later on. Just like good initial training helps later on, good canopy training through the new "D" license will help when they have 2,000 jumps. Again, the BSR will eventually affect all jumpers, the same way increased canopy control training for the "A" license is affecting up and coming jumpers. The BSR targets all jumpers, eventually. It can't miss. You say we have misdiagnosed the problem because the BSR only mentions up to 500 jumps, the new "D" license. But the training they receive up to that point applies and will lessen incidents for higher experienced jumpers. Hook

The proposed BSR is based on the new license requirements, ie.e 500 jumps for a "D" license. Hook

You say it is a bad process, yet admit it works. The data you wish to appoint a group to study doesn't and won't exist, because incident reporting isn't mandatory and DZ's have no reason to report incidents. The only motivation for a DZ to report an incident is if they are making a claim on the USPA member insurance. If you don't like how BSR's are created, fine, write a letter to the USPA and try to get the process changed, but don't attempt to torpedo this proposed BSR because you don't like the process. Debating the nature of the problem is pointless. I see it, you don't. I will never be able to convince you otherwise. The data to prove it isn't and won't be gathered. That doesn't mean there isn't a problem. Then there will never be a canopy control training and education deficit resulting in excessive injuries and fatalities, because the data will probably never be collected, unless the FAA changes it's mind and mandates it. Of course they worked on re-writing Part 105 for 10 years. So maybe in 2040 or so, when the next re-write of Part 105 happens, the FAA will mandate incident reporting. Of course, then it would be possible to argue that the wing loading, number of jumps, currency, density altitude, type and quality of training received, etc hasn't been recorded and therefore, without the proper data, there is no problem, regardless of how many people are injured and killed each year. Edit:Again, no one will answer my question about the "A" license pull altitude being changed from 2,500 feet to 3,000 feet. Where was the outcry of 'we need to start by "commissioning a group to study the issue, to collect the data necessary to make an informed decision, and come up with a complete plan" before changing the BSR? Hook

You want to change how BSR's are created without first "commissioning a group to study the issue, to collect the data necessary to make an informed decision, and come up with a complete plan"? What if your proposed new system you wish to impose upon others (sorry, had to use that somewhere) is flawed and results in needed BSR's unable to be passed? Or unnecessary BSR's being passed? The problem is real. A stack of papers filled with data wouldn't change that. The current system has given us our current BSR's. If you feel the current BSR's are acceptable, isn't it safe to concluded that the system that gave us these acceptable BSR's is working? No one will answer my question about the "A" license pull altitude being changed from 2,500 feet to 3,000 feet. Where was the outcry of 'we need to start by "commissioning a group to study the issue, to collect the data necessary to make an informed decision, and come up with a complete plan" before changing the BSR? We have better data than a "SINGLE POINT OBSERVATION!". There are many people that have been in the sport a long time, Instructors, S & TA's, etc that know the problem is real. The proposed BSR would not create an "unnecessary burden on those who are not “at risk”.". It doesn't take all that much to get the education. It isn't an unnecessary burden to either downsize conservatively or get training, and add more education to the license requirements. Hook

I think it comes down to simple economics. How many are in local use? How many would be brought into the loft? How much can be charged for each service? And calculate the amount of time required to re-coup the investment to determine if it is worth it or not. Have 3 people call me wanting the service at $200.00 each, and I'd be on the phone ordering a test kit very quickly. If the annual test is going to be required, I think it will hurt their U.S. sales. No one will want to buy one and have to send it to Belgium to get it serviced every year, and a local rigger won't buy a test kit until enough of them are in local use. The chicken and the egg question. Hook

The Final Ruling was released on May 9, 2001 to part 105 and included in the changes was the addition of: (Under) "§105.43 Use of single-harness, dual-parachute systems. (c) If installed, the automatic activation device must be maintained in accordance with manufacturer instructions for that automatic activation device." From Advanced Aerospace Design's web page: "Is annual rigger check necessary? I thought the functionality do not have to be checked by riggers? So why should the riggers buy this module and software? The rigger can buy an IR bi-directional communications module and associated software. This costs 521 EUR. It is made for riggers to check the functionalities. This depends local legislation if it is necessary. We advise to do an annual check I read that a rigger should check the Vigil yearly. Is this mandatory or is it OK to continue to jump when the unit shows no signs of problems? Riggers can do an annual check in a pressure chamber and results can be downloaded through the IR port and a report can be printed. No need to return the unit to a factory. Most countries have an annual inspection program for parachutes. It can be done together with these tests." So the question is: "Does ' We advise to do an annual check' equate to 'manufacturer instructions'?" If Advanced Aerospace Design wants to sell the vigil in the U.S., they should make it absolutely clear if the annual check is 'manufacturer instructions' or not. As a rigger, I would have to assume that the annual check is required. I also have no intentions of buying a 521 Euro test kit. Hook

I agree that using huge F-111 canopies and not using 'working tandems' and stressing canopy control as at least one half of a students training is part of the problem. I have seen DZ's understand the benifits of the ISP/AFP programs, but be unwillinh to implement them because their competetors still offer '7-jump AFF'. Students are un-educated and will believe that the 7-jump program is better. I don't know a fix for this problem. Hook

Why? If you weren't grandfathered in and had to demonstrate that you are capable of flying your current canopy, could you? Hook

http://www.skydivekansas.com/policy_lic.htm I don't think they will sell less canopies. I think they will sell more. If someone downsizes slower, then they buy more canopies. If someone doesn't get hurt, they continue to buy canopies that they wouldn't buy if they were unable to continue jumping as the result of an injury. I have neither the resources, nor the time, but USPA does. They would also likely have a better response rate coming form USPA. Or do you mean a poll, here on DZ.com? Hook

Dremel makes a nice one for about $30.00 at Home Depot. Hook

Positive feedback! Woohoo! There is one DZ that doesn't allow anyone over 1.5:1, and only that high after you have 500 jumps........Instead of using a system of progressive downsizing and education, they simply capped the wing loading. I don't want to see that happen across the country. They saw an obvious problem and applied a simple solution. I can't argue that it won't work, but it definitely takes away from the sport for some and is very unfair. I don't have any major objections to increasing the wing loading limitations slightly, but increasing the limitations will result in less 'additional' canopy education/training. By keeping the limitations where they are, more people will want to exceed them and either demonstrate the ability or receive additional training/education that they would receive if the limitations were raised. I don't believe the goal of the BSR is to limit wing loading, unless the person cannot handle the higher wing loading and should be limited. I believe the purpose of the BSR is to make additional canopy education/training mandatory to all except those that downsize conservatively, and even they will receive more training as they earn each successive license. I agree completely. I believe putting a 110 pound female student under a 288 Manta in a J7 is a bad idea. A slightly lower wing loading than a 170 pound jumper is a good idea though, would want to put her under a 135. I can't even get tandem manufactures and the USPA to respond to a questionnaire about tandem certifications and legalities. Most DZO's wouldn't take the time to answer such a questionnaire. If there isn't any "$$$", in it for them, they won't bother. Hook

Sorry, I got lazy and replied to two different posts in one post. The second part of my post was in reply to another poster, sorry for the confusion. You make it sound so sinister. "Impose a new rule". How about "establish a BSR that addresses canopy control incidents". You make it sound like I am a wanna-be dictator, "imposing my will upon the masses". Experience is all we have, and it has worked in the past. In the absence of another system, should we not address any problems with a new BSR until such a system could be established? Lets' assume for a second, that we agree that the problem is real. Let's go so far as to assume that everyone agrees that there is a problem. Why handicap ourselves by saying that we must first gather hard evidence of the problem? If this was NASA, the I would agree with you. Stop everything, investigate the problem, sparing no expense, then develop a fix to the problem and implement the fix after making sure the fix really works and is safe. I have seen this happen at NASA. It is cumbersome, expensive and slow. It even fails to sometimes fix the problem. You have obviously put a lot of thought into this proposed BSR, do you have any thoughts on an alternative solution? Hook

The writer wasn't suggesting a BSR, only " I also feel that the time has arrived for USPA and the sport parachuting community as a whole to consider the relative advantages and disadvantages of such a deployment system." We have done exactly that here on DZ.com in several threads. Understanding the differences and advantages/disadvantages of the pull-out vs. throw-out is important and needed addressing. Most jumpers prefer the throw-out over the pull-out. As for the writer's concern over "can't find my pilot chute behind my back", that is still the cause of total malfunctions today, although not "occurring on a daily basis throughout the country" as the writer believed. Of course we don't have any hard numbers regarding the number of jumps made with a BOC or pull-out and the number of reserve rides caused by a floating pud or because the jumper was unable to visually locate their handle. I have seen several reserve rides because of hard pulls and at least one that I can think of from a floating pud. None of these resulted in injuries or fatalities, nor do I believe it to be a problem worthy of a BSR. Based on that same experience, from either witnessing or reading about inexperienced jumpers flying highly loaded canopies resulting in injuries and fatalities, I believe the proposed wing loading BSR is a good idea. Based on your experience, would you agree that a BSR mandating main handles be able to be located visually isn't a good idea? That is what we have, our experiences, collectively as a group, that we can use to decide if such a BSR is necessary or not. I wonder what the writer's opinion would have been had they had access to a web site such as DZ.com or was able to travel to many DZ's on weekends instead of running their DZ? The writer identified a problem that they felt should be looked at more closely and a solution found. How many injuries and fatalities were caused in the years preceding their letter by BOC's and/or pull-out systems? I think being isolated at one DZ can skew a person's perception of the magnitude of a safety issue. The people proposing and supporting a wing load/education/training BSR aren't handicapped by only experiencing one DZ. We have been to numerous DZ's, plus we have the advantage of web sites, such as this one to draw our experience from. I don't think I can ever convince someone that a wing loading/education/training BSR is necessary simply by saying, "in my experience….." The only way for someone to be convinced is to witness the number of incidents I have, share in my experiences, look into the eyes of an injured jumper that obviously has two broken femurs say, "I can't feel my legs", and know that the reason they aren't screaming in agony is because their neck is broken. To listen as jumpers blame their poor landing on others, on the wind, on anything besides their inability to safely control and land their canopy. To say out loud to a jumper flying downwind at low altitude, "don't turn, don't turn!", knowing they can't hear you, then feel your stomach drop as you see them pull a toggle all the way down. We tell people all the time, "slow down, take the time to learn you current canopy". And they don't listen. They don't have to listen. They don't know what they don't know, yet. Lets' skip them having a 'wake-up' call before they realize they don't know it all yet, and never will. Let's give them a chance to learn what they need to know before they hammer in and never get the chance to learn. Let's give them the guidance and training they need to survive. Let's let them make the mistakes that would injure or kill them on a small canopy on a larger canopy first. The "A" license training that is available at some DZ's is tremendously better than when I learned on ripcords and round reserves. I wouldn't even pack the reserve of the container I learned to skydive on today. The canopy training information is available, let's give new skydivers the advantage of this improved information, all the way through their "D" license so they don't make the same mistakes we did. We can do a better job than we are, don't we owe it to future skydivers to give them the best opportunity we can? People are flying perfectly functional canopies into the ground. It isn't the gear's fault. We need to fix it. If the proposed VSR isn't the solution, I don't have an alternative. I do believe it would work, but I am open to suggestions. Hook

Bill Von's proposal: I think Bill has a great proposal. The only thing I would change is decrease the 'gestation' period from 1 year to 30 days to prevent a possible rush to buy a new canopy before the BSR goes into effect. The main objection to the proposed BSR seems to be "Not enough supporting data to base the BSR on." We will probably never have the data, nor the funding to study the problem. Let's assume that those of us with the opinion that lower experienced jumpers are jumping to high of wing loadings are wrong. The BSR, as proposed, will, eventually, affect all skydivers. The target of the BSR is all skydivers. We simply can't miss. It will not limit skydivers that are not in over their heads with their canopy. It will increase canopy control training and education. It will bring attention to the problem. There is no perfect solution. Allowing Darwinism to weed out those that fly too high of performance canopies is simply a stupid idea, as much as I would like to agree. Gear dealers and manufacturer's can try to prevent someone room buying a canopy they shouldn't but if the buyer can "talk the talk" they will get the canopy. Making canopy control training and education available is only half the battle. If it isn't required, some of the skydivers that really need it, won't get it. Is there really a downside to the proposed BSR? Bill Booth said: WE can either do nothing and sit back and watch as more and more skydivers needlessly hammer in, or we can do something about it. Given our available resources, our collective experience, and lack of alternatives, I believe the proposed BSR is the best route. It WILL make a positive difference. Hook

I think this bares repeating. Is this Booth's law #4? Hook

In my experience, skydivers are jumping canopies at too high of a wing loading before they are ready, resulting in injuries and fatalities. If I can't use 'experience', either can you. What do you base that statement on? I have JM'd 1753 students ("In my experience"), including Tandems, Static Line, and AFF/AFP, using everything from 292 Skymasters to a Sabre 170 (after first doing 3 working tandems and progressing down from larger Sabres and the 170's where only used for the smaller students that demonstrated the ability to handle it), as student canopies. I would never use a "high performance", " elliptical", Cobalt 170 (The Cobalt canopy is available in the following sizes: 65,75, 85, 95, 105, 120, 135, 150, & 170), as a canopy for a student. I have asked if any DZ has used Cobalts for student canopies and I believe the answer was "yes", but didn't answer the 'where' part of the question. Turned out that the real answer was "no", because DP still considered someone with a license a student. So Cobalts have not been used as student canopies. Hook

From RWS's web page: "Skyhook RSL A normal RSL does one thing. It automatically pulls the reserve ripcord pin following a breakaway. The new Relative Workshop Skyhook RSL goes two steps further. 1. It automatically releases the non-RSL riser in case the RSL riser was released prematurely by itself. (You wouldn’t want your reserve deploying with half your main still attached, would you?) 2. It then uses your departing malfunctioned main canopy as a super pilot chute to deploy your reserve canopy faster than was ever before possible." Hook

right, and the pull altitude BSR's were not the result of detailed analysis of the problem. That doesn't mean they aren't valid. They were based on experience, not gut feeling, and they are a good thing. They pull altitude BSR's have been around a long time, and I have never seen or heard about USPA doping a detailed analysis of them before they passed them. This doesn't invalidate them. How much of that was done before they BSR's were enacted? This isn't NASA. Where is the detailed analysis of "A" license holders going in because they were pulling at 2,500 feet and showing that by changing it to 3,000 feet they will stop bouncing? Basing a BSR on experience works. Show me that it doesn't and I will stop supporting the proposed BSR. You have recognized there is a problem, do you have an alternative solution? Hook

Because it isn't mandatory and they don't think they need it, or it isn't available. Hook

No, not a smoke screen. It is a parallel to the debate. The SSK site lists Cypres fires. How many of those fires would the jumper have walked away if the Cypres hadn't been in their reserve container? They would hve only opened low? This is the same argument you used about how many of the incidents would have happened anyway if the jumper had been at a lower wing loading. We can debate this all day long, but all we have is the experience of jumpers that have been around to different DZ's and have been dealing with the problem for quite a while. If you don't believe that I am correct in my diagnosis of the problem, then I don't think there is anything I can say that would convince you. You sure can't convince me that I am wrong about the diagnosis. I have seen it. You say there isn't enough data to support my (our) claim that the problem is not enough experience and education and too high of a wing loading. The same argument can be used against the minimum pull altitude BSR's. We have observed different things then. I have taught AFP. I have seen the difference it makes. I wholeheartedly endorse the program. Very few DZ's use it and few DZ's use the ISP. Because it isn't mandatory, not because it isn't better. Again, it would only have to be enforced for the small percentage of jumpers that choose to break it. It can be enforced the same way pull altitude BSR's are enforced. It isn't a perfect solution, but I believe it is the best solution we have. Justification: Others and my experience, S & TA's, Instructors, etc. We have a different perspective on the problem. I am not against high wing loading, obviously. But people need the education and training. It is available, but people are not going and getting it and they are getting injured because they are not armed with it. As mentioned in another thread, mandatory incident reporting was torpedoed in the last NPRM for part 105. It is undeniable that people are hammering in because they are in over their heads with their canopy. They will not seek out further training and education unless it is mandatory. The BSR will eventually affect every jumper in the U.S., making him or her safer. I think we are making progress. I think you are in agreement with the adding more canopy control education and training requirements to the "B", "C", and "D" licenses part of the proposed BSR. And you only oppose a wing loading restriction based on licenses with the option to test out, be waived, or receive additional education and training to exceed the wing loading limitations. Is this correct? Hook