Hooknswoop

Exactly. I have been an S & TA (what a thankless, screwed up job, with no pay) and I have been teaching students for 7 years. I have had to pay attention to pull altitudes, canopy control, wing loading, accidents, etc. Well if they are on a 120 way, they are experienced, experienced enough to be past the pulling low phase and understand that is isn't smart to pull low. The BSR isn't really necessary for them. It is necessary for the less experienced jumpers that don't have their experience. You are resorting to not answering questions and replying to only parts of people's posts. Have we convinced you? Oh ya, one of my questions you didn't answer; Hook

A canopy will turn to the side of the tighter leg strap and away from the looser leg strap. Your hips stay fairly even. Loosening the left leg strap allows the three-ring on the left to be higher than the 3-ring on the right, essentially a harness turn to the right. You can harness steer more to the side of the tighter leg strap. If your right steering line is longer than you left, you can put more input to the left side of the canopy. Hook

They are 2 sides to everything and a endorsement like that from you carries a lot of weight. Even if his actions have benefited skydiving and skydivers, it doesn't change the appearance and the result from the event. DZO's are reluctant to supply USPA with accident reports. Someday you'll have to give me the other side of the story. Hook

Didn't you say: "You assume so based on your "experience". Experienced folks once clained the Earth was flat, that heavier than air machines would never fly, and that no use would ever be found for the study of radioactivity (among other things)." So if experience works in your favor, you use it. If experience works against you, you discount and attack it. Anyway, since you brought up your experience, how many students have you taught canopy control to? Are you an Instructor? Coach? The idea of the proposed BSR is the same, downsizing a modest amount under the supervision of an Instructor., but it doesn't stop at the "A" license. The problem isn't students, it the jumper with 120 jumps under the Stiletto 135 at 1.4:1. Not one????? Not to harsh on Skydive Chicago, which I think is a great, safe DZ, but to counter your point; "7/9/2001 Skydive Chicago, IL # Jumps: 50 Description: Best guess is that this jumper deployed extremely low, and then had her CYPRES-fired reserve entangle with her snivelling/malfunctioned main. She managed a cutaway somewhere below 250', but it failed to improve the situation. The prior weekend, she had been chastised for pulling too low, and otherwise taking too many chances. She was jumping a Safire 130-ish, at a wing-loading of around 1.1 lb/ft^2." "10/14/2001 Skydive Chicago, IL # Jumps: 70 Description: Breakoff on this routine 6-way skydive came at 4500, with most participants fully deployed by 2000. This jumper was observed in a spinning configuration until a low cutaway at 150-250'. The reserve was deployed, but the slider was found right at the canopy. The main was found with one brake unstowed; this may have caused or exacerbated the malfunction. Ground witnesses report main deployment was at or above 2000. USPA Conclusions: As with most fatalities, this one resulted after a series of mis-steps and not just one isolated error or problem. First, the skydiver was jumping an elliptical canopy, many of which are often associated with more violent malfunctions than more rectangular planforms.If one brake releases prior to or during opening, the resulting spin sometimes causes a line twist, which may or may not be recoverable in the remaining altitude. Second, the jumper's wing loading was calculated at 1.26:1, which the manufacturer considers acceptable for an advanced to expert canopy pilot. Yet, this jumper had only 80 jumps.Third, he deployed the main parachute at least 1,000 feet lower than USPA requires for an A-license holder, who, according to the USPA Basic Safety Requirments, must initiate deployment by 3,000 feet" So now that lack of data means that there isn't a problem? If there is no data regarding incidents from pulling low, then there isn't a problem and the minimum pull altitude BSR's should be repealed? You say we have misdiagnosed the canopy problem, (at least you admit there is a problem, even without hard data to support that………) , so what do you feel is the diagnosis? Again, the idea of the proposed BSR is the same, downsizing a modest amount under the supervision of an Instructor, but it doesn't stop at the "A" license. It won't delay downsizing unless the jumper can't handle the smaller canopy, which is good. It will require additional canopy training for each license, from an Instructor, which is good. And if someone desires to downsize faster than recommended they will either have to prove they have the ability, or get additional canopy training from an Instructor. Your concern is that people will downsize while not under the supervision of an Instructor, they are doing that now, under the proposed BSR, they will downsize with more training or under supervision. The proposed BSR addresses your concerns. That is in the proposed BSR. Hook

USPA screwed that up in several ways. 1) A ND gave a lawyer un-sanitized incident reports that were then used against the DZ in a lawsuit. Now USPA is paying to defend the ND. 2) USPA opposed the NPRM that would have made incident reportring mandatory by the FAR's. 3) They are un-able to enforce their own rules at DZ's. If they punish a DZ that isn't following their rules by taking away their Group Membership, USPA loses the GM dues, and possibly more money in individual membership dues if the DZ decides to no longer require membership of it's jumpers. Hook

Since it doesn't appear that you are going to answer my questions, I'll go ahead and reply. Just don't expect me to answer your questions. Yes, I do. I went through the low pull phase. At that time that meant below 2,500 feet AGL. I went well below that. I knew that anything below 2,500 feet AGL, I was risking the wrath of the S & TA. I wasn't too concerned with a slow opening followed by a malfunction combined with a bad spot. I was more concerned about not getting caught. I did, of course, get caught and warned. It was enough, I didn't want to get grounded. So I made sure I pulled no lower than 2,500 feet AGL. The rule was well known to me and made an easy cut off point for the S & TA. Above that, OK, below that, you're grounded. No, "I can handle pulling at 2,400 feet arguments." The rule and the S &TA kept me from pulling low until I had enough experience to realize that I shouldn't pull low, not because of the rule, but because it wasn't safe. Some people don't bother with ever intentionally pulling low. They either simply have no desire to be in free fall at low altitude or realize the risk simply isn't worth it. For these people, the BSR isn't necessary. Do you think the minimum pull altitude BSR's should be rescinded because you believe they are not the reason people don't pull low? How can you call 2,000 feet AGL, for "C" and "D" license holders, 2,500 feet AGL for "B" license holders, and 3,000 feet AGL for "A" license holders safe? What supporting data do you have? What research has been done? Of course, these are rhetorical questions. These BSR's obviously are a good idea and work. They are not based on research, but on experience. Hook

Well for a really cool, radically spinning mal, Skyhook cutaway, I can make an exception. Hook

Sidewinder/PC-101/wide angle lens. Hook

Send me a Skyhook and an RSL and I'll guarantee a cutaway from a highly loaded, spinning elliptical. Hook

You first: Hook

Then only give 30 days notice. The only people that will be able to rush to downsize, will be people with cash on hand, wanting a canopy that is on the shelf. Also, if they want and are able to downsize before they are ready, then it only proves that the current system is broken. Hook

Becvause it isn't required and the people that really need don't believe they need it. Hook

The 'homework' i.e. gathering complete statistics and/or a research study and then a comprehensive analysis of this research, simply isn't necessary. Name one BSR that is based on 'homework'. Now name one BSR that should be repealed because of a lack of research (homework) prior to the BSR being implemented. This isn't NASA. We don't have to ground all skydivers when there is an incident, appoint a committee, conducts tests, and enact new procedures based upon the committee's recommendations, all at a huge investment of time and money. I have watched with others, the trend of people getting hurt or killed after downsizing too quickly. Canopy control training and education has not kept pace with canopy development and progression. An increase in education is absolutely necessary. The current system of S & TA's is not working. The limited availability of canopy control courses and the small attendance at these courses is not fixing the problem. Simply making canopy control education and training available will not fix the problem. Requiring the training is the only solution. People did not quit or not start skydiving because the "A" license minimum pull altitude was changed from 2,500 feet AGL to 3,000 feet AGL. People did not stop coming out to DZ"s to make a tandem jump because the minimum pull altitude was changed from 4,000 feet AGL to 4,500 Feet AGL. People didn't decide not to learn to skydive when the "A" license requirements were increased. People will not stop skydiving if they are either limited in their wing loading or must demonstrate they can handle a higher wing loading or must receive additional canopy training and education before exceeding the BSR maximum for their number of jumps. If you need a study before you will believe that there is an increasing trend of downsizing too quickly and the resulting injuries and fatalities, then you will never believe in and support the proposed BSR. You will continue to offer "prohibition' and 'flat earth' arguments. It doesn't even seem as if you are arguing against this specific BSP proposal. You are against the process and the lack of a stack of research paper filled with data and statistics. You could use most of your arguments against any proposed BSR. I have to ask, did you protest the minimum pull altitudes for "A" license and tandems? Did you demand to see the research and data? Are you going to write USPA and suggest that all BSR's be reviewed and studied? And any that aren't reviewed and studied be repealed? I am not a fan of "We have always done it this way". Reviewing the process is a good thing. In this case, the process isn't broken and basing a BSR on common sense and experience has worked and still works. If there was a better way of doing it, that wasn't time or financially cost prohibitive, I would be all for it. Unfortunately, there isn't. But that is OK, because, again, what we have works. Will people violate the BSR, if enacted? Yes, they will, the same way minimum pull altitudes BSR's are broken. Most people follow them simply because they realize they make sense. Some follow them for fear of getting caught. Some of the ones that do pull low will get caught and grounded. Hopefully they will either realize that the might as well pull by their minimum altitude so they can still jump and eventually 'grow out' of the desire to pull low. A few will habitually pull low, not get caught or grounded, and may or may not eventually bounce, have their AAD fire, etc. The minimum pull altitude BSR keeps most people pulling on time, it works. Hook Edit: I meant to say "from 2,500 feet AGL to 3,000 feet AGL" Oops

What 'homework' was done when the minimum "A" license pull altitude was changed from 3,000 feet AGL to 3,500 feet AGL? Was the change a bad idea? Hook

Well I wouldn't say no problem, it sucked wearing 22 pounds chasing you around Hook

My point, poorly made, was that skydivers that are not safety conscious do not react positively to peer pressure. A BSR would require attention to safety that is not being paid currently. I didn't really think you were, just trying to understand your reluctance to the BSR & Education proposal. That is the beauty of the proposal. It isn't limited to a specific target. It is initially, but eventually, as new jumpers come on board, it will affect jumpers at every level. Because it would be unfair not to grandfather in current jumpers it won't affect them. The argument (not your, I think) that this BSR will do nothing for jumpers that are currently in over their heads on their current canopy, is true and is part of the reason for implementing it. The current system has failed those jumpers. The current system has allowed those jumpers to be flying canopies they are not ready for. Skydivers have to have 100 jumps before they have 1000. Having been affected by the proposed BSR, newer jumpers will be safer and better educated at a time in their careers they don't know exactly what they don't know. Once they get to the 500+ jump range these newer jumpers should be less likely to be involved in a landing incident. So even though the proposed BSR only mentions up to 500 jumps, it will eventually affect 500+ jumpers, the bigger picture. I agree that simply passing and enforcing a rough draft BSR & Education program without some refinement is not a good idea, I think you responses would be better received if they were in a 'positive suggestion' format and not in a 'nickpicking' format. Even if your goal is to ensure the necessity and appropriateness of the proposed BSR, it appears as though you are trying to torpedo the idea at every step. Help us by refining it to a condition that you feel will be accepted and passed. Start with what we have so far or even start over and present a proposal that is better. No, I haven't requested USPA database. I will put in a request for it. I am still waiting for a response from the S & TA dept. about some tandem questions I have. Discounting the value of experience is a mistake. I don't think any BSR was based on a comprehensive analysis of a complete database and/or research project. What was the raising of the "A" license minimum pull altitude based on? Do you think that was a good idea? Hook

What data? There isn't any data for landing injuries and the data for landing fatalities is poor at best. Are you suggesting that we should conduct a thorough collection of landing incident data over a long time period, analyze it, then determine if there is a need for a BSR and more education and if so, exactly how to go about it? This isn't NASA. We will never be able to do that, but that doesn't mean that people are exceeding their abilities and getting hurt and killed. [Quote]Bill von's version is a distinct improvement IMO. I agree, Bill's proposal is excellent. [Quote]You assume so based on your "experience". Experienced folks once clained the Earth was flat, that heavier than air machines would never fly, and that no use would ever be found for the study of radioactivity (among other things). Sorry, but playing the "I am an expert" card is one of the items in Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit. As I already pointed out, when you look at actual fatality data, being a young male is a better indicator of risk of a good canopy fatality than is having a low number of jumps. I am not assuming. Experience (and not just mine) is all we have to base this on. Look through the incidents forum didn't say that I am an expert, only that I have been doing this for a while, been pushing the edge myself, and feel I am qualified to make a educated judgement on this topic. Comparing my opinion that too little experience combined with too high of a wing loading is on the rise, causing an increasing trend in landing incidents to someone claiming the Earth was flat isn't fair. Are you suggesting that my opinion is akin to claiming the Earth is flat? Do you feel I am not qualified to suggest that the wing loading + experience is an increasing problem? What data do you have to show that there isn't a problem with the experience + wing loading combination? It is so easy to sit back and poke holes in the proposal and our arguments, not so easy to try and propose and defend a change. Why are you so against the BSR? Let's assume that we are completely wrong and the BSR wouldn't make a difference. What will we have lost? Is directing people's attention on canopy control and educating them so bad? The only people that would actually not be allowed to downsize would be someone that wanted to downsize faster than the given chart and was unable to demonstrate the ability to handle the smaller canopy. Is that so bad? What if we do nothing? What would happen? Will the trend continue to increase? I think it will. There is no reason for it to not. At want point will you agree that a BSR is needed? That is in the proposal. I did, basically the FAA decided they had underestimated the number of injuries each year and they didn't have the infrastructure to handle all the paperwork from all the injuries. Too many injuries for them to handle. I overheard two interesting things at the DZ today. A jumper had to pull low on a jump because of another jumper above him. The higher jumper said he didn't see him and that he had done two barrel rolls and the sun was in his eyes. The second was after landing down wind, passing end cell to end cell with another jumper, he said he landed downwind because he didn't want to walk as far. I was on a tracking dive today. The plan was for the close in people to wait until the farther jumpers left, then track. Since I was close in, I stayed through the wave-off. I was brushed (almost hit) at high speed by another jumper (200+ lbs.) at break off. On the ground (this jumper had given another jumper a bloody nose on exit) I mentioned to him that he should be more careful with his approach. All I got was attitude, "Keep walking" he told me. Another of his friends tells me to STFU. They couldn't have cared less about safety and sure didn't want to hear it from someone else. Hook

No. If anything I needed better training than I recieved, i.e. flat turns. Hook

Just disconnect it under canopy.......... Hook

Ok, let us waste the effort. Skydivers get more training and no harm done. We can't prove the BSR will fix the problem, nor can you prove it won't. So where does that leave us? I know there is a problem and I believe the proposed BSR will largely fix it, as do others with tons of experience. That is the best we are going to get. The raising of the "A" license minimum pull altitude from 3,000 feet AGL to 3,500 feet AGL wasn't based upon an exhaustive study of "A" license skydivers. Some experienced skydivers recognized that, given the advancing canopy technology and changing characteristics, raising "A" licensed jumpers minimum pull altitude is a good idea. Do you feel that change was in error because there isn't a report concluding, with data to back it up, that there was a problem and the fix was to raise the pull altitude 500 feet? You said that 50% (according to USPA) of jumpers have less than 300 jumps. You checked because you wanted to show that having the largest number of fatalities under open canopies with skydivers that have under 500 jumps is to be expected because most skydivers have less than 300 jumps. Therefore there isn't a problem. This was your point, correct? Now you say young males is the problem. How many skydivers are young males, by percentage? Most, yes? So by regulating wing loadings for jumpers under 500 jumps we would be hitting mostly young males, "the real cause of the problem". Hook

You asked for an analysis. Michele took the time and effort to do the best she could with the information available. No amount of statistics will prove that this BSR is necessary or unnecessary. If someone hooks in an elliptical canopy loaded at 2.0:1 at 75 jumps, you can argue that they could have hooked in a square loaded at 1.0:1 at 75 jumps and the proposed BSR would have done nothing. We do know that a loading of 2.0:1 at 75 jumps is extreme and dangerous, with a high likelihood of injury or death. We also know limiting the wing loading of lower experienced jumpers and giving them more canopy training will reduce injuries and fatalities. Your main objection seems to be that those that are proposing this BSR cannot offer proof that it will reduce injuries and fatalities under functional canopies and you are worried about an unnecessary BSR. That is true, we cannot. Here is what we can offer; I have 3304 skydives over 8 years (in 3 days). I have flown 68 different canopies, almost half of my jumps have been on canopies under 100 square feet. I have 14 cutaways and another 44 intentional cutaways. I have 898 tandem jumps, have JM'd 333 static line students and 521 AFF students. I have 627 jumps on a VX-60 at 3.1:1. I hold S/L I/E, AFFI I/E, TDM I/E, PRO, Senior Rigger (Back and Chest), and PPSEL ratings. I was an S & TA. I have written and taught a Canopy Control Course (a tremendous amount of work by the way). I have been a first responder (I took the Combat Life Saver course in the U.S. Army after witnessing a downwind landing with no flare resulting in a broken neck) at numerous landing incidents, including 2 broken necks, numerous femurs, lots of crying and screaming and blood. I have never been injured skydiving. Based upon my experience, I believe the proposed BSR will reduce the number of injuries and fatalities under fully functional canopies. It is flexible, allowing a skydiver to progress as quickly as they want, as long as they are either signed off or receive additional canopy training over what would be required for the next license. The proposal mandates more canopy training (this is itself will reduce injuries and fatalities) and limits the wing loadings of inexperienced jumpers. Someone said that the no one in favor of the BSR will be affected by it. First, no on currently opposed to the BSR would be affected by it either, as they wold be grand fathered. Second, without the time in sport and my experience, I wouldn't have the basis to see that this BSR is a good thing. If this BSR had been proposed when I had 200 jumps, I would have been opposed to it, I am sure of that. Looking back, I didn't know what I didn't know until I had much more experience and time in the sport. On jump number 163 I jumped a Stiletto 120 loaded at 1.6:1. I was thoroughly briefed on the canopy, given the restriction of no 360 degree turns below 1,000 feet and a straight in approach to a huge landing area from 200 feet. The owner and another Instructor would both be watching from the ground. I had to prove myself under the canopy if I was going to be allowed to jump it again. They continued to 'mentor' me and watch me under canopy and my landings for many jumps after that. I was only allowed to jump the canopy under controlled conditions. I wasn't allowed to jump it in high winds or on larger skydives, or if there was a chance for a bad spot, etc. I jumped a Stiletto 107 loaded at 1.8:1 on jump number 376, again under direct supervision and with restrictions of what I could do under it. This worked, but there is more information out there now that could have reduced my risk level under that canopy that wasn't available to me then. I had over 500 jumps before I ever heard the term 'flat turn'. Arming S & TA's, I/E's and DZO's with a BSR and guidelines for 'testing out' of a wing loading restriction would take some effort to produce, but would not be difficult to put into use. Training Canopy Instructors wold also be difficult at first (same as the BIC was), but CI's would be an invaluable resource. Is there a problem (with landing injuries and fatalities)? Yes. Is too high of a wing loading without enough experience the primary cause for landing injuries and fatalities? Yes. Is the BSR perfect? No. Will the proposed BSR stop all landing injuries and fatalities? No. Will it take work and effort to implement? Yes. Will it be worth it? Yes. Is wing loading a good point of measure? Yes. Is jump numbers a good point of measure? Yes. The BSR is a trade-off between restriction and freedom. I am against restriction unless absolutely necessary. It wold be possible to make the BSR more restrictive and further reduce the number of injuries and fatalities, but past the current proposal we would see diminishing returns. It would require a very restrictive BSR to almost completely stop the landing injuries and fatalities. I think the current proposal is a good 'happy medium', not too restrictive, but will make a significant impact on the problem. If you are opposed to this BSR, then I ask you, "What is an alternative solution to the problem of the trend in landing inures and fatalities?" At some point an imperfect solution is better than no solution at all. I believe we have reached that point. Will the proposed BSR affect me? No. Nor will it affect the 4 or 5 people designing and pitching it, by virtue that the experience required to recognize the need for the BSR and design one puts us outside of the 500 jump window that is affected by the proposed BSR. It will affect those that don't have the experience to recognize the need for it. No one freaked out when the "A" license minimum pull altitude was increased to 3,500 feet AGL or the minimum tandem pull altitude was increased to 4,500 feet. Things are getting worse, not better. To sit back and do nothing on the podium of freedom of choice is easy. To take the stance of letting Darwinism rule the landing area is simple and suggests the owner of the attitude resides in the deep end of the gene pool. "I don't need this regulation", fine, test out and/or get the training, along with the license canopy training and you'll be better off for it and no harm done. When you say the "skydiving community" was opposed the incident reporting, who, exactly, do you mean by "skydiving community"? I don't believe the average jumper was opposed to the proposed FAR. Ask yourself who would be negatively affected by such a FAR and therefore opposed to it? Hook

I agree. I think the injury rate is where the larger problem lies, and also where the proposed BSR will have the greatest impact. Hook

Working from Michele's research: (If anyone can replace any of the 'Unknowns' with numbers, it would definitely help.) # Jumps Wing loading Would have been affected by proposed BSR* 2003- 1700 Unknown No 40 Unknown ? 200+ Unknown ? 2002- 135 .09/1:1 No 270 1.5:1(+) Yes 521 2.13:1 No 275 1.63:1 Yes 201 Unknown ? 1500 Unknown No 170 1.4:1 Yes 160 1.3:1 Yes 2001- 4700 2.0:1 No 920 1.5:1 No 4000 Unknown No 40 1.1:1 Yes 600 Unknown No 70 Unknown ? 1000 Unknown No 4000 Unknown No 201 1.4:1 Yes 2000- 178 1.1:1 No 100 1.3:1 Yes 400 1.2:1 No 39 Unknown ? 1200 1.3:1(+/-) No 100 Unknown ? 42 Unknown ? 98 Unknown ? 1000 Unknown No 1999- 110 1.35:1 Yes 43 Unknown ? 190 Unknown ? 500 2.0:1 No (Assuming the jumper had 500 and not 499) 200 Unknown ? 700 1.6:1 No 2500 Unknown No 1998- 1400 Unknown No 3300 1.85:1 No Unknown Unknown ? Unknown Unknown ? 55 1.25:1 Yes 400 Unknown ? 350 Unknown ? 186 .085:1 No No = the jumper had more than 500 jumps. Yes = the jumper exceeded the wing loading than the above chart above. ? = wing loading was not disclosed Totals: (for a 4 1/2 year time period) Yes: 9 (The jumper would not have been allowed to jump at their wing loading without canopy training or 'testing out') No: 20 (The training and requirements may have prevented these "D" license holder fatalities.) ?: 15 (Possibly affected) So 9 of the fatalities would have been affected by the proposed BSR. The 15 "?'s" could have been affected or could have not been affected at all. At least some of the 20 "No's" might have been prevented had the proposed BSR been in place when they learned to skydive because of the further canopy training they would have received. But the BSR would not have prevented the "No's" from jumping at their wing loading. * Proposed BSR in a nutshell; A license - 1 psf max B license - 1.1 psf max C license - 1.3 psf max D license - no limit With the option to 'test out' or use canopy training to exceed the table. Mandatory canopy training and demonstration of canopy control skills for each license. Hook

So do you think the current system is working? Dual message? I don't understand. Do mean that because I fly a small canopy that i am being hypocritical by being for some sort of canopy regulations/education? The numbers seem to indicate that the it is the under 500 jumps, too aggressively downsizing is the greatest catagory of injuries/fatalities. Canopy regulation, increased training and optional canopy coaching to exceed the wingloading limits will not prevent all landing incidents. It will take a chunk out of them though. No solution will stop all landing incidents. Minimum pull altitudes that are enforced can only stop people from bouncing that intentionally pull low. If they lose altitude awareness and go low, it won't stop them from bouncing. The trend is not that newer jumpers are getting smarter about their canopy choices, the opposite is true. Sitting back and waiting for the trend to reverse doesn't seem like a good plan. I am for a 6 month re-pack cycle until any component of the gear is 2 years old, then a 4 month re-pack cycle. We both agree that gear needs to be inspected periodically. This regulation is similar to what is being proposed. 500 jumps before flying a wingsuit, waiverable to 200 with instruction, that is very similar to what is being proposed. I haven't seen the free-flying restrictions before. I am confused how this fits in, but I have have been snowboarding lately. It was a great time. No solution is perfect or will stop all alnding incidents and fatalities. But what we have now is falling short. I have yet to hear a good argument against my wingloading regulation, waiverable if additional instruction is recieved (to a point), and more canopy skills requirements for each license proposal. Hook

What costs? The system is not working fine, in my opinion, and others. How can you violate canopy regulation, when there is no formal system in place? The number of injuries is too high. I never qusetioned your training, nor your ability. I question the number of people being injured under fully functional canopies. The problem is getting worse not better. I dislike the idea of regulation keeping people safe. I prefer the idea of education keeping people safe. Unfortunately that isn't working. I didn't realize you were in the demographics being targeted. My proposal offers an 'out' for people that desire to downsize faster than normal, with more training/education. Why is this so bad? Do you not agree that the current system of peer pressure, DZO's and S & TA's is not working? Do you feel that the current, rising, level of injuries/fatalities is acceptable? Why, exactly, are you against the idea more canopy training at each license level and wingloading maximums, based on jump numbers, with the option to exceed these maximums on a case-by-case basis? Are you against minumum pull altitudes based on jump numbers/license held? Are you against reserve re-pack cycles? Hook