davelepka

Sure, that's why you set the standard for jumper B, and jumper A has to 'suffer' by jumping out an airplane with a bigger canopy then they think is cool. What a shame. I'm not suggesting any numbers. I only have 5000 jumps, 15 years in the sport, and have never designed a canopy. I defer to Brian Germains WL chart because he has 10,000+ jumps, 20 years in the sport, a degree in aeronautical engineering, and has designed several very successful canopies. He created the chart several years ago with the intention of it becoming the standard to follow. Let's face it, someone somewhere has to come up with the numbers. There will be no sign from above, or act of congress, at some level a person, or persons, will have to sit down and say, 'This is the deal'. It's interesting how I, with my experience and qualifications giving me every right to be head-strong, realize the benefit of defering to a person, Brian Germain, who is clearly my superior in these matters, yet you, with little to fall back on would suggest it outrageous that I would be the one to generate the numbers to follow, despite the superiority of my qualifications to yours.

Who then, would you suggest is more qualified to make judgments about canopies and canopy performance than high-time high-performance canopy pilots. What would the motivation be for me to push this aggenda other than my belief that this is the best course of action we have? Let me guess, just like the low timers who protest when I suggest that 200 jumps is a good minimum for someone jumping a camera, I'm just trying to portect my position at the DZ, right? I don't want anyone trying to take my video slot, and I don't want anyone else swooping at my DZ. Makes perfect sense.

Of course it would have, but as mentioned many times in this thread, the educational appraoch has been 'on the table' far longer than the idea of a Wl BSR, and it has gained no ground. In terms of jumpers not learning anything for 1000s of jumps, they would be the exception, not the rule. Any attempt to solve every problem of every jumper would never get off the ground (no pun intended). Idiots will always be idiots.

Grounding them for what? What is unsafe and what is not? Without a clear definition, how do you justify grounding a jumper for unsafe downsizing? Where is the line as to what is, or is not safe, and what would justify you grounding a jumper (a paying customer) and telling them that the canopy they paid good money for cannot be jumped at your DZ? What then stops them from going down the street to a more 'liberal' DZO or S&TA, who sees their choice as more reasonable? How do you account for the DZO who has never jumped anyting smaller than a 190? How do they have the perspective to a make a judgement as to what is, or is not safe? Many of these same problems exist with the 'test out' option. What level of performance is 'good enough' to pass a student to a certain canopy? Would you expect every student to perform with robotic accuracy, or is there a 'range' of performance that would result in a passing score? What about the difference in opninion between test administrators, how do you account for that? If one passes a jumper to a certain canopy, and they are more liberal in their testing, and that jumper goes across town or on vacation and they come face to face with a more conseravtive test administrator or DZO, what happens then? Is the jumper denied permission to jump their gear that DZ? It's a logistical can of worms that is way too subjective to ever have a chance of working. A BSR is a simple affair. These are your jump numbers, and these are your canopy choices. If you fall outside of the chart, you cannot jump at this DZ, those are the rules. It's not open to opinion or interrpertation. Is it perfect? No. Will it guarantee an end to open-canopy incidents, both fatal or non-fatal? No. Does it guarantee that every jumper will spend some time on a conservative wing at a reasonable loading? Yes. Does that generally equal a better canopy pilot in the end? Yes. Isn't that what we're really after here, better canopy pilots? Yes. The downside, the uber-skilled jumper who is actually further ahead of the canopy the BSR allows him. Does he lose the uber-skills by jumping a canopy 'below him' for awhile? No. Does he quit jumping because his allowable canopies are too slow? -If no, then the BSR has done no harm -If yes, the BSR has lost us a jumper, but it's a jumper who lacks the patience and long-term vision to put in the time of making 400 jumps, at which point you're allowed 1.4, a WL resulting a quick and swoopable canopy. Is that really a loss? Is that the type of jumper you want to share the sky with? What other corners is that jumper looking to cut, and at what expense?

No, that's the problem in fatal open canopy incidents, not neccesarily in non-fatal open canopy incidents. I addressed that issue with this - It may take 5 years, or it may take 10, but even if you want to ignore the non-fatal incidents, eventaully the experienced jumpers killing themselves will have begun skydiving under the rule of a WL BSR. They will have the benefit of the solid base of skills you agreed would stem from a controlled downsizing progression, not to mention the influence of a community who accepts and endorses the BSR (just like the community today accepts and endroses the BSRs). You said it yourself, the call went out 16 years ago for a new approach to match the new canopies, and that initiative has clearly failed to gain any ground of any kind. So let's crank up this WL BSR business, muscle through the ackward first few years, and get it in the process of ingraining itself in the landscape of skydiving. Each year will add more and more jumpers who never knew life without a WL BSR, and will see the newbie nay-sayers move beyond the scope of the BSR, and like most jumpers do, gain the wisdom of experience, and get on board just the same. The end result is that it's in place, accepted, and people get the idea that canopies are not something to 'play' with, but a flying machine that needs to be respected, and approached with a cautious and measured appraoch.

John, just so you know, I do enjoy the dialouge we have on this and other issues, but in this case the majority of my posts are not intended to sway your opinion, as it's quite clear that you have made up your mind (as is your right to). My responses to you (and some others) are intended to highlight what I believe to be the short-comings of your position to the readers following this thread. Even if I cannot sway your opinion, if I can sway the opinion of enough other jumpers, then I feel my idea has a greater chance for becoming a reality. Let's face it, just the two of us won't be able to change much of anything, but if either one of us can garner the support of the community-at-large, then we stand a chance of implementing some meaningful change to the situation.

You need to do some additional homework, as you may have confused a few 'terms'. AFF is 7 or 8 jumps, at which point you are cleared to 'self jumpmaster'. What that means is that are able to jump solo, or with a certified coach or instructor. The beginner license, the 'A' license, requires 25 jumps and an assorment of addtional ground-based training sessions. There is no way any DZ can put you through all of this in 4 days. It's more likely that what you get at the 'other' DZ is through the AFF program in 4 days for $2500. Maybe re-visit each DZ, and get a jump-by jump breakdown of what training they offer, and what the costs are per-jump and when purchased as a package. If you are considering a package deal, ask about the time-line, and if you have to complete the package jumps within a specific amount of time. Poor weather, travel limitations, or just plain 'life' can get in the way of your jumping, and an 'expiration date' for your pre-paid jumps can create problems. Also, be sure to consider the idea of taking your time. For example, if you should spin up and puke on an AFF jump, you'll probably be done for that day. If you are on a 'schedule', or at a distant DZ, this can create problems. Not to mention, if you intend to purchase gear and begin jumping on a regular basis, learning at the DZ you will be fun-jumping at later on is a consideration. It allows you to build solid relationshipd with the local instructors while you work your way through your student jumps. These relationships can be of value as you move on though your jumping when you have questions about gear, safety, or general on-going learning in your jumping. I'm not suggesting that instructos would not consult with you if they did not personally train you, but you'll get better 'service' for sure when you're, "Bob, the guy I trained and jumped with last year" as opposed to "The new guy who showed up with an A license from the DZ the next town over".

You continue to skirt the issue that the 'accident' stats you quote are more accurately defined as 'fatal accident' stats. There are no statistics compiled, as far as I know, that include non-fatal accidents resulting in injury to either the principal jumper or a secondary jumper. I have not done this, but I am 100% sure that reviewing the Incidents forum on DZ.com alone would reveal a larger number of non-fatal open canopy incidents as compared to those resulting in a fatality for a given calender year. It's a safe bet that any fatal incident would appear in the forum, as even if no local jumpers post it, the press will cover it and someone will stumble upon the story. Non-fatal incidents, on the other hand, can and do go unreported all the time. If no local jumper choses to post it, and the press is not involved, there would be no record. The end result is a fairly accurate recording of fatal incidents, and an incomplete recording of non-fatal incidents. Despite this, the non-fatal incidents still out number the fatal incidents, yet those are the only statistics you quote in your opposition to a Wl BSR. Fatalities are a terrible thing, but that doesn't negate the negative effects of non-fatal incidents. They deserve just as much consideration when contemplating a WL BSR, or any action designed to improve the safety of jumpers everywhere. The WL BSR remains the easiest to implement, most fair solution available.

How about you check with the local DZs, and see who appears to run the safest operation and most comprehensive training program? If you're trying to save money, you're going to be limited to your local DZs as adding travel costs to any program will jack the price significantly. Why not first pick the DZ you think will take the best care of your boy, and choose the least expensive option they offer? I'm sure Ted Mayfield offered a cheap SL course at his DZ, but that's not where I would send my son.

Here's what I don't get about the opposition to this idea, everyone seems hell-bent on absolutes. Any idea that cannot be backed up 100% by absolute statistics (which don't exist not because they aren't valid, but because the info is not recorded and complied, for all we know the numbers may support a WL BSR), or any idea that cannot guarantee absolute success is cast aside as invalid and a waste of time. What ever happened to common sense? As a jumper with many years of experience and observation of the landscape, to include the switch from F-111 to z-po, and then to high performance Z-po, and the development of swooping- Would you not agree that a jumper, any jumper, who follows a systematic process of downsizing, to include at least 100 jumps on each canopy, will build a more solid base of skills then the jumper who jumps a canopy at the borderline of his skill only to downsize as they start to get a handle on the first one? Would you not agree that the jumper following the more conservative progression would be less likely to hurt themselves or others? Would you not agree that within a few years of z-po canopies becoming the 'standard', open canopy incidents became the largest segment of the fatality list, and that in terms of training or regulation very little has been done to adapt skydiving to this 'new' technology? Would you not agree that the state of canopies has progressed such that the top end of what canopies and pilots are capable of has had a negative effect on the lower end of canopies and jumpers, and they have an un-realistic opinion of what they, or their canopies, should be doing? I'm sure somebody can find a way to disagree with the above, but the majority would agree. Keeping this in mind, the prudent and resonsible thing to do is to take a guess, and do something. There are no absolutes in this sport, the human factor will ensure that. No matter what sort of training you were to implement, or what type of BSR I might implement, people will still die or be injured under open canopies. Keeping that in mind, we have to move forward not looking for absolutes, but looking for progress. We should be looknig for improvement from the status quo as a 'solution' does not exist. So if you consider the above questions, and that we should be doing something seeking improvement, a WL BSR is the easiest way to ensure that every jumper is held to a reasonable course of downsizing. Testing out is bullshit because there is no way to devise a test that will determine how a jumper will perform in the worst case scenario, or that will determine what the jumper will attempt to do with the canopy beyond the test session. Sure, Jim Jumper has shown he can fly a pattern, do a flat turn, a braked approach, and land with accuracy under that zippy new canopy, so sign the guy off. What happens next week when he starts trying to swoop it? Just because he can perform basic pedestrian skills at the bottom end of the canopies performance envelope doesn't mean that he can handle manuvers at the outer edge of that envelope. How do you test for that? The test-out standard has holes in the concept, from the Jim Jumper example above, to the variation in the opinion of test administrators (which is ultimately what will make the final go/no-go call on a certain jumper on a certain canopy). The Wl BSR is universal, and fair to every jumper at every DZ. They can count on the same standard of accepted canopies at every DZ they visit. A WL BSR will do no harm to anyone, jumpers who complain they will be 'held back' have no idea what they're talking about, and truthfully if they don't like it let them quit jumping, we don't need them.

The premise of the BSR would not be to suggest acceptable Wls, that's individual to each jumper, the BSR would limit the max WL for a given number of jumps. For example, the pull altitude BSR is not suggesting everyone pull at 2k or 2.5, whatever the case may be. It's calling that the minimum pull altitude for a specific jumper. That BSR, by the way, entirely based on jump numbers (or more specifically, license held by the jumper aka jump numbers as each license has a min, required number of jumps). If it would make everyone happy, go ahead and pin the BSR to licenses held, like the pull altitude BSR, although that makes the process all more cumbersome becasue you only four levels of canopy progression built in. Br making each step in 100 jump intervals, you give the most determined new jumpers to opportunity to downsize 5, 6, or 7 times before being 'cut loose'. The premise is only invalid if you're tyring to avoid only openm canopy fatalities. There is no information regarding the number or nature of non-fatal open canopy incidents causing injury either to the principal jumper or posiibly another jumper as well, two catagories I would like to see experience a decline in activity. For what? Printing costs? How many copies of the SIM do they print each year? I'll cover the cost of one additional page in each of them for the first year. Seriously, send me a bill. Drawing up a chart, and installing it into the SIM is not a costly undertaking, even including the red tape of making that happen. Now the idea of some sort of test standard, that's another story. That's a monster of a job in every way possible. Just coming up with solid test criteria and a testing methodology is a project to itself. Figuring out how to, and who should administer the test, where, when and how much is another mountain to climb. Finally putting it into use widespread enough that every new jumper has easy and reasonable access to being tested, the thrid giant hurdle. I know, why not whip out the WL BSR, get that in place, and work on the other thing in the meantime. What happens when five years goes by and we cycle through a generation of skydivers? We'll have AFF Is, TIs, coaches, swoopers, freeflyers, gold medal winners, and world champoins who all started skydiving post-BSR, and all see it and support it as the SOP on every DZ. It will be cool to do it the way the book says, because that's how everyone does it (except the old timers, and you see what kind of respect they get). Yes. Always has been, but being able to effectively train for that has never taken hold. No matter how hard you try, 90% of AFF training and the A license proficiency card is about freefall and freefall manuvers. You really only need one manuver, get stable. Get stable at pull time, and whatever happened in freefall is a non-issue. It's in the past, and it's time to go parachuting. In the early 90s, z-po canopies and the fatality list managed to co-exist without each other. The canopies were new, and people were cautious (like newbies today should be). If you were on an F-111 190, and wanted to go Z-po, it was either a 190 z-po or maybe a 170. Keep in mind that the majority of guys on an F-111 190 were not big guys, maybe 200 out the door. What you had was bigger canopies, something else on top of the fatality list, and no canopy control courses or real training of any kind. It was enough to let the people fly their big z-po canopies and learn as they go. Downsizing was not an issue, it was hardly a word at the DZ, let alone a commonplace term. Even when it happened, it was one size at time, and almsot everything was just plain sqaure anyway. Sabre 190 to Sabre 170 was a real step up in performance in those days. We can bring those days back by limiting the sizes and models of canopies jumpers can choose from, and the speed at which they can downsize. Back then it was all we had, today it will be all they have access to. Different circumstance, same result. People will learn. The type of jumper who would take advantage of one of today's canopy control courses will still take advantage of said course. It's going to be the same jumper, the type that would see value in such a course, the only difference would possibly be the wing over their head. Jumpers who don't see value in a canopy control course, still won't see the value. What they will see, even if they follow the chart to the exact min jumps and max WL, is that if you jump a canopy at a reasonable loading 100 times, you will get pretty good with it. Ever notice the TIs who can finish their flare stroke and hand their toggle to a catcher who didn't have to take one step? Jump a big tandem canopy at >1.0 enought times and anyone can be an ace. Then try jumping a slightly faster canopy 100 times, see how sharp you are with that one. You'll probably be able to match your performance on the bigger one within 20 or 30 jumps. By 50 jumps on the smaller one, you'll be even sharper then before, on a smaller, faster canopy. Repeat as desired. See wherre this is going? Canopies can and will alwyas be tricky. Additional training will help, but how to effectively get that to EVERY jumper is proving to be an enormous task. If newer jumpers would maintain a reasonable WL for their experience (and not accordnig to them, they don't know and are naturally biased) and put at least 100 jumps between small downsizes, they will learn and adjust to their surroundings. By the time they are 'cut loose' they will have experience in jump numbers, and experience on different size canopies with a fair number of jumps on each. We hope they have deveolped an appropriate level of respect for parachutes and skydiviing in general, but if nothing else we know they have the muscle memory and 'seat time' it takes to fly 'any' parachute.

I'm coming up on 1000 jumps on my Infinity, and have had zero troubles with it. Great rig, and great bunch of guys to deal with. Not that I want to take food out of their mouths, but for half of your budget I bet you can find a great used container that would be freefly friendly. If you're planning to downsize next year, why not do the whole enchilada then? You can get your smaller canopies, and a brand new rig that just barely holds them so the rig will make it through another downsize down the road. If you find a good deal on a used rig, and only jump it for another season, you should be able to get most of what you spent out of it to apply to the new container. Maybe you lose $100 or $150 on the deal, so that's the price you pay to jump it for a season. That's way better then ordering a new rig, downsizing next year, and then losing much more when you have to sell the rig for another downsize. New gear really only makes financial sense if you either have tons of dough, or plan to jump it until it has little to no value left (like my Infinity, I'll replace it in another 500 to 1000 jumps, at which point it will be 'gutter gear'). If you're in the process of downsizing, used gear is the most cost effective way to go. If you do shop used, any Infinity, Jav, Vector III, or Wings from the last 5 or 7 years will be solid and freefly friendly. If you really want to go all out, I think they can retrofit a Skyhook to some of the more recent Vector IIIs (consult UPT for the details on that one).

On the same note, you have no data to support your assertion that the jump numbers are not meaningful in this context. The truth is that I'm not sure the data exists anywhere. We could take coutnries that have instituted such a regulation, look at their fataility reports for serveral years before and after the reg went in to effect, and see what's what. However, like I stated before, there is no such data covering open canopy non-fatal incidents and near misses, two of the three the main issues I think a WL BSR would help to reduce (fatalities being the obvious third). From a data standpoint, we appear to be at a stalemate, but in this case, I would take the fact that the countries who have adpoted such a regulation have maintained it for several years as an indication that the powers that be are happy with the results. You can bet that if they saw a negative effect, they would repeal it. Seeing as that is not the case, I take that as an endorsement. Referencing my other post, where I stated the shortcomings of a test-out type situation, mainly that you cannot really test anyone for the worst case scenario without putting them in undue harm, and that canopies should be selected such that they are appropriate for the 'worst case scenario', I cannot see anyway that a test of skills could be devised that would serve the purpose intended here. The huge advantage to the jump number based system is that it's universal. 100 jumps at your DZ is the same as 100 jumps at my DZ. There is no variation due to the personal preferences of the test administrator, or due to the conditions at the time of the test itself. This is the way you get a 'standard' that jumpers can expect at every DZ they go to. Their jump numbers are what they are, no matter where you go. Given the continued use of a jump number based regulation in other countries, and the lack of a reliable and easy to implement option, the jump number based system is the most unbiased, easiest to implement option I've heard thus far. As such, it should not be 'just amazing' that I continue to support it. As for the USPA, there are a dozen reasons why they haven't pulled their collective thumbs out of their asses and done something about this, and 11 1/2 of them are either political, self serving, or some other perversion of 'leadership' that I haven't even thought of.

No, you have proposed that concept, but you haven't actually fleshed out the idea and given some examples of how to make it work. Let's face it, my idea is a simple one, generate a chart designating Wl by jump number with a few notations for extremely light jumpers or high altitude DZs, and then jumpers reference that chart to ensure their intended canopy falls within the confines of the chart. Your idea represents a signifanct undertaking in establishing test criteria, test administrators, and record keeping. The real problem with your idea is that the challenge of jumping a canopy is not the calm, sunny day at the DZ where everything goes right. It's not the no-traffic hop n pop you make on your test jump(s), the real challenge is to be able to fly the canopy in difficult or stressful scenarios. I'll reference flight training again, where the instructor can reach up and pull the power at any time, and see how the student reacts. They can partial-panel them in any circumstance and to any degree. How would you replicate that in canopy flight? How would you see how a person reacts in a challenging off-field landing? How about a last minute obstacle or collision avoidance? There is no test for these things. You cannot replicate the effects of actual fear or stress and see who stands up and performs and who folds up like a napkin. This is why we (should) jump canopies that we can control with a degree of skill beyond what the canopy requires. This way when the shit does hit the fan, and your skills take a hit because of fear or stress, controlling the canopy is still within your reach. It's been said many times that the clear, clam day at the DZ when everything goes right is no measure of a canopy pilot's skill, and should not be used to determine what you can 'get away with' in terms of canopy selection. Keeping that in mind, how do you test for the 'worst case scenario' without putting the jumper in undue harm? How do you know how much of the margin for error you can erase with one jumper or another without seeing them at their worst?

I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion, and to take it one step further, how you can classify a Wl BSR as over-regulation? Keeping in mind that the average longevity in this sport was said to be around 5 years, all I can see is that the majority of jumpers in this sport have less then five years of experience, and lack the long term viewpoint needed to really speak on the issue of regulation. If those jumpers are likey to be effected by said regulation, can you really count on their opinion to be unbiased and not self-serving? On the issue of a Wl BSR being classified as 'over-regulation', how can that determination be made with instituting such a BSR, and examining the results? We clearly know the lay of the land without, so we would need to see the effects of the BSR itself before making that determination.

I'm assuming that you mean the BSR itself would be conter-productive. If the BSR was productive, and whatever it was pinned was not, that would be a moot point as the end result would remain a productive BSR. With that in mind, I'm interested to hear how it would be counter-productive? In what way would set back the progress of reducing the number of open canopy incidents and increasing jumper education (keeping in mind that I've always included ongoing eduction with a Wl BSR)? I can understand if you doubt the link between over-aggresive downsizing and open canopy incidents, but I cannot see how a Wl BSR would have a negative effect. It's possible it would have no effect, but I'm not sure how you would count that as counter-productive. Beyond the semantics, have you considered the effect that have a WL BSR in place would have on the community as a whole? Much like other BSRs, it's only a matter of time before they become accepted by 'the masses', and busting the BSR is as uncool as busting any other BSR. Eventually, we'll have a generation of jumpers who began skydiving with a Wl BSR in place, and simply consider it as part of the skydivnig landscape. I know it hasn't been the norm thus far, but to be fair, we're new to high performance canopies. I give sport jumping about 60 years in existance to date. Modern Z-po canopies, the type that can load up to 2.0+ and not break your ankles on every landing have been around for under 20 years. Tack on another 5 years for them to catch on and become the 'standard' for every new jumper. What you end up with is a factor that has been in existance for less than 25% of the existance of sport jumping itself. For us to assume that our initail approach to this development in the sport, which was to do nothing from a training or regualtory approach, was the correct approach and should stand is short-sighted and irresponsible. For us to assume that we know everything there is to know about the new development (in terms of the life of sport jumping, Z-po canopies are new) is also short-sighted and irresponsible. The genie is out of the bottle. We've given it over a decade of 'wait and see', and it's consistantly been the #1 killer of jumpers every year. Is it really hard to imagine that the staus quo is not the best course fo action? Even if a WL BSR was instituted that had no educational component to it was implemented, I can't see how it will do any harm. It may upset a small percentage of jumpers, those currently effected and thus 'held back' by the BSR, but aside from that I cannot concieve how it would do any 'harm' what so ever.

WTF? Pilotdave responded to your post with a great reply, and now it's gone. Maybe he deleted it? Not sure why he would do that.. Either way, the incident highlights that even with reasonable amounts of experience and training, flying parachtues is a dangerous business. Much like flying airplanes, there are caveats and catch-22s galore in the world of canopy flight, and they become more of a factor as canopies get faster, or when inexperienced pilots push to hard. Much like airplanes, all I'm saying is that additional training, and a tiered advancement system be put into place. A new pilot is not ready for a high performance or a complex aircraft, and this is why there are endorsements for those. True, you can earn those endorsements with any number of hours, but it will take some stick time with a CFI to pass the checkride for either of those with a low number of hours. The alternative is to log a couple hundred hours of in low performace fixed gear plane, and build the skills to pass the checkride with a minnimum of dual time required. As a pilot, you may be familiar with the moniker 'Dr Killer' given the old V-tail Bonanzas. Once they reinforced the tail, there was nothing wrong with those airplanes, but they had a reputation for killing doctors because they were cheap enough for a Dr to afford, the same Drs who worked 80 hour weeks and could only fly a few hours a month. So you a take a low time pilot who has the dough to buy a Bonanza, and then with a lack of currency and experience, they often times ended up in a pile of burning aluminum. This is a case where even the regs of the FAA failed, and allowed the poor judgement of over confident Drs trump the system. Let's reduce it down a bit for canopy flight. While canopies are far simpler than aircraft, so is the trainging to become a skydver in realtion to becoming a pilot. Any shithead off the street can muscle through AFF, while is takes a bit more intelligence to become a private pilot. The problem is that it's too easy to become a jumper, and then to be released to the 'wild west' for us to expect that to work. If only smarter people could pass AFF, maybe we wouldn't need any sort of regulation, but as it sits we'll pass anyone we can get in the plane, so we need a little on going guidance. Is anything going to guarantee safety? No. Should we have some sort of on going education to accompany the Wl regulation? Of course. That's probably the more important part of the equation, but due to that it's also the more complicated and tougher to structure and implement. So I say we institute a WL BSR, and begin work on the training program to parallel it. What the BSR does is cement the idea that canopy flight and training is important, and not to be taken lightly. It gives the DZOs and S&TAs some teeth and some paper to fall back on when dealing with eager newbies. It begins to create a community of jumpers who recognize and embrace the concept that aggressve downsizing is not cool. I'll ask this question of you again, as I still haven't got an answer form you, what's the harm in a WL BSR? Who or what would be harned by ensuring that all new jumpers follow a steady and reasonable course of downsizing?

Just like others have suggested, if a seller won't provide serial numbers, that's a red flag. In general, if you present a seller a reasonable thrid party arrangement with a reputable person or company as the thrid party and they refuse to play ball, there's a reason for that. Either it's a straight scam or there's 'questionable' condition issues with the gear he's trying to pass off as 'good shape', whatever the case may be, an honest seller with quality goods won't shy away from a reasonable deal that protects the buyer and the seller.

Time and time again we see the posts from newbies asking about this inappropriate canopy or that inappropriate canopy, only to have them reply in outrage that anyone would point out their choices are inappropriate, like this guy - http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3909918;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread The argument always comes around to two basic points, the one being, "You've never seen me fly, so you don't know what I can do", and the ever popular, "I've already made 'x' jumps on such and such a canopy, and they went fine, I even stood up the landings". The singular argument you can always make to these folks is that, 'You don't know what you don't know', and it's correct and valid. Selecting the right canopy for the job requires experience with several different canopies in several different situations. Lacking such expereince, a person has no place from which to make such a call. So to all you newbies who can't seem to get it through your thick skull that you don't know much of anything (with regards to canopies), I offer you these two examples - Case one - A jumper with 1000+ jumps, and several instructional ratings. Jumping a Velo 103, with previous experience on other, smaller high performance canopies, nobody batted an eye as his canopy choice. On a long spot he made it back to the DZ in brakes, and initiated a 90 degree turn onto final. With little airspeed coming into the turn, the ground hungry Velo was in the porcess of building speed (and control effectiveness) when the jumper hit the ground. No amount of stabbing the brakes was going to make that high performance canopy respond from such a slow airspeed entering the turn. A little higher turn initiation would have done the trick. Rolling into the turn with more airspeed would have likewise changed the outcome of this incident. As it sits, the outcome is that the jumper died in the hospital later that day. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=3908128;page=1;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25; Case two - This jumper is a VERY experienced canopy pilot with something in the neighborhood of 5000 jumps, with a good number flying and swooping high performance canopies and holds an instructional rating. Toward the end of a routine jump, he flew up behind one of his buddies, also an experienced jumper flying an identical canopy. Upon closing in on his pal, the jumper used a deep braked 'S' turn to keep from overtaking the other canopy. He made this turn acorss the wake of the other canopy, and stalled half of his canopy, throwing him into diving line twists at about 1000ft. Due to a long, extended chest strap, the jumper managed to get to his cutaway, and was less succesful in finding his reaserve handle, with his Cypres ultimately deploying the reserve for him. The jumper landed safely under his reserve. A difference of just a few feet in altitude where th jumper made his 'S' turn would have made this a non issue. A touch less brakes on the 'S' turn would have made this a non issue. As it was, he asked too much from his canopy in air that was too disturbed for the canopy to keep flying. (In an odd coincidence, the first incident took place at Skydive Elsinore where last year another jumper went in becuase he couldn't find his reserve handle after a low cutaway due to a loose chest strap and a set of camera wings, much the same way the jumper in the second story couldn't find his handle) http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3893058;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread So newbies, what don't you know? I can't say for sure, but hold yourself againt these two examples, and try to imagine how much these two jumpers know (knew) that you don't, and then think that even that wealth of knowledge was not enough to keep them out of harms way. 1000 jumps, several ratings, and experiecne on even smaller wings wasn't even enough to keep the first jumper alive. 5000 jumps, with most of them on high performance wings, an instructional rating and he almost met his maker just flying behind another canopy. How do you stack up?

There are some other brands of AAD, and they have all had their teething problems. Cypres had teething problems, but that was years ago and they are pretty solid as of now. The others may have a few more years of 'work' to go. I don't think there was anything wrong with Eclipse rigs. I seem to recall that somebody bought the company, and either was or still is supplying parts. The freebag is the only thing you would really need, I'm pretty sure everything else could be borrowed from another brand, and that's only a problem if you lose your freebag, so don't lose your freebag.

Look for a third party rigger or used gear dealer to use as a broker. Someone not in your town or the sellers town, a true thrid party. Send payment in full to the thrid party, who will notify the seller of payment in hand. They send the gear for an inspection, and the rest depends on the outcome of the inspection. I know someone on this site has mentioned a gear dealer who does just that for something like $50. Anyone remember who? Anyone?

Who are these people giving a guy with 35 jumps a Sabre2 150 loaded at 1.2? A new jumpers wants to buy a Sabre2 150 - I get it. A new jumper actually buys a Sabre2 150 - I get it. A new jumper borrows a Sabre2 150 - I get it. All the above are the independent actions of a newbie who doesn't have the experience to know any better. From the sound of this guy, he was downsized from a 235 to a 170 at 10 jumps, and then to the Sabre2 150 only 20 jumps later by the staff of the DZ he jumps at. What rock has that staff been living under?

The Cypres has a 12 year lifespan. After 12 years, it turns into a paperweight, so check the date of manufacture. Even if it's less than 12 years old, it may need a factory check-up and battery, which would run you about $300. Even after that, at 12 years + 3 months it's garbage, so see what kind of life you can get after you drop $300. Anything in the neighborhood of 25 to 30 months is a good deal, anything less than that and you're overpaying for an AAD. As for the rest of your stuff, if a rigger will pack it (meaning they deem it airworthy) jump the shit out of it. You may want to jump a bigger canopy for your first few jumps back, but that will be a call for the DZ to make. They'll also deciede what they want from you in terms of a refresher course for emergency procedures and the like, and making a jump with an instructor your first time out. make sure your USPA membership is current.

You're the wrong size for the 'one jumpsuit' plan. You need to be on the 'husky' side for that to work because you can get a slightly baggy freefly-type suit, and then use it to slow you down for RW type jumps. Even then, it will be a so/so RW suit, but you could make it work. Your problem is that you're too far from average because of your height and weight. You will need a slick front (nylon) tight fitting RW suit, or you'll be floating up over everyone. Loading up on weights and wearing a freefly type suit is a bad idea. you may end up needing some weights anyway, and a baggy suit would just require you to wear more. I say bite the bullet and buy a properly fitted RW suit. Unless you put on 25 or 30lbs of bodyweight, the RW suit will last you forever. If you want to try a little freeflying, just borrow any baggy suit that fits. Your first pile of freefly jumps will be solos or two ways, so matching the fall rate isn't as much of a consideration as in RW. By the time you get some freefly skills together and are ready to move on to bigger or more technical freefly jumps, you'll have the money and the experience to order a freefly specific suit.

It provides you the best odds for allowing your slider to work properly. It's a fine balance between the canopy wanting to open, and the slider holding it closed. With equal parts of your slider in between each line group, whatever random event that should occur during your opening that might restrict the airflow to your slider is less likely to effect the whole slider. Not to mention it's just the logical place for the slider to go. Just like you flake the material between the line groups, quartering is generally the same as 'flaking' the slider. I dont' subscribe the concept of just 'stuffing' or 'pushing' any part of my canopy during a pack job. Everything has a place, and everything gets put in its palce. It has worked exceedingly well for me thus far.