davelepka

Forget the poll. LOTS of people have cut away from an un-stowed toggle.

I think I'm stupider for posting anyway.

Is 'stupider' a word in the UK? I don't think it is in the US. Provided the context of this post, it would certainly be ironic if it's not a word in the UK.

Thats a joke right?

In that other thread they're saying that stiching them down will alter the length enough to effect the trim of the canopy. One poster claimed he new of a jumper who used this effect to 'tune' his canopy. I'm quite skeptical of this.

Thats your DZ. Go somewhere else you'll be treated differently. Go to a third DZ, and they won't even ask what you're jumping. The way it works now, each DZ can deciede to A) have some sort of limits, and B) what those limits should be. Just because your DZ has set reasonable and safe limits, doesn't mean the one down the road has done the same. We know that some jumpers are making (very) poor choices for what canopies to jump, and we know it's not happening at your DZ, but the jumpers are out there, so it must happening somewhere. The current system just isn;t cutting it. Too many jumpers are slipping through the cracks, and paying a high price for it in the end. For the record I think that a broken ankle is a pretty high price.

OK, let me ask this, are you opposed to A chart, or are you opposed to THIS chart? I'm all for reasonable WL's, and having fun with your canopy, but the current climate of 'anything goes' sinply cannot stand.

Here's another point to keep in mind. Everything you were taught about skydiving, everything that is considered 'standard practice', was all made up by someone at some time. Your impression of what's safe and what's not is a reflaction of what you were taught, what you witnessed, and where you started to jump. As an example, many DZ's tend to lock onto one type of container. The staff will all have them, many fun jumpers, and the gear store reccomends them. Bingo, instant preference for a container. Thats not to say that you won't later change your mind, or that oen container or another is better, just that when you start jumping, you are a blank slate, and what you are taught goes along way toward who you are as a skydiver down the line. Along the same lines, if a student is taught the importance of canopy control early on, and they see good practices from other jumpers, and CC course being held with full attendence, now you have a jumper who places importance on CC, and takes it seriously. Ditto for the WL situation. I know for a fact that on a DZ where the new jumpers are closely monitored in what they buy, and what they jump, the climate is such that those jumpers have no desire to downsize quickly, and are respectful of the reasons why. Futhermore, I have seen this system produce some extremely talented canopy pilots, well beyond what their experience would indicate. The point here is that skydiving is whatever we make it to be. Who in their right mind would dress in head-to-toe neon colors? The answer is every skydiver in the late 80's/early 90's. Every new jumper back then who ordered a jumpsuit, and went with neon gren over neon pink would have never thought to wear those colors until they started jumping, and saw that that's how a jumper dresses. They simply went along with whatever they saw. This is why every new jumper will have the right attittude toward CC and WL provided they are taught that way, and they see it in practice. The overall resistance to change is astounding. We would have none of the gear we did if Bill Booth or John Leblanc just looked around and figured, "Thats the way it is. Must be right". It was only by looking beyond the status quo, and asking 'what if', were they able to produce the products that we have, and use every jump. It's time to say,"What if we can reverse this trend with open canopy incidents". I mean, really, we tell newbies that saying the word 'first' means they have to buy a case of beer. There's no connection between what they say, and some obligation to buy beer, but they buy into 100% just becasue we said so.

OK, if I had my way, every jumper would have a one hour classroom session, and a few hop-n-pops required for each license they want. They would also have some limits to what size, and type of canopy they could jump up to a certain level of experience. How does a more informed skydiver on an appropriate canopy not equal a safer skydiver?

Really? What do you think that coverage did to skydivings public image? The story alone is terrible, broadcasting the video as well at least doubles the negative impact. Hasn't this issue been covered with regards to Real TV? If I'm not mistaken, the general consensus was that Real TV is not good for skydiving, and most folks agreed that they would not release footage to them for this reason. As far as JFTC, come on, thats one of the best things to happen to skydiving in a long time. Aside from the obvious benefit of raising money for research, the publicity is nothing but positive. All women, setting a record, and raising money? My biggest disappointment was that it didn't recieve more coverage.

It's not odd. I don't read every post. You are right about the non-existant incident reports that do support the Wl chart. All of that aside, the actual numbers from the reports are not relevant. I don't care if '04 had a couple more than '05. The point is that in any case, there are far too many. In comparison to the days when canopies were larger, slower, and lamer, there are far more open canopy fatalities. AGAIN: This is not a nit-picky issue, and you need to learn to look beyond your own situation. I'm sorry if it will cramp your style to adhere to a WL chart, but your temporary sacrifice is very small in comarison to the benefits of safer, more informed skydivers in the future. Don't want your Wl to be restricted? Get off your ass and become an expert skydiver capable of jumping at any WL. Problem solved.

What about the fatality reports from the last ten years? Is there any question that open canopy incidents have made a dramatic increase and risen to become the #1 killer of skydivers? What more do you need to know? What could the possible harm be to having WL restrictions in place? Wait, let me guess, all the jumpers who insist they would quit jumping if they were limited to a certain WL. Fuck them. All of them. Lets consider the jumpers who can see beyond the next year of their life. The jumpers who wouldn't quit jumping over a minor, and temporary situation. Lets cater toward those jumpers, and look out for their well being, as they are the future of skydiving. I would galdly loose 10 or even 20 jumpers who will never make it past 300 jumps, or 3 years in the sport, to keep one jumper alive who will jump for the rest of their life. The european insurance industry is not relevant here. This is a not a business situation. Nobody stands to make or loose a dime in this situation. I'm quite sure that many would agree that money and greed are to blame for the insurance problems in europe. There are no alterior motives invovled here. What you have are some highly experienced jumpers who have seen the changes take place, observed the situation, and seen the writing on the wall. In fact Brian Germain stands to loose out in this deal. It's no secret that training needs to accompany any sort of Wl regualtion to make a real difference. If the USPA were to up the ante with regards to addittional training in the area of canopy control, what do you think that would do to his business? If every jumper was participating in a USPA backed CC course at their home DZ, how many of them would also spend the money on Brians course? Some would, indeed, but the majority would stick with the required and less expensive USPA course. So what motivations must a guy like that have to donate his time and effort to a cause that could ultimately topple the virtual monopoly he's had on CC courses for the past several years? The answer is simple, it's the right thing to do.

No. The point is that you cannot look at speed of any kind as an indicator of the canopies safety for lower experienced pilots. Steady state speed, maximum speed, speed in a turn, none of that info is relevant becasue, lie I said, ANY canopy can go fast enough to kill you. Determining speed in not going to reveal that canoyp x cannot exceed 8 mph, and cannot kill you. The issue is WL, and lower WLs mean you have to make a bigger mistake to get hut. You can turn a Manta, loaded at .7 to 1, a full 180 from 50ft, and have a good landing. You cannot make that same manuver on a 220 Nav. ONCE AGAIN: This is not rocket science. The scope oif available canopies, their performce potential, and the nature of novice jumpers makes it neccesarry to have a system of some kind in place. I'LL REPEAT: Most european countries have had a WL chart in place and enforced for many years with great success. It does work, It can work. Lets make it happen. A side note: The truth is that if you have a problem with the chart due ot your personal situation, your opinion does not count. Your experience is such that you cannot make a truely informed decision, and either A) you will progress beyond the chart rather quickly, or B) you will quit jumping soon, and we don't care what you have to say. The people who this chart is intended for, and whom will reap the biggest rewards have not even made a jump yet. Many of them have not even been born. Learn to look beyond yourself. For every nit pick that you have, there are 1000's of future jumpers preparred to accept whatever climate they ancounter when they start jumping. These are the people who need it the most. Rest assured that even if a chart was adopted by the USPA today, it would be at least a year before we figure out how to realisticly enforce it. If you're not jumping enough to not be affected by the chart at the end of next year, you are the sort of person who needs it the most. Again, the catch 22 is that those who really need it, don't knwo it, and are against it.

This is where more information about your experience or expertise would help to support your point. The reason being that canopy speed has nothing to do with this. Every canopy is capable of achieving speeds that would result in a fatal impact. This has been proven by several deaths do to low turns on very lightly loaded student canopies. The WL issue comes into play because the lower your WL, the bigger mistake you have to make to result in an injury. Your determination of canopy speed will not help the issue at all. This is what I'm talking about when I sufgeest that you're missing the point. You're trying to make rocket science out of something thats really quite simple. If it seems to work so well in so many European countries, why wouldn't it work here? Most countries in europe have devised their own charts (which are all striking similar), and they seem to be doing the trick. Your use of big words and advanced concepts makes it so hard for me to understand why you can't see the simplicity of this situation.

Well, lets start by first acknowledging that there is a problem. Do you agree that the current system is inadequte given the performance potential for the modern canopy? Assuming yes, lets look at how one would 'draw the line' in any case similar to this. The first, and most obvious answer would be to consult availalbe and relevant data. The problem with this as it applies to this situation, is that the only data we have is that of those who have already been invovled in an incident, and even some of that data is incomplete. In order to make a data-driven decision. we would need to know the total number of jumps made, who made them, under what canopies, what conditions, what WL's and the experience of the pilot. Given that this information is not availalbe to us, what is our recourse? The best I can think of is to consult an expert, and rely on their experience to rough out a idea. Take that idea, and pass it around to similaly qualified experts, and see what sticks and what doesn't. The end result is the best we can come up with. Which is what we have here. One thing I tend to notice regarding your posts is that for all of your opposition to certain ideas, you never seem to present any suggestions as to what you believe to be viable solutions. I'm also noticing a pattern that posters who refuse to identlfy themselves or their qualifications, and who seem to always be playing the contrartian, rarely do provide any useful input to the subject at hand.

What does a 16 year old girl need to hide from her parents? Mom can handle the girly stuff, dad can help with the rest. Anything she's hiding from both of them is trouble, and they need to know about it.

For the record, I would be willing to personally take my time to develop the training. I'd be willing to take my time and money to travel in support of the training, and implementing it into being. The catch is that I'm not doing anything until the USPA makes a commitment to follow through with the program. I have already tried, without success, to get this into motion. I have contacted members of the BOD and safety and training comittee, submitted in writing ideas, outlines, and proposals, and gotten absolutely nowhere. I'm willing to put my time, knowledge and money where my mouth is, but I'm not willing to waste any of the three anymore.

I don't buy that. The USPA holds no liability with regards to training principals. Unless a laywer could prove that another training method would have been prudent, while the USPA method was negligent, there's no liability. Agreed. The jumpers would pay the instructor. Figure on a limit of 10 students per session, with a classroom session desinged around an hour of time for 10 students. A full class takes an hour, and costs, $3 per student. A half class takes 45 minutes, and costs $5 per student. Smaller classes take even less time, and cost, at most, $10 per student. End result, the instructor gets between $20 and $30 for 30 to 60 minutes woth of work. I can guarantee that there is an instructor on every DZ who wants/needs the money, or who wants to teach the class. Please do keep ideas coming.

I'm thinking that the additional A license training would be a slot on the proficiency card, as opposed to connected to a specific jump. I'm less concerned about the under 20-jump jumper on studetn gear, making a supervised jump, than the same jumper, 40 jumps later with their own gear and no supervision.

I know that CC courses are popular where and when you can get them. I also know that the capacity is fairly small, so filling the slots is pretty simple. I know that there are jumpers who see the forest from the trees, and seek out the knowledge they need. Again, these folks are the least of my worries. The folks who came away from Scotts beginner course with loads of new info are my concern. Lets face it, Scott isn't teaching rocket science, his course is full of basic information that every jumper should already have. The fact that anyone could make it to his course without that info is the problem. (Disclaimer: Scott's courses are awesome, and sorely needed, and he is a wealth of accurate and important info). It's true, that if a jumper really wants to 'stick it to the man, they can get by with the A licese forever. This is unrealistic though, as we all know that boogies, night jumps, demos, special events, and big ways all require a higher license than an A. Also, the longer this would be in practice, the more it would just be par for the course, as opposed to the new 'hoop' hung up by 'the man'. I don't see how this would be hard to implement. The licenses already have requirements, and the jumpers work through them unitl they get their new license. Instructors would be paid for their time in the classroom, which would be brief, and sceduled in advance for convience. Hop-n-pops would only need to be observed by an instructor. I'd like to hear some expansion on why it's unrealistic. Lets look at the roadblocks, and knock them down one at a time. Learn to release your impression of how things should be, which is most likey based on current conditions, and see how things could be, based on what is best for todays jumper. Licensing, training, and general skydiving is vastly different in other countries than in the US, so it is possible to run things differently than we do now.

Amen, my brother. Praise be the wiseman with a SPINE. Spread you word across the land. It's about time somebody did.

The freefall requirements are bullshit because aside from being stable for deployment, freefall skills are all optional for skydiving. Canopy control is not optional, and applies to EVERY skydiver, regardless of their freefall dicipline of choice. Here's the long and short of it. Most DZO's are not going to implement a mandatory program. Most jumpers are not going to voulenteer to take a CC course, let alone pay a premium price for it. These are facts, and just a look around willporve them to be true. A USPA backed, license system related program solves all of the current roadblocks. Want a license? You have to take the course. Want to be a USPA DZ? You have to conduct the training. By using a local USPA instructor, and having a shorter mini-course (as opposed to all day or all weekend), you redcue the cost to the jumper. As much as it sucks, and as much as I hate it, the USPA has the lock down on skydiving in the US> They are the big dogs. They can drop the hammer, and make this happen. It would help everyone. There are no downsides. None.

You end doing all sorts of things to your kids that they don't like, but it's for their own good. I think that as adults, we can all look back to a situation where you were sure that your parents were being crazy, or unfair, but now you can see that is was for your own good. As kids get older it gets harder to be the all encompasing dictator. They are growing up, and can do more for themselves, but the stakes are going up at the same time as well. You have to tell your 10 year old not to eat a whole box of Twinkies, or stay up late on a school night. Neither one is a good idea, but the consequenses are minor, and short lived. Your 16 year old is now being exposed to drugs, alchohol, cigarettes, sex, and crime. The consequenses of making a bad choice here is far more dire than the box of Twinkies from six years ago. I'm not saying that every 16 year old needs to be monitored by big brother. When they start showing the signs however, you need to get serious like a heart attack. We all know 16 year olds are dumb. Some of them stay out of trouble, and learn as they grow. Some get into trouble, and learn as they and grow, and regret their youth. Others never learn. The best you can do is to keep them on track as long as you can. They can always run away, or move out, but while they are around, you need to do everything (and anything) in your power to help them out. If your child is one that will never learn, then I'm sorry. But for the others, they will learn sooner or later, and see how you were trying to help them. You'll give up the trust and happy times for a few years, and gain it for the rest of your life.

I cannot see how stiching a riser down will do anything but make it thinner. It should have no effect on the canopy flight at all (aside from the reduction in drag, which is minor). I'd be more concerned about chnages to the functionality of the riser. Does it's usefulness decrease in any way? How about its longevity. In reality, if you could beneift from the reductioni n drag, you're the sort of jumper who would want an increase to the dive-e-ness of your canopy. If there does prove to be an increase in dive, let me know. Also let me know what kind of thread to use, becasue I'll stich mine down right away.

Actually my whole point is that we need the first (and mandatory) one to work. Even beyond the A license, we need to be teaching. You want a B license? Take the next level of CC training, and learn to fly like a B licensed skydiver. Ditto for the C and D. There is no excuse for an 'expert' skydiver who cannot pilot a canopy like an expert. This doesn't mean swooping per say, but every D licensed jumper should be well versed in weather/wind conditions, aerodymanic theory, all flight controls, and off field landing stratagies. these are all a part of skydiving, and you cannot be an 'expert' without them.