davelepka

My guess is that A) you don't have a daughter, and that B) you were never a 16 year old boy. What this guy wants is too keep his daughter off of the pole (stripper pole) and keep her from becoming a crack whore. There are a ton of strippers and crack whores out there, so it does happen. He needs to drop the hammer now, and hug and trust her later when (in your words)...

As general reply, or more of an additional thought, I wonder if anyone out there has any information regarding to the canopy control training from, say 1989 or 1990? I'd like to see how the current training differs from that training. My guess is that there is little to no difference between the two. Now lets look at the state of canopy design and technology circa '89, and compare it to today. Lets take that one step further, and just by looking at what was availalbe, lets look at what size canopies were most popular around '89. My guess is that even if you create a conversion factor to go from F-111 WL ro ZP WL, we'll still see that people are tending to jump smaller canopies today. Look at general aviation. There's a real draw for flight schools to offer training aircraft equiped with the latest avionics, GPS, and some are even training with all glass cockpits. Why? Becasue thats what people are flying, and thats what students need to learn. Yes, basic stick and riudder work has it's place, and is the foundation for all flight training, but any student looking to advace in flying, or even just get beyond small airport operation will need to be versed in radio work, GPS, and the like. Much like skydivers; if you want to get off of the student eqiupment, into a more sporty canopy, or you want to leave your Cessna DZ for Perris or Eloy, you're going to need the extra information. It seems so simple. Such common sense. Canopies have come a long way, and canopy flight has become it's own entity, yet we still minnimalize it in training new skydivers. It just doesn't make sense. Now I'm all pissed off again.

The bottom line is that any league is optional. Those jumpers who would choose the option, are most likey also the ones who would study canopy piloting, do dedicated canopy control jumps, and seek out advice from expereinced swoopers. What do you do about those jumper who feel that the training they recieved via the A license program was sufficient, and want to leave it at that? Those are the jumpers who will end up low, and off field on a bad weather day. What do they do then?

For the record, I tried the same tactic last year. I floated around a similar chart, listened to the feedback, twaeked it and submitted it to the head of the safety and training comittee at the USPA. I know it made it to the BOD meeting last year, and was discussed, but that seemed to be the end of it. You want to get skydivers to work together? Here's two ways to make that work 1. Dangle a world record in front of them, and even then, collect all of their money before you start jumping, then you'll have their cooperation. 2. Have the USPA tell DZO's that WL's need to be limited, and that additional canopy control training is no longer optional. Not following the 'standard industry practice' is a sure way to lessen the effectiveness of a liability waiver, so DZO's will likely hop on the bandwagon.

I'll be honest, I didn't read the chart. I guessed it was close enough to the others I've read. I agree that lighter jumpers need to be at lower WLs in the beginning. Is it possible that a separate sliding scale needs to be devised for jumpers under 'x' weight? Just as there are consessions for higher altitude DZ's, maybe the lighweights need some modification to their plan as they progress. Lets face it, none of this will ever be a law, so following the chart will be an in-exact science. I know that including an exception will have all sorts of borderline jumpers looking to get on the smaller canopies, but i do have to admit, if .9 to 1 is the Wl for a smaller jumper with 500 jumps, thats just not right.

This is one of the biggest objections to these types of charts, everyone feels like they are losing out. My thought have always leaned toward grandfathering in all the exosting jumpers, so nobody has to upsize, and the worst case scenario is that they have to put off downsizing for a few more jumps. If everyone could see beyond themselves for a minute, and realize that if such a chart was put into practice, all new jumpers would be taught that this is the way we do it, and they won't feel as if they're losing out. For example, I don't feel as if I'm losing out because I don't get to jump US military C-130s. There are bases all around here, and I see them flying all the time, and military folks do get to jump them, but not me. This doesn;t bother me becasue all I've ever known is that civilians don't get to jump from military AC, period. What these new jumpers would be gaining however, is another layer of safety, hopefully keeping them mobile, and jumping for many years. Judging by what many experienced jumpers are jumping, many of them would reach their maximum comfortable WL by the time they hit 700 or 800 jumps. A handful will want to load higher, and will have to wait just a bit longer ot get there, but lets be honest here, 1.5 is an aggressive WL, and you can do alot with it, and you can get there pretty quickly with the WL chart.

I hate to say it, but if he's doing it, there's a fair chance I'd make fun of you too. Don't feel bad. Just keep jumping, and soon you'll learn to point and laugh with the best of them.

We had a handful of competitors in the Ohio CPC who were not swooping, and were at lower WL (1.3 ish). They all agreed that it was harder than they thought, and had fun just trying to make the gates. The problem with the CPC is the 500 jump minnimum. Even if you want to cut that in half to accomadate some newbies, you're still looking at 250 jumps. In my opinion, by the time a jumper hits 250 jumps, they should have gone through (in addition to the canopy training already included in the AFF program) at least two 'mini-camps' consisting of an hour-ish of classroom, and a hop-n-pop or three. The other trouble with the CPC is that anyone who would choose to enter is also the type who would seek out coaching on their own, or at least dedicate some of their time to canopy control with some high hop-n-pops or something. By connecting the training to the licensing system, you force all of the other jumpers to pay attention to canopy control as well. We all know that flying a canopy is a complicated situation. Add in higher WLs and the performance of modern canopies, and the minnimalist training you get in AFF is just plain not enough to serve the jumper much past the first 30 or 40 jumps. It shouldn't be optional to become an expert canopy pilot if you want to be an expert skydiver (aka D license). As a sidenote, I do think the current FJC and AFF program training is good within the confines of the program. You don't need to be an expert canopy pilot to make one or ten supervised jumps. You want an A license? Crack the books and get serious about canopy control.

She the DZO, the regional director for the USPA, and she'll make 10 or 12 jumps per day, doing AFF, video, coaching, jumping with newbies, and swooping hew new 83 Katana. She's very busy. Her two kids and husband don't help either. (The income figures are just estimates)

You bring up a good point about the meetings. I think it's time to look into the internet based video confrencing technology. I'm not sure how it all works, but I'm guessing that the USPA and the directors both incur some costs in realtion to the meetings. It goes without saying that general members will pay their own way, which I'd guess is why so few attend. Anyway, the cost of the video confrenece has to be less than the live meeting, so we could save everyone some moeny, and allow a better percentage of the membership to sit in on the meeting. As far as the canopy control thing, I just see this as another year gone by, and the norm is still that beyond your student training, thats all you really need to know about canopy control. The WL thing is a tough egg to crack, but I don't see why if a newbie is under the impression that being too aggressive with the Wl is both dangerous and uncool, that they will dial back their enthusiasm for downsizing. If you start off telling the new guys that taking it easy is the way to go, the way everyone goes, then thats what they know. Sooner or later everyone will either have been taught to take it slow, or been jumping long enough to do whatever they want. For the record, I think Sherry makes about $1.2 mil. a year for jumping, plus another $300,000 to $400,000 from the endorsements (Nike, American Express, etc).

Thats too much information. Keep your eyes open, and looking around reality for the info you need. All of that stuff will become obvious and clear to you as you progress. It seems like alot now, but give it time, and it will become easier.

This is generally a good rule. It's also easy to enforce, as it's quite clear when a newbie is a student, and when they are not. The catch is that this transition takes place over the course of one jump, where you go from student to newbie, or you could look at it is going from off limits to fair game. The problem area is that once off student status, the newbie is still very much a student, and the expereicned jumper SO will have alot in influence over how things progress from there on. What even worse is when the newbie hooks up with the 100 jump wonder. Let the misguiding and bad habits begin!

This is a misconception. It the jumpers who put themselves in the postion to have to act fast. For example, if your RW skills were such that you were just barely stable, with no control over heading, porxitmity or fall rate, would you say that a two way with anyone except an AFFI is a good idea? This is the position that new freeflyers put themselves in all the time. Without these basic skills, they will join up with other similarly unskilled jumpers, and proceed to do two or three way dives. Solo for solo, provided you can regain stability (back to your belly) from an unstable position, the only difference between a freefly and a bellyfly is the time in freefall (this is assuming modern, safe equipment). Again, I posted a rundown of how to start, and what skills to achieve before progressing with regrds to freeflying. Indeed, it does take some dicipline to follow the guidelines, and be realistic about your abilities, but it can be done.

Make sure you have your AFF. tandem, and a video set-up with digital stills. Get your riggers ticket, and be ready to pack student/sport rigs too. Don't forget to find a DZ where it's sunny all the time, and they'll give you as much work as you can handle. Last, make sure you have soem good reciepes for ramen noodles. However, you will have fun.

Just like someone from a Cessna DZ gets used to jumping from 10k, while the turbine nanies are getting out at 14k? Or what happens when the turbine baby has to exit low due to cloud cover (low as in 8k or 9k)? That seems like a stupid reason not to freefly. If you cannot get it through your head that until you have 100's of jumps, all with the same fall rate and break off, that you shouldn't be 'accustomed' to anything. For the record, hybrids are the worst for being accustomed to time as it refers to altitude. Every dive will have different lengths at belly speeds, and different lengths at freefly speeds. There is almost no way to get a feel for the time frame for a hybrid. Being altitude aware is a big deal. The number of changes possible to a skydive that could possibly alter your impression of 'what time it is' is almost endless. Especially during your first few hundred jumps, when you're doing and seeing new things on almost every jump, any one of them can catch your attention, and 'erase' 10 or 15 seconds of skydive. Use and maintain your audibles. Keep regular alti checks a part of every dive plan . If you want to freefly early, the bigger danger is collisions with other jumpers, both in your dive, and in the groups before and after you. Run a search of my posts, and somewhere in there is a break downb of how to freefly safely from day 1. The key is to follow the guidelines, and be realistic about your abilities before progressing to the next step.

I really don't get your drift. Expand on it just a little. I wouldn't mind the $50, if it looked like they were doing something productive with it. I'm sorry, but I could care less that there's a sexta-sep rudy eagle wing award, let alone needing to see a picture of a jumper getting one. I know the insurance thing is there, and I guess thats good. I know they do other things too at the USPA, but they do have people whose jobs are dedicated to safety and training. I almost cannot express how incorrectly biased the training is toward freefall, and away from canopy control.

My question for the higher ups would be, "What harm would it do for every jumper to have gone through the equivalant of a two day canopy control course by the time they get their D license?" I'm all for avoiding the knee-jerk reaction, but this well past that point. The trend with open canopy incidents has ben developing for YEARS. I can't see how adding a few requirements to the different licenses is going to do any harm. By the time a jumper is seeking a license, they're hooked. Building in an hour or two of classroom time, and a hop n pop or three won't disillusion any newbies, especially not if the training is 'known' to be important, and part of making a 'real' skydiver.

The 'we' I'm concerned about is skydiving in general. There have been no changes to the training or the WL situation. All of the posts last year agreed that these were the areas in need of attention. I still have no idea which area needs more attention, or how to blend them into a unified plan, but I am sure that SOME attention to these areas is needed. Again, I didn't look at the stats, but I would guess that the numbers for open canopy incdents between '04 and '05 are very close. Combine that with the zero change to training and equipment selection, and yeah, I guess this no better than before. Keep in mind that our (you and I) personal level of information or feelings about the situation means nothing here. Even every jumper who reads DZ.com is still just a portion of the community, and all they are seeing is some discussion between jumpers online. The change needs to be clear and concrete, and come from the top. Get the USPA at make a move, and the DZO's will follow suit. They will pass it on to their instructional staff, who will take the ideas and guidelines and use them to make new skydivers. As jumpers retire (or frap in with open canopies), and newbies show up to replace them, the changes will 'infect' the population.

Please don't make me cut and paste my own posts again. You can't apply the science of statistics to this situaiton due to the human factor. I understand that statisticly speaking, you can't just give an answer in the absence of information, and expect it to be right. In this case, yes, you can give an answer, and yes, it is the right answer. I explained why in my previous post. One more time, unless the answer is an absolure 'yes' it needs to be a 'no' unitl proven otherwise. For example, "Can I point this gun at you and pull the trigger, yes or no?" Without previous knowledge that the gun is not loaded, the answer is no. The gun may not be loaded, but if you don't know that for sure, the answer will be no. If you had just handed the gun to the person, and you personally claered it of all rounds, then the answer might be a yes. Note how the 'yes' in only appropriate in the presence of first hanbd knowledge the gun is not loaded. If you were to answer, 'Maybe, it depends if the gun is loaded.", you have the possibility that the person has no firearms experience, and thinks that the gun is not loaded. This is like your 'maybe a 150 is OK' position. The jumper now sees the maybe, and makes the judgement on their own as to if the situaiton is appropiate for them to jump a 150. With 25 jumps I hardly think they have the experience to accurately make such a judgement.

I know last winter there were some lengthy threads regarding the state of canopy conrol, and how it related to Wl and training. The debates raged on over which was the answer, WL restrictions or improved training, with the consensus being that a combination of the two was needed. Either way, everyone agreed that there was a problem, and it needed fixing. Fast forward to present day, and I'd have to say that we're no better off than we were a year ago. I haven't checked the stats, but I'm sure they don't look great next to the numbers for 2k4. What I do know is that there really has been very little change in the managment of WL or canopy control training. This fucking sucks. On top of it all, I just got my bank statement, and the USPA officially has my $50 (again).

There's two concepts from statistics that are useful in classifying ordinary every day errors. * bias, or accuracy: Telling people they should always go large is an example of inaccuracy / bias. If a guy with 5 jumps had a valid point, which he explained sufficiently, I would put his experience aside, and consider the point on it's own merits. Conversely, if a guy with 5000 jumps had a point which he couldn't explain very well, I might use his experience to give some extra consideration to the point. *** In this case I appear to have a vaild point, which I have explained in a clear manner, and the experience to back it up. It's the tri-fecta of DZ.com.

Are serious? Could you remove any more context from that statement? You made it almost 100% pointless. Here I'll show you: See how you take a complete sentence, and make it useless by removing the context? "It would be foolish to err"??????? If thats not the most foregone conclusion, I don't know what is. Why not quote the whole sentence, or at least enough of it to make a complete thought, and then react to that?

Did ya read my post? All of it, or just parts? Here's a reminder: With that in mind, and yes, it is an assumptionm it would be foolish to err on the side of risk as opposed to caution. The only hole in my logic is that he's nto regarded as a good pilot by the DZ, and they have him at a lower than average WL, giving him a lower bodyweight, providing a more reasonable WL for the 150. The catch is that he's not a good pilot, making the 150 a bad choice. This isn't rocket science friend. Look at the facts presented, pull whatever usable info you can from them, and make a judgement based on that.

So far, the other respondents have told you either ehat they know, or at least who they are. So far, you have stated neither. Here's what you don't seem to know (or if you do, you don't sem to acknowledge). The 150 is generally regarded as the transition size, where WL needs to be looked at differently. This subject has been discussed, and put into practice with regards to the lighter female students (100ish lbs.). At 150 and under the line length is such that the canopy becomes 'twitchy' in comparison to what youwant to see an inexperienced pilot under. Indeed, there are extremes, like an 85 lb. student, who may be bale to get away with it, but they are the exception, not the rule. Here's the bitch of it all. If you had read the thread, you'd see that the DZ he jumps at has given him a 190 to jump at the 25 jump level. Provided he's an exceptional pilot (which he claims to be) it only stands to reason that the DZ would have him at an above average WL. IF that puts him under a 190, we're looking a weight of at least 170 lbs. Add gear and his WL on a 150 is out of the question for a guy with 25 jumps. How you missed this, I do not know. The other reason you're wrong (which you are) is that your refusal to divuldge any info about yourself or your experience leads one to believe you're hiding something. Is it your lack of experience? Or is it lack of confidence in your posts? Either way it makes no difference. If a guy with 5 jumps had a valid point, which he explained sufficiently, I would put his experience aside, and consider the point on it's own merits. Conversely, if a guy with 5000 jumps had a point which he couldn't explain very well, I might use his experience to give some extra consideration to the point. It seems as if you lack a point or experience or both.

I'm not worried about those already jumping wickedly small and fast canopes. They can maim themselves all day long. However, I think that if jumpers had a better base of knowledge, they may maim themselves a little less often. Although, I think a factory run high performance course for swooping canopies would be cool. If PD ran Velo swoop camp with the team guys running it, I think people would flock to it. Diito for Percision or Icarus.