davelepka

How hard would it be to make this happen? Here are few thoughts illustrating how not hard it would be. Once the cirriculum has been established, which would be the hardest part, I see each DZ having a staff meeting for rated instructors and coaches. At this meeting, have the guy with the best grasp of the material review it for the staff. This is just to make sure that everyone is on the same page. Total time, maybe 30 min. Next, the DZ needs to scedule two or three times when each canopy control lesson will be taught. Maybe one early in the season, and one later. Keep in mind that the lessons that are intgrated into AFF would apply toward the A license, so you only need to hold a classroom session for the B, C, and D license graduates. The only requirement for the training date would be that you have the previous license already. For example, if you have your B, you can take the C class at any time before applying for your C license. Now for the actual class, scedule it after jumping some evening. The whole session would be about an hour betweem lecture time and open discussion. Each participant would give the instructor $5 for their time. That's it. Done deal. You don't need to have any supervised jumps, or exersices. Air to air is silly, and you really don't need to 'offically' watch someone land. There's no reason to test any of the practical info either. What's important is that people have the info, not how well they test. What I think would be interesting is how many people participate in the classroom time who aren't up for the next license. My feeling is that if you have a class going on, and it's $5, plenty of newbies will show up, just to advance their knowledge. The more thought I put into this, the more I want my $50 back from the USPA. They suck.

You were jumping yesterday? If the student had no flare, I blame the instructor 100%. He should have his rating pulled immediately.

Are you sure? I know there are stats somewhere around here that breakdown the WL and jump # for incidents. It is limited to fatals or reported incidents, and I'm sure there are many that don't get reported. I know there are plenty of low turns attributed to newbies on reasonably sized canopies who either had an obstacle problem or were just trying to get into the wind over a large open field. The best thing for these people would have been better planning several thousand feet earlier. These are the jumpers who need to have some additional classroom time. A little question and answer, along with some 'what if's' would not only get the knowledge into their brain, but maybe impress upon tham that this is an area that deserves their attention, and that they would be wise to spend some of their own time thinking about canopy control.

Shirley YOU can't be serious. OK, really, this never had anything to do with swooping. I'm sure there are 50 non-swooping related things most D license applicants have never thought of with regards to canopy control. Should we classify them 'expert' skydivers without that knowledge? Furthermore, who ever mentioned a multiple choice test. Seeing as the whole thread is about the short comings of the USPA's traiing criteria, why would we arbitrarily stick with the current multiple choice format? People seem to jump to the conclusion that canopy coaching entails swooping, and thus requires a swooper to teach. Both of these are incorrect. An in depth discussion about the principals of flight (as they apply to canopies), wind/weather conditions, and general strategy and thought processes under canopy would go a long way toward improving safety. Offer some exercises to illustrate the classroom points in the real world (at altitude), and you have a more informed jumper, with the hope that the understanding will foster some additional interest. Once they begin to understand more of what's happening, there's a better chance they'll want to persue it further. By jumping to conclusions as well as limiting your options to what you have already seen really cock-blocks the whole process. There's no reason that this can't be approached in a diffeent manner than what we are used to.

Large docile canopies, even with the brakes still set, if flown to the ground will result in more of an impact than people seem to think. The combination of the vertical component and the horizontal add up to quite an impact. As far as the Phantom reserve goes, that would be my choice for an unconsious landing.

You almost got me on that one. I had to re-read my post to figure it out. My refernce to 'ZERO' doubt in my mind that I will land safely is in regards to factors within my control such as the selection of my equipment and my selection to make a perticular skydive. This was in line with the gist of the thread; which is consious desicions made regarding AAD's, and their use. The second statement was in the end of the post where I was interjecting some of my thoughts on safety and general survival. It was reffering to the unknown, random factors the pop up from time to time. My point was that with those factors out there, why not take every advantage you can, so if one does pop up on you, you are as ready to as you could be. I suppose I could have made that a little more clear, but when I get going, I jump to some conclusions which are foregone in my mind, but sometimes less obvious to others. It's almost a stream of consiousness thing, and it's another reason why this is a shitty way to communitcate.

Doubts about what? Your performance during the jump? Your acuracy on landing? We all do. Doubts about surviving your parachute descent? Not me. You can look at this thing from both sides all day long. I use an AAD becasue it's a good idea, and it has proven itslef to be a 'no penalty' layer of safety I can add to my skydive. By 'no penalty' I mean that it does not interfere with my skydiving in any way. The only penalty of any kind is the cost, and that is low in comparison to the benefits. I have had doubts in the past. Maybe my first wingsuit jump. This was years ago, when the first Birdman suits hit the market, and there was no safety record to speak of. Would I do the same today? I'm not sure. It may have been a mistake on my part. It may have been prudent to wait, and see how the suits performed on the market. Maybe wait until Birdman certified some instructors, and taken a FJC. Regardless of the mistakes I have made in the past, what's more important now are the things I know today. If you are happy taking chances, rock on. I prefer to be a bit more conservative. Sure I fly a small canopy, and I swoop, but I have been doing it for years, and it has become the norm for me. I took chances when I was youger, and less experienced. It seemed worth the risk then, but now it seems better to be more cautious, and come back tomorrow for more cautious fun. Thats just fucked up. My survival is my #1 concern. Lets face it, if I don't survive, whatever concerns I may have had become irrelevant.

I already did a wingloading thread. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.

Well, if you really want to know, then yes. Any activity you feel you NEED an AAD for, cannot be a good idea. Do I coach new freefliers? Yes I do. Will I do it without an AAD? Thats a tough question, as I prefer to always jump with an AAD, but, the presence of an AAD has nothing to do with my decision. If you feel an AAD is needed to increase your chances for survival, you may be making the wrong skydive. I have ZERO doubt when I leave the plane with a freefly student that I wil land safely and in one piece. ZERO. As for AFF instructors, I would say the same thing. If you don't feel confident doing your job on your own, you've got the wrong job. This isn't preschool, and it's not a video game. You do everything you can to keep yourself alive, or you may not be. Everything includes proper equipment selection as well as proper skydive selection. Miss the mark on either one, and you're leaving yourself exposed to whatever's out there (I don't know what's out there, but it scares the crap out of me, and I'll do whatever I can to avoid finding out what it is).

Ever seen a student land with no flare? Ever seen a student land with no flare, and their brakes still stowed? I have seen both, and it's brutal. This is on a 280+ student canopy, loaded at .75 or under. Brutal. Who's got a 280 reserve? Anyone? Anyone?

This is simple: Use an AAD, it's another layer of safety. As far as complacency, any jumper who would rely on an AAD, or use it as a crutch/excuse to do something they wouldn't do without an AAD, is a dumbass. This jumper is dangerous any way you look at it. This jumper is the one who really needs the AAD.

So far, all seem to agree that additional traiing is needed, the sticking point, however, is if the USPA needs to be involved or not. There are a few good reasons why some structure and uniformity are needed, and due to a lack of options, the USPA would be the best to administer them. Here's why: - Who is qualified to teach canopy control? We all know that the best swooper on the DZ is not always the best teacher, but more often than not, the guy who is going to start a canopy school will be th ebest swooper, who may really just want to teach swooping, but will most likely take on beginner students because beginners have money too. - Provided we can dodge problem #1, and jumper with teaching skills steps up. what will they teach? In inverse of problem #1 is that the best teacher is not always the best canopy pilot. Furthermore, the ideas this teacher may have may not be the best or most effective techniques for canopy control. - Lets say we can get a good teacher with a good lesson plan, we have the 'water', how do you get the horses to drink? With the added cost of this coaching, and many jumpers feeling that either, "I'm not planning on swooping, so it's not for me", or "Canopy control is simple, I'm a natural", you have a situation where the instructor and lesson plan mean nothing. So given the above problems, how do you avoid them? It's really pretty simple. - Current instructors and coaches are qualified to teach. Why? Because all of them have either taken the coaches course, taken the BIC, or been an instructor long enough to have built up years of experience teaching. - The material is gathered and structured with the assistance of the best canopy pilots and the best instrucotrs around. After being assembled into a logical and teachable lesson plan, the material is always subject to review and revision, with any changes being faxed/e-mailed/mailed to the group member DZ's. - The training is not optional. The cost is built into the cost of AFF training and licensing. You want to graduate, you get the training. You want a license, you get the training. Period. So that solves those problems, lets see how we could implement all that into reality. - AFF traiing will include more in depth canopy control. The first 4 or 5 levels will not change, but beyond that the chances of jumper sticking with skydiving go up, as does the need for the training. During the later levels of AFF, the ground prep time goes down, as the student is building experience. Instead of writing that time off, apply it to teaching some more ideas and strategies for canopy control. - B, C, and D license requirements need to include formal canopy training. Each license will be paired with a lesson on canopy control, with each lesson being more advanced than the last. The end result? By the time you have your D license, you will have been through at least four canopy contol lessons, which would be designed to give you a good understanding of canopies, their flight, and your job as a pilot. OK, now everyone send me $50.

With the scope of canopies available today, a few years and couple hundred jumps is a newbie. The canopy that prompted this post, a 107 Stiletto, would require a few years and a couple hundred jumps to even be worth checking their references. Any less experience shouldn't even be a consideration.

Thanks for helping me make my point. 100 jumps and 1 year in the sport, and you've got a plan. 30,000+ members, all dropping $50 a year, and the USPA has 'Seek professional coaching'.

Yes, that does piss me off. What prompted my to post was that it seems they are also not going to persue the educational side of the problem. I always admitted that the issue needed attention in regards to the equipment and the training. Up until this point I was hopeful that the USPA would at least pick up the educational ball and run with it. Somebody call my ex-wife, she'll be happy to hear that I'm wrong again.

So the head of the USPA, the only organization in the US (that I know of) that certifies skydiving instructors, says in the same editorial that the USPA isn't getting involved in additional canopy instruction, and then his first reccomandation to those interested in not being an example in his next editorial is to seek professional caoching? Is that not contradictory? Who is a professional? Where can I locate these individuals? He freefly admits that open canopy incidents are the largest problem area skydiving has, and that the USPA, short of making assinine reccomendations, is going to do zippo.

Latest Parachutist, Capital Commentary, by Chris Needles. The subject, canopy flight and it's related dangers, and how to avoid them. After some blah, blah, and yadda, yadda, he gets down to some bullet points on how to improve safety under canopy. Bullet point #1 reads (I shit you not): Get Professional Coaching. So you would need a professional instructor in that case, eh? I wonder where you would look for such an instructor? IF ONLY THERE WERE ONLY AN ORGANIZATION THAT TRAINED AND CERTIFIED SKYDIVING INSTRUCTORS.

This has been suggested elswhere in regards to this incident. The key factor here is that the canopy pilot has the most freedom of where they fly and land. AC are limited to a specific pattern for their intended runway, even more so on a controlled field. Additionally, the canopy pilot can make changes to their flight plan at a much lower altitude than a pilot. At 100 ft or so, a canopy can make a flat turn, and land safely in an alternate location. An AC in a landing configuration at 100 ft. has very few options, asdie from adding power for a go-around, and slight degree of turn. I'm not suggesting that AC pilots close their eyes, and fly their instruments down to the runway, but in the big picutre, it is YOUR job to stay out of their way. Given the outcome of this incident, this seems like the prudent thing to do anyway. I do not have any information regarding this incident in perticular. There may have been extentuating circumstances which contributed to the outcome.

Any thoughts on a video sales presentation that involves actual video? Also, maybe keep the positive spin going. Terms like 'shell' out' reference to the payment might be out of place. On the upside, you may have a future working on Late Night with Conan O'Brien.

Man, if that's true, that's the worst news I've heard in a long time.

Yeah, fuck those newbies. I'm gald that you never asked for/got any help from anyone when you were a newbie. Especialy about gear, just buy something and shut-up is what I always say.

I haven't jumped a Xaos in a couple years, and heven't jumped a VX since they were considered 'not for terminal', so I don't know how the new ones open, but in what area to they open better than the Velo? What seems to the main complaint people have witht the openings on the Velo? My experience has always been good with the Velo openings, and I'm just wondering what the VX or Xaos does that could be better.

Would you reccomend that a newer pilot begin with a more simplified flat turn? One in which the airspeed was held fairly constant (say 1/2 brakes) leaving the only variable for the pilot to deal with the turn itself? My impression is that in a low altitude, high pressure situation, a newer pilot would have a better chance for a 'good' outcome if the airpseed was held constant. Although it may not be ideal for a landing, 1/2 brakes would give an 'acceptable' airspeed, where the manuver you described would have variations in airspeed throughout the approach, which opens the door for the possibiliy of an 'unacceptable' airspeed at landing. I do agree that your approach is a correct and true flat turn, and can be a valuable tool for any pilot, but it seems to me that a newer pilot would be wise to begin with the simplified version of the flat turn, and as thier skills build, gradutate to the more complex, coorditanted manuver you described. Any thoughts?

Are you under the impression that people who jump out of planes are all adults (this is not joke)? Are you alos under the impression that the eager new jumper, the kind who should not be jumping canopy 'X', is fully utilizing the information available to him or her, and making a purely logical decision, without emotion playing a factor? Lets be realistic. Not everyone is a super genius (or whatever you are, I know it's something along those lines). Furthmore, the consequences of making the wrong choice are long-standing and permanent. I defy you to find the wheelchair bound jumper who stands by his choice, and would not go back and do things differently if given the choice.

Come on now. Read the rule of thumb again, it states, 'everything else being equal'. So yes, if you have an overloaded AC, and are pushing the engine, and playing with a stall, wouldn't you rather have 2/3 of the runway ahead of you? Imagine that same scenario, but with only 10% of the runway up ahead (remember, all thnigs are equal). Not that I would want to be in either situation, but the more runway the better.