davelepka

The amount of play isn't a set number, it's based on a variety of factors including the canopy, condition of the line set, the length of the risers and the lenght of the jumpers arms. The 'standard' way to set your brake lines is via the stall point. You want it to be at full arms extension with your wrists rolled forward so your fists are pointing down as is you're 'punching' the ground. In that position, the canopy should continue flying for a couple seconds before rocking back into a stall. Setting them there will ensure that you can get 100% of the flare out of your canopy, but your odds of stalling it close to the ground are quite low. It would take a prolonged input of full arms extension including your wrists rolled forward to stall it, not likely something you'll do by accident on landing. Once you have that established, you can then try some front riser manuvers while watching the tail for deflection. Be sure to clear traffic while doing this, but just do a front riser turn while watching the tail. Hold the turn through a full revolution or two, and see what happens. Some tail deflection is not that bad, but when it's enough that it causes the canopy to buffet or buck, that's too much. In that case, you'll can let your steering lines out some more, and do the test again. The catch is that if you let them out more than the ideal 'stall' setting, that you lose some of your flare power on the bottom end. By making them longer, your stall point will be beyond your reach, and you won't be able to get to 100% of it. A word of caution, only let the brake lines out 2" max at a time. Test the new setting and adjust as needed, repeating until it's right. Another (bigger caution) letting your brake lines will significanty change the way the canopy flies and feels. With shorty brake lines, the canopy will dive less, and respond to input sooner. When you let them out, the canopy will dive longer, and the flare will be deeper in the stroke so it will take more input to get the canopy to react. Many jumpers have been caught off guard with a long dive and then a delayed flare when they went to dig out of it. Don't be one of those guys.

Good work. As mentioned, canopy skills would be a good place to start. Look into canopy control courses anywhere near your home DZ, and it might be a nice way to take a trip to a new DZ if you have 'something to do' when you get there. Up until that point, order a canopy of Brian Germains book, The Parachute and it's Pilot, and read it through. Beyond that, make sure you carefully consider the winds, the spot, possible outs, and the landing pattern before each jump. Have a 'formal' flight plan in mind, and then do your best to follow through on the plan. If you make each jump and your 'goal' is to land on the DZ, you'll probably come close to 100% success rate, and but you'll develop very little accuracy. If you plan to fly your pattern a specific way and pick a spot to land, you can then 'debrief' your performance and compare your results to your plan. The good news is that you can do all this after whatever sort of 'fun' freefall you want. Practice RW, freefly, tracking, etc, whatever, and then also practice your canopy skills. The two don't have to be mutually exclusive, but in order to do both on the same jump, you really need to plan each one out to include specific skills and goals for each phase of the jump. The disclaimer - consult with an instructor before going much beyond a 2-way RW jump. As an A licesne holder, you already have a dozen or so 2-ways under your belt, but jumps with more people, or freeflying or tracking will have special considerations you didn't have on 2-way RW jumps.

That might be true, but the consequences of having a light bulb in operation beyond it's useful life are quite different than that of an AAD. Do you disagree with life limits on aircraft components? Aileron control cables, and wing attachment bolts, and the like? A life limit on an ADD is the same thing, and I certainly want my 'aircraft' (my rig) to be held to the same standards as any other aricraft. I like for the materials used to be tracked from the loom through production, I like for the designs and specs to be certified, and I like them worked on by a certified rigger. Why would I go to the trouble (and cost) of all that only to stuff a piece of 'discount' electronics in the reserve compartment? The gear, and all the trouble that manufactuers go through to ensure it's reliability, is what makes this sport possible. Jumpers can find a way to kill themselves when wearing eve the best rigs. Imagine if in addition to all the 'user error' related deaths, there were just as many due to gear failure because of 'discount' materials, design, or construction.

Ditto the idea of setting up the right edit suite to handle the volume. You can set up a template in the editing program so the editor has very little work to do aside from loading memory cards and labeling folders/DVDs. Pree has it right about high school kids (or close). Check the local high schools and colleges for audio visual clubs/programs, and see if anyone wants a job. There are always kids looking to get into editing or movie making who would love a summer job being paid to do just that. We have a high schooler as our editor, and videos and stills go home with the customer within 15 or 20 min of them landing. The camera staff gets the memory cards right to the editor, and by the time the students are out of jumpsuits/harnesses and got their certificates, it's only minutes until the DVDs are in their hands.

No it doesn't, not even close. Look at the failure rates, and the rate of returns for operational issues, and that's where you'll see the differences. I can think of 10 people who have had problems with their Neptunes in the past few years, and about half of that number who have had problems with a Cypres in the last 17 years. Note- not to disparage Neptunes, they are a fine product and seem to be well made and well within accpeted limits for what they are. I have also heard of great customer service anytime there is a problem. AADs are not that expensive. Look at the price of other consumer products and there are tons of electronics above the $1500 price point, and every single one of them is made in far greater numbers than the Cypres and by far larger companies than Airtec. Look at SLR cameras. Cannon makes 2 or 3 models under $1500, and at least that many above that price. They also make 1000's of them per year, and are a huge international corp. Do you think it's crazy that they produce high-end cameras? When it comes to an electronic device that has a cutter aimed at your reserve closing loop at every phase of the jump, from climbout, to high speed freefly, to busy big ways, do you think it's out of the question to expect a high end device? How would you feel knowing that the guy climing out two group in front of you has an iPhone app hooked up to his reserve closing loop? It wouldn't make me happy to still be in the plane.

Just to be fair, as per B Germains WL chart, by 250 jumps you could have been on a 135 (at 1.0) or even a 120 (at 1.1). Beyond that, you have to understand that you are far off the 'norm' in skydiving. When making rules/regulations/laws, you make them to apply to the largest segment of the population, that being the 'average', the middle of the bell curve. Even if people on the ends of that curve aren't perfectly served, you need to govern for the good of the many, not the few. Do you really feel as if a 135 or a 120 would have been overly restrictive? The truth is, you might have had it better than bigger jumpers who might have been able to go 0.1 higher in WL, but would have still been on a 150 or larger. You might have ended up with a more responsive canopy by going with the smaller wing, even at a slightly lower WL. Beyond that, .09 WL isn't rediculously low, and certainly isn't something that any manufacturer would consider 'unsafe' or 'under-loaded' for any of their canopies (HP models aside).

The question is, what are they basing that perception on? I can base my perception of how different canopies fly on my experience flying them, and seeing the differences. Unless you've flown 'them all', you can't really say which ones are, or aren't, good for you. You could guess, but if you guess wrong, the consequences can be dire. So even if someone has education, their ability to handle a canopy remains unknown until they try it. So the best method to dealing with this is to ensure that jumpers start at an appropriate level, and move one step at a time while taking an appropriate level of time at each step. Without the steps, and some sort of requirement for time on each step, you could have jumpers making 5 or 10 jumps on one size before downsizing. In my book, that hardly 'proves' their ability to handle that size, and certainly doesn't allow them sufficient time to truely acclimate to the new canopy.

How is that different than we have now? Currently, jumpers have to pass the opinion of the 'powers that be', be that the S&TA, the DZO, or head instructor. The end result is that someone is in charge of what is inappropriate, and that person's opinion becomes the standard. Even if you have a test criteria, in a performance-based test where you cannot provide instruments to record the performance, again, the pass/fail all comes down to the opinion of the test administrator. If a jumper is dedicated enough, they'll blow through the WL chart in short order, and be up to a 'sporty' WL in 300/400 jumps. If a jumper is naturally talented, but not jumping at a fast pace, then they should be held to the WL chart because natural talent will only take you so far, you still need the experience to back it up. I took my son snowboarding for the first time, and within a few hours he was in control and linking turns. I didn't run him right up to the black diamond runs because he picked it up faster than his buddies, I just encouraged him and kept him training on the blue squares. Once he gets some time on the blues, then we'll take a trip upslope to the big stuff. Citing high winds is not going to make your case. Much like canopies, the degree of wind you can handle goes up with experience. If you have less than 100 jumps, you simply shouldn't be jumping in winds too high for a 1.0 WL. If the winds are blowing that hard, you should be on the ground, not finding a smaller canopy to just to get you up in the air. Following the progression allows for a greater level of freedom as you progress, just not before. If the winds are blowing too hard for the canopy you're allowed to be jumping, then they're blowing too hard for you to be up anyway.

That is a problem, but with radios you can build a system to make it workable. Of course a student type radio is a given, but put two of them on the student and have two transmitters on the ground in case one fails. In terms of spotting the canopy, first off a spotter (or two) with binoculars can do a fair job when the jump is from 3500ft. These are seperate from the radio operator, but standing right next to them. Another idea is having the plane do a climbing 180 after the jumper leaves, and then do a 'fly-by' with the JM having a look at the canopy as they pass. In any case, you also want to have a ground to aircraft radio available in case the ground needs info from the plane. If the jumper is having a problem, or is going to land off, the pilot/JM can relay info from the plane down to the ground radio operator, and help to talk the student down off-field. Again, you need a dedicatd person on the ground manning that radio, who can then advise the student radio operator. It takes a team of people and a bit of coordination, but nothing to tough. All of the gear should already be on the DZ, and you can recruit jumpers to fill the various roles. It can be done, and more. I've jumped with Dan Rossi before, and then was amazed to see him packing his own rig. Once you have the basics down of what a good canopy should feel like and how it works, you could do your own canopy check and use dual radios for landing. As I recall, Dan tried to keep a couple fo AFF Is on every freefall jump 'just in case', but otherwise he just jumped and had a blast.

Hookit hit the nail on the head, it's a line trim issue. I jumped Stilettos for years, and this was the time in my life when a reline wasn't in the budget, and the openings were the first thing to go. Check the trim, mainly the brake lines. You might just need some new uppers, from the cascade down to the brake setting loop. It's worth tuning up the Stiletto, you won't find a canopy that compares to it. I jump a Velo now because I got hooked on the speed you get from an 800ft dive, but I'll go back to the Stiletto when I get 'old' and can't go that fast anymore, it's a great canopy. An alternative would be to look for a 107 that opens ncier. If you're only at 1.2 with weights, the 107 shouldn't be too high of a loading, and Stiletto's remain big and 'floaty' at anything below 1.5/1.6. Borrow one or get a demo and see what you think.

As others mentioned, you can't let go of the toggle easily if you need to. Another aspect, and this might not apply to everyone, but I use my hands to 'fine tune' my togggle inputs. My arms to the bulk of the work, but I use the position of my wrist to make little 'adjustments' by moving my hands up or down. If the toggle was around my wrist, I lose that entire 'flight control'. The real solution is to use a 'hybrid' grip where you combine a finger grip with wrapping the toggle around your hand. One or the other leaves room for the toggle to slip, or for your primary retention method to fail, using both provides a redundant system. I loop the toggle around my hand, and then make 'half' of a fist and hold the toggle with my pinky and ring-finger. This leaves my first and middle figners open for grabbing the dive loops/rear risers, and let's me grab or drop them without changing anything about he way I'm holding the toggle. This, of course, is only for people using dive loop or rear risers on landing. Everyone else should loop the toggle over their hand. and grasp it with all four fingers to make sure it's stays put.

Sure, do a pull test. Look at the lines. Then replace the risers and remember it's a main and just jump it. The only 'catch' is that I wouldn't sell it without telling the buyer it spent a week in the sun. Otherwise, keep your cutaway cables clean and jump it.

The problem is that you don't have your full range of motion. You can reach everything (besides the silider) in a 'normal' situation, but a malfunciton is anything but normal. The better solution to your problem with the floater bar is better awareness of your hand placement on the aircraft, not trapping your swoop cords under your gloves. Make your hand placement a 'thing' in your head, and be aware of it everytime you climb out. Practice on the ground the correct way to climb out and grab the bar where there is no interference with your swoop cords, and do it that way from now on. When was the last time you shut you finger in a door? Probably when you were a kid, but then you learned to grab the door by the knob or push flat against the face of the door, and not get your hands near the edges. It's the same thing as that, become aware of the problem, devise a solution, and move forward with that plan on each and every jump.

How is that different for an AFFI on a coach dive or an AFF dive? The student is trained for the same pull priorities and EPs, and the chace that they will go for the reserve exists in both scenarios. The difference is in the instructor. As a coach, not trained to pull for anyone and having no experience being docked on (or even close) to anyone at pull time, mistakes can (and will) be made. Dumping out a main as the student pulls the reserve is one of them. An AFFI on the other hand, is trained to dump out students and be tight at pull time. More importantly, they're trained and accustomed to watching the student's actions carefully. An an experienced AFF I, you can go for the student's PC while keep an eye on their hands. If they're out in the 'boxman', they're not going for the handle. If the hands 'disappear' under the jumper, they might very well be going for the handle. I use that trick on tandem/student videos too. If you can see everyones hands, there's a good chance that a parachute is not about to open. If an instructor or students hand(s) disappear, there's a chance they're in there pulling a handle, so act as if they are pulling a handle and be ready for a deployment.

What's your point. Like it or not, jump numbers euquals time under canopy, and the best wat to learn is by doing. So the more jumps you have, the more opportunities you have to learn, it's a simple relationship. If the WL chart was paired with required canopy control courses that coincide with the license program, you would be taking about a jumper with 600+ jumps and 4 canopy control courses under their belt. If that takes a year, two or three isn't the issue. 600 jumps equals 600 canopy flights and 600 landings. There's no reason anyone should advance faster than the chart. If you're making 600 jumps per year, just tough out the year and make the jumps. If you're not doing 600 jumps per year, you don't need to be ahead of the chart anyway. It works itself out. Again, I'll make the comparison to driving, as most people can relate. We all know it took time to become comfortable behind the wheel, and then it took time to 'learn the lessons' of the road where you were doing OK behind the wheel, but still making little mistakes. After a few years, you put it all together, and the majority of drivers manage to make it through the day without any 'errors'. Canopies are the same way. It takes time to build the 'reflex' action of flying a canopy, and then it takes to learn a few lessons, and there's no way to get around either of those. Even the most talented canopy pilot still needs time to 'learn to fly' before their talent can be utilized. If they're talented and jumping hard, that talent will shine through sooner than later, and they have the skill and jump numbers to be on a 'sporty' canopy in no time. Of course, if they're not jumping that hard, then they don't need to be on anything beyond what the WL chart says.

Buy used and cut that number in half. For one, $2.5k is less than $5k, so that's good. The other thing is that you'll want to downsize or change your gear within the first 100 or 150 jumps, and if you buy new you'll lose a ton of money on resale with so few jumps on the gear.

Do you mean that people would rush to downsize if this type of BSR was imminent, in order to be 'grandfathered' in at a higher WL? Some jumpers might do that, but again, you have to plan for the majority, not the (stupid) minority. Any jumper dumb enough to do that can just be added to the list of jumpers the BSR was too late to help. That list is already 10 years long, so if there's a small contingent of jumpers insisting on hopping on it at the last minute, then so be it. Let's focus on the majority of jumpers who will fall in line with the BSR, and every new jumper who comes into the sport from here on in who will only know skydiving with a WL BSR and required canopy control courses.

This is a false premise. Just because there is a small segment of the population that will break the laws is no reason not to have any laws. People pencil whip everything right now, from reserve repack cars, to license proficiency cards, to ratings applications. You're right, it's never going to stop, but that's no reason not to keep moving forward as a society for the 90% (?) of jumpers who do follow the rules.

Just to add some 'reality' to your analogy, if you want to race a Cup car, you need to earn a specific racing license that allows you to be on the track at that level of racing. You have to work your way up to that caliber of car, and the speeds it will hit. I don't know exactly what's involved, but other racing organizations require a certain amount of track time (actual racing) in lower caliber cars, and the completion of driving schools that cater toward the series the driver is tryng to move up to. To me, driving a slower car sounds exactly like a WL limitation, and taking a driving school sounds exactyl like a canopy control course.

They're not the same, the canopies are different. All canopies fly by the same mechansim and theory, the difference is in the degree of response and reaction you get to control inputs. I flare my Velo with the same basic motion that I flared a Manta on my first jump, it's just done at a different speed and with a different level of precision. Determining if a jumper can 'handle' a canopy or not could very well be the same test for any canopy, with the only variable being the canopy. That aside, my take on the whole idea is that it's too few steps along the way. I think the B Germain chart is the way to go when structuring that part of the plan. It maintains sensible WL along the way, but does allow for downsizing (small increments) at 100 jumps intervals. It's hard to argue with a .1 sq ft per pound downsize provided the jumper was doing OK with the current canopy, and had stuck with it for at least 100 jumps. In terms of education, if you tie it in with licensing requirements, the canopy control course could take care of the 'test' requirements for those downsizes. For example, the B license class could be 'proof' the jumper is ready to downsize at 100 jumps, the C would coincide with the 200 jump downsize, and the D at 500 jumps. As for downsizing at 300 and 400 jumps, a simple skills evel could be used. Make it like the PRO rating, with 3 or 4 declared jumps where an insctructor or S&TA observes, and you have to fly a pattern and land within a certain area. If one of the patterns includes a flat turn to final, then so be it.

The current situation is exactly what you describe, each DZO, S&TA or cheif instructor takes care of their own backyard in their own way. The problem with that is two-fold, first it allows for widely differing opinions on what is, or is not, an appropriate canopy or WL for a jumper. Some people (DZO, S&TA, etc) are better at making these choices than others, so if you're a jumper who happens to be a DZ where the decision maker is not that great, you end up getting bum advice. The other side of it, and the other side of the BSR, is the education. If you continue to let things 'fall where they may' from DZ to DZ, how to do provide for the continuing education for the jumpers, or the quality of that education? Correct, and that's why the WL deal needs to be a BSR, and the canopy control courses need to be a licensing requirement. If you look at DZOs and compliance with the rules, one area that seems to do OK is the training and licensing requirements. The USPA has no shortage of changes, revisions, and additions, and most DZOs seem to stand behind those and implement them into their programs. When it comes to BSRs, you introduce the legal principal of the 'standard industry practice'. In an activity no governed by actaul laws, the legal principal is that if you can prove that you followed the 'standard industry practice', then you did your duty and are not responsible for accidents. Let's say a student goes in. If the DZ followed the UPSA student guidelines, used USPA rated instructors, and the like, then they followed the 'SIP' and that's their legal remedy in court. If it turns out they used a rig without an AAD, or a non-rated instructor, then the incident quickly becomes the result of gross negligence due to not following the 'SIP', and gross negligence is one of the things that the waiver cannot protect against. In the end, aside from it just being a good idea, this is the reason that DZOs follow the BSRs. Once the USPA puts it in wrinting that it's a 'requirement', they have to toe the line, or risk losing big time in the event of an incident. Not quite. A little less than 10 years ago I made my play for the BOD with these ideas, and got nowhere. I was told that this type of thing wasn't likely to appear on any agenda of any BOD meeting anytime soon. A couple years later, in a one-on-one encoutner with a BOD member I brought it up again, and got a similar reposnse. At that point I got the hint, and gave up on the BOD. As I've mentioned many times before, this is an issue of such significance in the community, that it shouldn't take a member bringing it up for to get attention from the BOD. Things like a slight change in the rules for competition accuracy might take a memeber initiative to get some attention. The competition accuracy crowd is small, and unless you actually compete, you might not know the ins and outs of the accuracy scene. In the case of open canopy incidents, it's (seemingly) too big to ignore, and the fact that the BOD has managed to do so for so long, indicates there's some sort of systematic problem. As far as posting it on the internet, you tell me a better method for putting my thoughts out there and reaching 'the masses'. A big part of this issue is shifting the thinking of the community toward conservative canopy choices and contunuing education. The USPA, being the 'ruling body' in the US, can give those issues immediate credibility by taking a hard line on them, and making a BSR and license requirement. Short of that, I can post my feelings and veiwpoints, and hopefully shift the thinking of 'some' jumpers in the meantime.

'Might be' and 'probably' were in reference to non-fatal incidents, a subject for which 'real evidence' does not exist and one that is not being referenced in thinking about the BSR. Again, moving forward on the assumption that we can all agree the situation with open canopy incidents is significant and needs addressing, and that doing nothing is no longer acceptable. With that in mind I challenge anyone to present one of two things - 1) An alternate idea to address the problem -or- 2) Any reason not to move forward with the idea of a WL BSR combined with required canopy control courses, even if it's just a stop-gap measure until someone can come with a valid alternative. In other words, what's the harm? Instead of simply pointing out what's 'wrong' with the idea, how about be productive and offer up a solution that's 'right'?

Ok, so if a level '2' canopy license allows you to jump up to a 1.1 WL, and a level '3' canopy license lets you jup at a 1.2 WL, and you need to make 100 jumps on level '2' before taking the test to advance to level '3', then in essence, that's the same as a WL chart. With just a chart, the advancement criteria would be simply making the jumps. With your idea, the advancement criteria is making the jumps, and then demonstrating certain skills on your existng canopy before moving forward. The idea being put forth, that combines a WL chart with canopy control courses at each license is almost the same thing, just with bigger intervals. You would have a canopy control course in order to get your A license with 25 jumps. and then you would able to jump up to a 1.0 WL. The next canopy control course would be at the B license level, which is 50 jumps min. The next downsize isn't until 100 jumps, when you would be cleared to jump at a 1.1 WL, provided you took the B license canopy control course. A jumper who chooses not to take the course, is free to continue jumping at a 1.0 WL. The next downsize and canopy control course would coincide at 200 jumps, when a jumper is C qualifed. Again, take the course, move up to 1.2, Don't take the course, continue on at 1.1. Finally, there are two bumps in WL at 300 and 400 jumps, with the final canopy control course coming at 500 jumps when the jumper is D qualifed. Here's an idea, what if we modify the plan to include a test procedure at 100, 300 and 400 jumps, where there is no corresponding license qualification and canopy control course? This way, every downsize up to 500 jumps would have some sort of oversight to go along with it. It could be a simple matter of an instrucotr or S&TA sign off, with the jumper demonstrating a couple of apporaches and landings within a given accuracy. Keep in mind, I'm not talking about a test-out process, where a jumper can move ahead of the WL chart, just a test-up procedure to make sure they should even be moving up with the chart at all. The chart is not a required downsizing progression, but the max allowable WL and you don't have to downsize to match it, but you can't downsize beyond it.

I'm not sure what you're sorry about, but it's a fact that the information does not exist in the detailed, recorded form required for the application people are asking about here. The question was asked in an attempt to focus the efforts of a WL BSR or canopy control training. In order to do that, you do need detailed info as to the jumper, equipment, enviromental factors, and some sort of root cause. Provided that, you can analyze the data and use to help form a program to solve whatever problems lead to the incidents. I understand that people and DZs will remember bad accidents, but in the detail that would be needed to really catagorize them and study the details for the purpose of statistical analysis. I do agree that there should be some sort of required reporting of any time a jumper is taken to the hospital.

Low pulls. Now there's a min pull altitude BSR, and reliable AADs available, and that slice of the pie chart has become insignificant. If you think jumpers will find a new way to kill themsleves, so be it. Let's get open canopy incidents reduced to an insignificant slice of the pie chart, and see what new way we devise to kill ourselves, then we can work on that. Let's face it, it took a massive shift in canopy design, technology and flight styles to make open canopy incidents the #1 killer of skydivers. If you think there's another massive shift in the sport out there to replace it, you might be right. It might also be that there isn't such a shift in the works, and the overall fatalites might see a lasting downward trend. Skydiving is a fairly new sport. In the eary days we lacked developed training and specailized gear. Sport skydiving specific gear came first, and the sport got safer. Then the focus shifted to better training, and again, the sport got safer. Next up was the implementaion of technology to the gear in the form of AADs, and more modern materials and design, and again, the sport got safer. We're really in the first great gear 'revolution' since the training has become structured anf focused. Back in the first gear revolution, skydiving was still an 'outlaw' sport, and not the business that it is today. All we need to do is learn to take the structure and professionalism that the sport has developed and apply it to the gear we have available. It's clear that the canopies and techniques for flying them are VASTLY different that they used to be, yet the training and regualtion of them have not changed all that much, and that needs to change.