davelepka

No. There is no data regarding incidents in general, data is only collected for fatal incidents. Anything non-fatal, from an ankle sprain up to paralysis is nto recorded and does not appear in any statistical analysis. On the subject of D-licesne holders being more prevalent on the fatality lists, it might be the case. Considering that they typically jump the highest loaded canopies, and are probably the most active group of jumpers in terms of annual jumps, it's not surprising. Faster canopies increases your risk of an incident ending in a fatality, and higher frequency of jumps equals a higher chance for an incident.

Ok, so how do you determine when a jumper is qualifed to demonstrate the skills for 'x' level of canopy or WL? Without a guideline, you would have all sorts of newbies trying to get an advanced rating. Some of them will get lucky and pass the eval, but how long will their luck hold out while their jumping at that level all the time? So if you have a minnumum experience required to take 'x' class, then you essentailly have a WL restriction based on jumps. On the subject of being held back, if you look at Brian Germains chart, do you really think it's holding anyone back? A jumper with 200 jumps is cleared up to a 1.2 WL. If the guy weighs 165/170, than a 170 sq ft canopy would fit into the chart, do you really think that's holding the guy back? Nine times out of ten, when you hear about a jumper who sounds like they have a 'high' WL, it generally just one or two sizes off what the WL chart would designate. The purpose of the chart is to come up with a plan that conservative enough that it works for everyone, without being overly conservative. If you do the math, and look at what jumpers would using if they worked with the chart, and then looked at where they would be if they went one size smaller, you can see that the 'one size smaller' choice is generally on the smaller side, and could raise eyebrows on some cases. Overall, the point is that canopy selection and canopy control has evolved to the point that the status quo just isn't cutting it anymore. What canopies can do, and what people want to do with them has changed, and so must the training for using them. Part of that is teaching proper canopy selection, and since a huge part of that is experienced based, the chart will 'help' people until they have the experience to handle an 'anything goes' policy.

I challenge you to point out one case where I insulted someone because they didn't agree with my views on this. I may have expressed my views, and specifically addressed their concerns, but insults were never a part of it. As for you, it wasn't your point of view I was disapproving of, it was your delivery. There was no substance to your post, and in truth, it didn't even make that much sense. The poster chimed in a gave his supprt to the idea of a WL BSR, and you replied 'The road to hell is paved with good intentions'. What is he, or anyone, supposed to take away from that? Good intentions lead to hell? Should the poster abandon his good intentions all together, or just be weary of where they are leading him? More to the point, how does that relate to what he said (specifically) and the subject at hand? My assertion is that your post was a cheap shot, and coming from someone of your caliber, was lazy and unproductive. Explain to me the relevance of your post with regards to the post you replied to, and this thread in general, and prove me wrong. Again, I recieved multiple PMs in support of calling you out on that post. It was not your finest moment, and I'm not the only one who feels that way.

You don't think the fatality reports have brought this forward every year for the last decade (or more)? I'll bite on your example with DSE. He knows about wingsuiting rating because he's involved with wingsuit training everyday. The rest of us don't much about the details because it's not a problem that's plagued the sport for over a decade and that has been put into print in the USPAs very oen magazine for each of those years. If the wingsuit community wants something done, they need to step up and make it happen because it might not be apparent to non-wingsuiters that there is a problem or a need for a rating. Every jumper flies a canopy, and the fact that open canopy incidents are the #1 killer of skydivers has been common knowledge for many, many years. This is not the type of thing the membership should have to initiate, this is the type of thing that should be on the top of the list at every BOD meeting until the trend is reversed. Trying to push the responsibility off on the membership is a cop-out. The whole purpose of the BOD is to handle the business of the USPA, and that business is regulating skydiving in the US (mostly so the FAA doesn't have to). The membership did it's job when it elected the BOD to do theirs.

Because that would be unreasonable. It is possible to jump HP canopies at high WL without incident. People do it everyday, and in truth, some of the most active jumpers use that type of equipment. The idea of a WL chart, at least the ones that have been presented, are not unreasonable. Do you really think that a max WL of 1 to 1 is that far off base for a guy with under 100 jumps? Is 1.1 once you get beyond 100 jumps much different than you would adise a young jumper? Let's say a guy has 101 jumps, and weighs in at 170lbs. What would you reccomend for this jumper, given 'average' canopy control skills? A 170 sq ft canopy would put him at just over 1.1 and have him pretty darn close to the numbers on the chart. What's the alternative? A 150? Unless you would reccomend a 150 for this jumper, then the chart represents a reasonable number that's not all that tough to stick to.

How is it going away? Nobody is telling you not to jump, or when to jump. You still have access to the largest number of DZs in the world where you can jump for the least amount of money in the world. What it would say is that if you want to jump, and be a part of the USPA 'community', that you have to adhere to some standards until you have earned the right to make your own choices. If you want all the benefits of jumping in the US, and at a USPA DZ, then you also need to abide by the rules set forth. There is an area of the sport that we have identifed as being problematic, and therefore it needs to be addressed. How many people fly x-braced canopies? 10% of the jumpers? Of that, how many of them would be 'uderqualifed' in the eyes of a BSR? 10% of that? An x-brace BSR would effect, at best, 1% of jumpers. What I'm interested in is a plan that will effect the largest number of jumpers. We're dealing with the biggest problem in the sport, so we need to address it as such. I'm a reasonable guy. I know that sooner or later, every jumper earns the right to call their own shots when it comes to canopy selection. It's not magic, or calculus, it's flying a parachute and everyone figures it out eventaully. So we have this problem, and it seems to span jumpers of all abilities at all WL. With that in mind, if we make a plan that reaches virtually all jumpers, we're on the right track. Eventaully, you have to cut a jumper loose to do whatever they want, let's day that's at 700 or 800 jumps. You tell me how you would feel about a guy with 750 jumps, who has been through 4 canopy control courses, and followed a reasonable canopy progression along the way? Where would you rate his chances for success after being 'cut loose'? I'm guessing pretty high, and that's why this type of plan will work (and does work outside of the US). It takes new jumpers and keeps a lid on them while they learn the 'tricks of the trade', through both education and building experience. It also sets them up for the best chances for success when they're on their own. Barring any other ideas, why not give it a shot?

That's aways been one of the goals I had in mind when I support these type of programs. How can the USPA expect people to take this serisouly when they themsevles don't? Important things have 'teeth' behind them, a reason for people to sit up and pay attention. Roads have speed limits, and there are real consequences for breaking them. What do you think the average driver would do if the speed 'limit' was changed to a speed 'reccomendation', and cops were no longer allowed to hand out tickets? What do you think the average, young, type A personality, skydiver would do when driving on those roads? Giving the situation 'teeth' makes it important to everyone. Most people will just fall in line and accept the 'new way'. Some jumpers will balk, but in time they'll either gain enough experience to just do what they want anyway, or quit the sport. That 'problem' solves itself (eventaully). For all the jumpers who accept the new situation, and every new jumper who takes up the sport after the new regs are in place, it becomes an effective tool for educating jumpers, keep them on safer WL and canopy types, and building an awareness of why canopy control is an important skill to have (and maintain). I don't know, but I would love to hear if anyone does?

Again, the only logical conclusion I can reach from reading this is that a WL BSR would help. The jumpers in your example knew they were pushing the limits, but maybe not the degree they were pushing or the consequences of their actions. So even with 'information', they still made poor choices. So you need more then information (these people were told they were pushing), you need a WL regulation as well. People may know they are pushing the limits, but they either believe they are special, or that the limits are improperly placed, so they do it anyway. In the case they think they're special, anytime you give them the choice to push, or not push, they're going to go with 'push' because they feel they can get away with it. In the case they feel the limits are improperly places, they'll simply go outside the limits if they are able. take away the ability to go outside the limits, and you have solved that problem. Again, this is not a 'magic bullet' that can solve every facet of every problem. A WL BSR combined with required canopy control courses is about the best, most comprehensive plan anyone has put forth. Furthermore, programs of these types have been in place outside of the US for years with good results. There seem to be no shortage of people ready to point out possible flaws in the system, but very few have any alternate suggestions. Doing nothing is clearly not the solution, and should no longer be considered an option. How about this - someone point out the harm such a program could if it was implemented until a better idea comes along. Right now there's more or less nothnig in place, how about we test this one out for the time being, all the while continuing to look for the 'magic bullet' that will solve 100% of the problem. What's wrong with that idea?

Isn't that the basis of a disagrrement? You have one idea, I have another, the two of us disagree? Am I supposed to disagree with someone who has the same ideas I do? How would that work?

It is a problem. The gear we use is mostly certified up to a max weight of 254 lbs, and that's 'exit weight' which included jumper and the gear, leaving about 220lbs for body weight. Some gear is certified up to 300 lbs, but again, that's exit weight, and you would be looking at more like 310/315lbs out the door. There are some options, like using military gear which can take higher weights, or using a converted tandem rig which can haul a lot more weight. The problem is finding a place that offers those services. They're out there, but few and far between. Do a search for 'big boy rigs' or 'overweight jumpers' on this site, and you should find some info on places that can help you. The good news is that once you get trained, licensed, and buy your own gear, you should be able to jump at any DZ. They generally don't care what you jump once you're licensed, but as a student it's tough for them to hand you a rig they know you're too heavy for. As an aside - your chances of gear failing on you based on your weight is very slim (no pun intended). The certified weight is one thing, what a harness or canopy can handle in the real world is generally much higher. If you use components certified to 300lbs, you should be fine.

Well, you didn't make any argument against anyting, and you weren't addressing me. There was a newer member and lower time jumper who put himself out there with his opinion, and you as a more senior member and jumper came back with a useless, smart-ass remark. In any case, it was inappropriate and not productive at all. When you factor in your qualifications, and the impression it leaves on a newer member, it's that much worse. You can try to defend your actions any way you please, but the writing is literally on the wall for everyone to see. It was lazy and uncalled for, and you can't hide from that. If you wanted to disagree with me in that fashion it's one thing, but to address a newer jumpers who was trying to make an honest contribution in that manner is just crude and unneccesary. FYI, I have recieved more than one PM in support of calling you out on that BS post, so I'm not the only one who feels this way.

Is that exclusive? Can good intentions lead elsewhere, or just hell? Again, an argumentative, unproductive statement from a man of your education and background. It would be one thing if you never played the 'long standing private pilot' and 'college phyisics professor' cards, but you do play the cards sometimes, and that builds in expectations in the eyes of others. If you want to be respected the educated, experienced aviator, then act like it. Doing 'drive by' posts with one liners and no real sustance is more akin to a drunk college kid taking a break from Twitter.

I disagree with this. This is where we come back to the same thing now, which is 'someone' says that this guy 'should be OK' on a higher than average WL. There's no reason not to hold everyone to the WL chart, if you have exceptional talent, then you have it on any canopy of any size. If you're jumping at a fast pace, you can work your way off the chart in 2 or 3 years. If you're not jumping that fast, you shouldn't be allowed outside of the chart anyway. The other exceptions are not 'judgement calls', they're basic situational factors. Do you have an exit weight under 150 lbs? If yes, you need to factor that in, if no, you're on the 'standard' chart. Do you jump at a DZ above 2kft MSL? If yes, factor that in, if no, back to the standard numbers. The thing is that just like everyone in oppsition wants to crow about, there is no 'magic' number. There is no magic WL where everything will be fine below it and you die if you go above it. The chart isn't there to keep people to the 'magic' number, it's designed to keep the average jumper 'close' to a reasonable WL. Jumpers gain or lose weight. Jumpers wear weight belts. Jumpers jump at DZs with different elevations. Jumpers much heavier or lighter than average exist. All fo these things will reduce the precision of the chart, but it's not designed to be 'precise' and it's effectiveness does not depend on precision. The idea is that it provides a reasonble progression for jumpers to follow as they learn, and it will serve that purpose for the majority of jumpers in the majority of situatuions. On top of that, you add in the canopy control courses, so that when a jumper does pay a visit to Mile-Hi up in Co, they know and understand what to expect from their canopy. I addressed that in my previous post. There's no reason to require people to induce speed on their landings. Make it available to them in the D license canopy control class if they want, but not required if they don't. By the time you get to the D license level, more of the class would be theory and aerodynamics. Just like the A license class is for more techniques and practice, the B class would be less so, the C even less, and the D class would be the least amount of practice, and the most amount of theory. In the beginnig you teach them the 'how' and the 'when' because those are survival skills. In the higher classes, you teach more of the 'why' to prepare them for the what the future holds. The ideas only become complicated when people whine about exceptions. Part of our problem is that everyone thinks they're an exception, but they're not. Even if they are, there's no reason they can't follow the chart like everyone esle. You want simple? There is it, follow the chart and take the classes. Simple.

First off, I disagree with the premise that the D license canopy control course should require induced speed landings of any kind. Adding speed absolutely adds to the risk, and there's no reason anyone should be forced to do that. You can have an 'expert' canopy control course without requiring induced speed landings. Going faster is a choice, and if you never make it happen to yourself, it's not going to happen on it's own. True, you 'might' find youself landing at the bottom of a turn 'someday', but the chances are slim, and it's no reason to force people to add risk to their canopy control course. You can have an 'expert' course that covers info and theory of jumping at higher WL, which would be becoming a reality for a jumper with 500+ jumps, and you could also have some tighter accuracy requirements. Any sort of induced speed landings, like double-fronts, could be optional during the D license course. It should certainly be a part of the class, but actaully demonstrating them should be optional. In terms of the other things you mentioned, none of those are required to make a skydive, but flying your canopy is, which is why you can require an 'expert' canopy control course to become an 'expert' skydiver, but you don't need those other things. I have a feeling you were focused on the swooping aspect of it, and as indicated above, I agree that nobody should 'have to' swoop. The truth is that the number of skills coverd by the time you are at the D license level would be lower, and the 'book learning' would be a bigger part of the class. The theory and aerodynamcis become more important as WL (and speed) goes up, so that would be more of the focus at that point. Once a jumper has reached 500 jumps (and taken 3 previous canopy control courses), you're running out of things to cover, but at the same time as this is the last 'required' canopy control course, you want to take advantage of that and maybe look forward another 500 jumps and prep them for what lies ahead.

Ok, this bullshit ends here. I don't know what sort of game you and your 'dad' are playing, but you can stop wasting everyone's time with these stupid questions. You claim to be jumping a Kat 120 now, but in this thread here - http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4284495;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread - you're asking questions about the Kat 120, and specifically you say - This is something that you would know if you currently jumped a Kat 120. So you're either lying here or lying there. but in either case, my adivce is to fuck off and stop wasting peoples time. Even if you were serisous, you know the answers to the bullshit questions you're asking. It's never a good idea to skip sizes when downsizing or changing up to a higher performance wing. It's basic stuff that anyone with an experience and insight to HP canopy flight would know.

Ok, how does the canopy examiner go along when the jumper is trying to get checked out on a high performance canopy (or just HP for that jumper)? How does that jumper recieve hours of dual instruction on said canopy leading up to the 'check ride'? This is one of those areas where there is a difference between general aviaition training and skydiving training. Canopy piloting is a 100% solo activity, so you have to select your equipment with that in mind. You're not choosing for the best-case sceanrio, you're choosing for the worst-case. I'm quite sure that anyone tyring to 'test up' into a new canopy is going to pick an ideal day. going to practice the test criteria, and mentally prepare themselves for the test beforehand to ensure peak performance. Picture a competituve sjydiver on their last jump at Nationals with a medal on the line, and now picture that same jumper a sunset 10-way at the end of a long day. Same jumper, but you're likely to get a sharper performance out of them at Nationals then on a 'fun' jump. The canopy thing is the same idea, when the jumper knows they're going to be officially 'tested', they're ready for that. When Murphy steps in and 'tests' them unexpectedly, it's another story. Again, I would ask the downside of a written WL progression that follows along with jump numbers. None of the charts put forth have been overly restrictive, and they all have allowed for advancement in 100 jump increments, so what's the downside? Every WL BSR proposal that has come up recently has included tie-in with required canopy control courses of increasing difficulty to coincide with the licenses. So each time you get a license, you take a specific canopy control course, and by the time you have a D license, you have taken a comprehensive course of canopy control classes. Let's say the WL BSR included required canopy control classes, would you support it then?

How long had they been in the sport? This idea was hatched 10 years ago, let's say the USPA took action, and those jumpers had all been through 4 canopy control courses and all followed a 'sensible' canopy progression. What you end up with is the best possible canopy pilots, and hopefully the least possible incidents. Let's go back to the concept that only fatalites are reported. You have to kill yourself to have a record of it, and from where I'm sitting, high time jumpers are jumping the smallest, fastest canopies, and taking the most risks with them via swooping. They stand the highest chance for having a fatal incident based on their canopy choice and what they do wth it. I would suggest that lower time jumpers have a greater chance of a less severe incident, again, based on their equipment choices and what they do with it. As much as I dislike fatalities, I don't find non-fatal incidents any more acceptable. This is common sense stuff. How can you argue that continuing education and regulating canopy selection aren't both steps in a safer direction. You could offer your opinion that you don't think it's neccesary, or maybe you don't think it's doing enough, but there's no way to argue that it's a bad thing. Show me the planet where a more informed jumper is worse off? Is that the same planet where a lower WL isn't safer than a higher one? Where is this place?

That's a great point, and one that people miss when they get all wrapped up in the 'numbers'. There are no stats for injuries, but I can think of 10x more jumpers I know that have suffered severe injuries (bone breaks or worse) than jumpers I know who died skydiving. Of course, those jumpers and the circumstances of their injuries aren't recorded anywhere, and therefore can't be used for statistical analysis. At the core, this whole thing is about shifting the window of education upwards to (finally) match the upward trend of canopy performance. When there were no high performance canopies, there was no need for any of this. When the first gen of HP canopies came out, like the 97/107 Stiletto or Sabre, nobody but the little guys or the top jumpers wanted any part of them, so it was still no big deal. Once those wings were knocked off the top of the list by x-branced canopies, the whole thing changed big time. It turns out that people weren't avoiding the smaller Stilettos and such because they knew better, just because they knew that they shouldn't be on the highest performing canopy on the market. However, once the Stiletto got bumped down to second tier status, people started looking at it differently, even though the wing was the same. What the new canopies did was change the definition of an 'expert pilot'. Where 500 jumps used to be enough to master everything on the market, now it's up to 1000 jumps. Where it used to be OK for jumpers not to recieve any additional canopy training beyond AFF based on was they were likely to be jumping, it's not like that anymore. If you want to higher performance canopies available, you need the higher performance standards for both canopy selection and training. I'll offer up that anyone willing to limit themselves to a 150 sq ft non-eliptical canopy could opt out of this whole thing. If that's going to be the peak of your canopy performance envelope, you could probably get away with doing things the old fashioned way. For the rest of the jumpers, who intend to jump smaller canopies, more aggressive designs, and possibly one day swoop them, you need to hold yourself a higher standard right from the start and get used to it. Small canopied and swooping don't leave a lot of room for bullshit.

As other have mentioned, wings are far more than a fall rate 'safety net' for when things get slow (although they are great to have when that does happen). They offer you a level of power and mobility that you just can't match without them. You can position yourself faster around your subject and spend less time 'in transit'. It does take a little getting used to, but it's a lot like driving a fast car. Once you have a feel for the controls, and really know what it can do, it's a ton of fun to blast around the sky. As much 'go' as the wings provide, they also have the same amount of 'stop'. You can close a gap at high speed and keep driving until you're 'scary' close, then sit up and throw out all the wing you have to stop on a dime (practice this a lot, and always aim off to the side in the case of an overshoot). I jump a Flite Suit camera suit. I have the wing attached right along the side seam of the suit, so it flies the same on your belly or back (or sitting). I went with no booties because I'm not a fan, and I do spend a lot of time back flying, so I have a bloused leg with a velcro cuff (like a freefly suit).

Nobody else thinks that either. That's why I mentioned lighter people and DZ with higher elevations, the charts have exceptions for them. Lighter folks generally lose .2 lbs/sq ft on the WL, so instead of 1.0, they would be at .08. A 100lb jumper, with an exit weight of 125/130, would be jumping something like a 150. Higher elevation DZs also make adjustments, where they subract .01 off the WL for every 2k above sea level (or something like that). These charts are well thought out, and contain adjustments where they are needed, and prohibit eliptical canopies at any WL below 500 jumps. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that this is the first time you're hearing about any of these proposals, but continuing education has always been a part of the idea. I've always liked the idea that you require a canopy control course in order to earn a licesne. There's one in place for the A for the most part (of course, I feel like it needs more work), and now I guess there's one for the B as well. I feel that the material and performance requirements should ratchet up with the higher licesnes, and there should be an advanced course and an expert course to go along with the C and D licenses, respectively. If a jumper chooses not to earn additional licenses, they are free to jump at the highest WL allowed for the license they do have. For example, if you have a B license and choose not to advance to a C license at 200 jumps, you can jump a canopy rated for your weight at 200 jumps 1.2 WL. If you stop at a C, and do not get your D when you have 500 jumps, you're capped at 1.5 until you take the expert course and earn a D license. Again, the exceptions are based solely on situation, not jumper performance or desire. If you happen to be a leightweight person, then the 'standard' chart does not apply to you as you're not a 'standard' person. if you jump at a high elevation DZ, that needs to be taken into account. At the end of the day, all of the exceptions involve lowering the WL of the effected jumpers anyway, so it's not like jumpers will be lobbying to be exceptions. If they are, then they are, it's just situational and up to the math.

As overloading? Not even close, but when taken to extremes, underloading can present some problems. In case you were not aware, all of the ideas so far have included a chart that indicates the maximum allowable WL based on jump numbers. The rough idea is something like 0-100 jumps has a max allowable WL of 1.0. Jumpers with 100-200 jumps could bump up to 1.1, and so on. Factors like high altitude DZs, or exceptionally small jumpers are accounted for, and the numbers get shifted around a bit for them. There is no 'universal' WL for everyone. Given how fast and how HP canopies have become, it's really become a 700, 800, or even 1000 jump progression before a jumper is anywhere close to being ready to jump 'anything' they want. So up until that point, there some WL that are close to being 'universal' in that they limit the performance of the canopy to match the experience of the jumper. Eventaully, if you keep jumping you'll get past the requirements of the Wl chart and be able to do anything you want. You reach a point where you have proven you have the skill and judgement to jump 'anything' out there, and when you reach that point, you should be able to. Before that point, however, you lack the experience to prove you can handle yourself, and the judgment that comes from that experience, and you really shouldn't be able to just jump anything you want. Every other facet of avialtion has some sort of stepped licensing program where the level of license you have dictates the type of equipment you can fly. Hell, even skydiving in countries outside the US have Wl restrictions in place, why not us? What makes skydiving in the US so special that it doesn't need the same type of programs in place?

If you mean you would prove it based on following an established training protocol, and developing the skills over time to prove them wrong, then great. If you mean you would hook that canopy up for your next jump, and show them how wrong they are, then that's not so great. Again, you're looking at these ideas in the short term. You're thinking about you when you started jumping, or someone who's still new to the sport today. Forget about those guys because they all have a preconcieved notion of what slydving, and more importantly canopy education and selection is all about, that being that it's 'anything goes', and that's not something they want to give up. The lure of HP canopies, swooping, and just going faster in general is a strong one. If it wasn't, none of this talk would be neccesary. Notice that there's no talk about regulating people climbing out of their harness and hanging from their legstraps under canopy. Surely there's a great deal of training and preparation needed for a stunt like that, but so few people are interested in such a stunt that there's no need to make it an issue for the general public. Wanting to jump smaller and faster canopies is an issue, and needs some consideration. Back to the idea of WL regulation, while there might be some backlash at first, within time it will just become a part of the status quo. We tell jumpers all the time that they can't pull lower then 2k, how many of them run right out and suck it down to 1k to prove us wrong? Not many now, but when the pull altitude BSR firast went into effect, I'm sure there was a group of jumpers who did just that. These days, it's generally accepted that 2k is as low as you want to be in freefall, and people just go along with that. I know I did when I started jumping, I never questioned the idea that I should be opening a parachute above 2k. I found out by accident that you can get away with it sometimes, but to this day I still accept that the freefall should be ending by 2k.

Ok, so it was a gear operation problem. In the end, the TIs action made it impossible for the video guy to deliver his product, so what do you do? How about this one, let's say the video guy likes to tuck his arms behind his back on exit to help him slide down the hill faster. On this jump, the swoop cord of his camera wing gets caught on his PC, and when he brings his arms out, he deploys his main canopy and the tandem pair falls away from him. Now there's no video, what do you do? I would suggest you refund the cost of the video to the customer, including the video guys pay. He made a mistake, he did not do the job he was assigned to do, and there's a consequnece for that, in this case it's not being paid. I would also suggest that the same is true for the TI. He had a job to do, and did not do it properly. The TI was lucky that when he unintentionally pulled the drouge release, nothing bad happened, but the fact remains that 'accidentally' pulling any handle is a bad deal, and the location and management of all the handles is a large part of the TIs job. Working as a 'professional' jumper includes a performance requirement. You have to be able to do the job to certain level, or you shoudn't be doing the job at all. Some of that surrounds the safety of all invovled (of course), but some of that also involves being able to be a part of the DZ 'machine', that being the staff of packers, pilots, manifest, instructors and video guys who are all working together to get all of the work done before the sun goes down. It's not an office job where incomplete paperwork can sit on your desk until tomorrow, customers that don't jump the day they show up may not be able to return for weeks, or months, or may never return. You have to be able to perform, or there are consequnces.

You're implying that some people do not have common sense, and never will as it cannot be taught. I'm not going to argue with that, but isn't that more a reason to have some limitations in place as to what these people can jump? If they lack the common sense to fly in a safe manner, what makes you think they have the sense to make good choices about what canopies they fly? Between the 'wisdom' of those who have come before you, and the example set by the success these programs have had in other canopies, it's hard to deny that this is a good idea. There's a fairly good chance that it will produce real results, and barring that, I cannot see that it would do any harm. If a jumper is so immature and so impatient that they quit jumping because they can't jump the canopy they want as soon as they want, then I say good riddance, we don't need the guy.

When it comes to reserve canopies, PD reserves are 'supposed' to be marked everytime they're packed and everytime they're jumped. Beyond that, you need a rigger to inspect any used gear you plan to buy. The jump numbers are irrevelant as long as the rigger deems the canopy airworthy. Most reserves have between 0 and 5 jumps, so it's not a big deal. Mains are the same way. A rigger will be able to tell you if the claimed jump numbers are close, but what's more important is the condition of the lines. A rigger can measure these to see if they're close, and visually inspect them for condition. The jump numbers aren't real important on a modern canopy. The fabric can go for 1000s of jumps, and the lines are changed every 500 jumps or so (or at least they should be). The nice part about used main canopies is that you can jump one for 50/100 jumps, and then sell it for the same money you bought it for. There's not much difference in price between a used canopy with 500 jumps or one with 600 jumps. Either way, take the money you get and use it on another used canopy. You can go through two or three different canopies with the same rig, and not really spend much more than your initial investment. If you have a new canopy, you lose money selling it with 50/100 jumps on it, and it might be harder to sell. It's probably easier to sell a $750 canopy than it is to sell a $1500 canopy, the extra $750 could buy a guy a lot of jumps.