craigbey

You let jumpers in there? That is WAY too nice!

AggieDave: After about 400 jumps on my Samurai 120 on the 'standard' lineset, I had it relined. It was time for the longer lineset and the difference was very noticeable and very nice. I was grateful the longer lineset was an option. The Samurai is an excellent wing and I was very disappointed when Brian decided to kill it. It will live on in loyal customers and the classifieds. efs4life: Why is flying a Velocity a goal? As you continue learning more on your existing wing, demo, demo, demo! Next spring, get back into the groove and then contact PD and get a Katana 135 and/or 120 demo. You still in MO? You're not far from SDC / ParaConcepts and an easy Crossfire2 demo. And you're not far from a beautiful, slightly used Samurai 120. Always packed indoors and never chopped. But don't do this with the narrow focus on getting a Velo. You will continue learning about your wing and others as you demo and you may find something with a better balance or something more appropriate for your jumping / flying style. There are differences between HP canopies. Some of them obvious and many others that are more subtle. As you learn more about these canopies, hopefully you will learn more about yourself, your skills and what you really want / need in a HP canopy. You may find that you really do want a Velocity. That's cool. But there are other canopies out there that you may prefer.

Excellent point. Losing friends is a tragedy... http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/fatalities/search.cgi?fatal_country=Australia It's a shame that someone who 'knew better' wasn't there to impart their wisdom to their friends before these incidents.

Good on the USPA for implementing the B-license CC proficiency card. That is certainly a step in the right direction. Requiring additional CC skills throughout the licensing progression just seems like common sense. Obtaining higher licenses from the United States Parachute Association should require demonstration of higher levels of CC skill. And just in case someone goes there ... yes, the PRO rating is a different issue.

At least he wasn't flying. That would have been a little 'awkward'.

Wait a minute ... you're gay?!

Looking for 'Like' button...

+1 ... with caveat There will always be a need for ongoing canopy control and canopy safety training. But if I don't pursue the advanced licenses, I may not fall under the radar for the training. And if I do get the license, I don't want to jump for 20 more years and miss out on CC 'training opportunities' (thanks BV) because it's no longer a requirement due to my advanced license. From Jim Crouch's wish list for the upcoming year on page 70 of the December issue of Parachutist: Adding more advanced CC requirements to the higher licenses is a great idea, but it needs to be implemented together with some other tool that encourages -- or requires -- ongoing CC training for all. Here is where I anticipate someone -- not you pops -- to jump in about their xx years in the sport and how they "don't need more CC training". Or someone else to say "I don't swoop, so why do I need advanced CC training?" Part of the problem ... attitude. I'd be more than happy to print off a copy of the 'B' license proficiency card and start the new year off with a formal review of those basic skills. I didn't have to do them when I got my 'B' license, but I would be happy to demonstrate those skills now. Or when it gets a little warmer ... sheeesh. I would be interested to see a discussion about what additional CC skills could be incorporated into 'C' and 'D' license proficiency cards. Perhaps some of the other instructors and CC coaches could throw out some suggestions. I haven't done much contact CRW, but I suspect that might creep into such advanced requirements and I'd be happy to participate.

Many of us are participating in CC training ... even if it is only as students. I am a student of advanced canopy flight, therefore I seek out additional instruction from more experienced canopy pilots. How's that for ego? And guess what, when I looked, the training was available. That's why I'm not concerned about your empty FAA threat. Yes, more needs to be done to ensure that everyone gets the proper training at the appropriate time. And some of the training itself needs to be updated and mandated. I specifically challenged you to do more because I did read your first post. Perhaps you need get more involved with the sport besides trolling.

Well then ... maybe you should work harder to try to get them banned. Better hurry. Or, you can work with others to provide better CC training. According to your story, you used to do it. And in 2 other threads, you have now agreed that "it's the pilot, not the canopy". So, what have you done in those 4 years to help with CC training? Have you taken a CC class yourself in that time? With all your experience, perhaps you could help teach one?

+1 ... bump! Four years and the OP has still not been able to ban those 'dangerous' canopies he doesn't like.

Now you've both said what others have been posting. It's not the canopy, it's the pilot. Don't waste your time trying to convince anyone that you could ban a canopy. Train the pilot. Hopefully, the sport can develop and deliver better canopy training to all those who need it.

Wrong again. We have many CC classes available now that you did not have back in your day. I've taken several ... you? My guess is that you have not. But you don't have to, right? It's not your problem, right? In a prior post, you stated that you were no longer responsible to impart your wisdom and experience to others. So, which is it? And their CC program is what, exactly? What are the requirements for CC training? What do they do to ensure that jumpers get the training they need?

Wrong. The instruction is there. Right now, it's just too difficult to find at some DZ's and participation is voluntary. You know that the culture did not change over night. It tooks many years to evolve and become what it is today. During that time you and others in 'your generation' were involved in the sport in some way. As pointed out by Trae, there were warning signs many years ago. What did you do about it then? Nothing? So now others are being blamed for 'just watching the carnage'?

If you're referring to the old farts that are posting in this thread, I don't think there's much to learn. The longer they are away from the sport and the more they cling to 'the way things were', the more irrelevant they become. People who have been in the sport that long have a LOT to offer if they remain current and can work with new jumpers to impart their wisdom and experience. But if all they're going to do is get nostalgic and holier-than-thou, I offer this... Yeah, just sitting back trying to recapture A little of the glory of, well time slips away And leaves you with nothing mister but Boring stories of glory days

No, you specifically stated in another post that you would prefer to simply ban what you consider to be HP canopies. Dave's response was reasonable, your agenda is not. This issue has been discussed in these forums for YEARS. Try the search option. You should try offering a practical solution beyond the vague threat that the FAA is going to ban certain types of canopies or skydiving altogether. If this issue is REALLY that important to you, do the research to identify and propose a solution beyond the vague threat ... "you skydivers need to do something before the adults take away your toys!" Other posters have provided very well thought out ideas and suggestions for education, training and rules to try to address the problem you're ranting about. If you're not too old or too uncurrent, give it a try. Try offering a practical solution. See how far that passion will take you. Hopefully, beyond the limits of anonymous rants on the Internet.

It sounds like the culture at your DZ is a little better than most and people are participating in canopy training. But why wait until someone downsizes? The testing part of the solution is valuable, if the process requires the demonstration of certain knowledge and skills before the jumper downsizes or moves to another type of wing. BTW: It's pronounced po-tah-to.

There are many people with way more than 1000+ who would be happy to receive additional training and coaching. It's part of progressing as a pilot. From another thread...

That could be part of a larger solution. But there are jumpers who will want/need additional training beyond that. As they progress in the sport, they may wish to downsize to smaller canopies and different types of wings. How does the sport provide training for those people? Do you think that the people with 1000+ jumps would be safer if they had come up in a sport with a different culture of education, training and respect for HP canopies? How do we prepare the next 1000-jump wonder?

I think everyone agrees that the culture needs to change, but how do you ensure the educational resources you mentioned are: 1. properly developed and maintained 2. available to those who need them 3. consumed by those who need them Would the required education or training kick in before someone downsizes or starts jumping a particular type of canopy?

Unfortunately, these discussions almost always get stuck on the 'freedom to choose vs rules / regulations' issue. I wish these things didn't have to be made into formal regulations. It would be nice if everyone had the same level of 'common sense' that we deem appropriate. But that isn't reality. The fundamental issue is a lack of consistent training. We need to do a better job of training everyone how to fly their canopies safely. How this training gets developed, documented, implemented and consistently applied needs to be considered. And I would be very happy to take part in any form of ongoing training. As a student.

Standard training, rules and restrictions that are defined by the USPA are merely additional tools to allow DZO's to apply a more consistent approach to the problem. They may also help define 'common sense' in case that isn't already clear.

What law (i.e. restrictions)? How would the DZO know the jumper was in over their head? What standard should be used / enforced? You do agree that more training should be part of the solution? What training? How do you ensure that the people that need it receive the training and can demonstrate proficiency? What other tools does the DZO have that does not simply push the jumper down the road with the hopes that the next DZ will address the problem? The absence of those things is all that you need to understand. Without those things, DZO's are more likely to ignore / avoid the situation, just give the problem lip-service or kick the problem down the road. Non of which address the problem with the unskilled / unqualified canopy pilot. And yes, I know there are some DZO's who are already working towards implementing some of these things at their DZ's. Kudos to them.

Don't waste your time trying to chase that goose. There are so many different reasons why some DZO's don't communicate with their neighbors that you could never address them all. Even those that do get along probably don't communicate enough as it is to provide a channel for something like what was suggested. People will continue to find ways to jump canopies that are beyond their skill level. The most effective way to address that problem is a combination of more education, downsizing restrictions and advancement based on the demonstration of specific skills. USPA needs to ensure that is consistently applied across DZ's. And yes ... there may be some rogue DZ's out there who won't follow the USPA rules / recommendations. That is another issue ... all together.

What you described doesn't happen often enough or consistently enough to be of any value.