peek

Perhaps it is cultural. People aften want "governent" to "level the playing field" because they cannot compete. People want the "government" to get involved when it benefits them, but complain when "government" regulations negatively affect them.

Thank you for your well put questions and comments. 2006 SIM Section 5-3, Equipment, B, Main Parachute, (and group, let us not forget C, Reserve Parachute) Some of it is recent, so perhaps you have not yet seen it. The SIM can be found at the USPA web site if you don't have one handy. It is well worded, to include the things other than just wingloading that can affect safety, but the exact wingloading numbers will please no one. You mention various people like S&TA's, DZOs, Instructors, "enforcing" recommendations so to speak, but that is the main problem (at least around here). Few of these individuals are willing to be the "bad guy" and enforce anything, whether it is a recommendation or "rule".

What I meant by "it's more than just wingloading" is that it is more than just wingloading that is making canopies turn so fast that they are easier to "hook in", intentional or not. (The rest of this is thinking out loud and for the benefit of anyone reading, and not a rebuttal to you, Dave, or anyone else.) I can only think of a few incidents where a person died from a straight in landing on a small canopy. Generally, people are dieing under perfectly good canopies because of turns, intentional and not interntional. Now for a slightly rhetorical question for anyone reading this: What can be done (or what kind of regulation could be created) that could keep people from turning their canopies so quickly by mistake? (I know this will open up a can of worms which may never be re-canned, but oh well...)

Rob, sorry I missed your answer to my question. You responded to Liemberg so I didn't get a notice email. I agree that USPA is behind, but I'm not sure how much. USPA's ISP was supposed to be a panacea for all kinds of instructional problems, but I don't see too many people praising its canopy flight instruction. Maybe it's merely because they are not using it, I don't know. My concern is that most national organizations create programs and documents much less effectively that the private sector. Politics are involved, things become politically correct and watered down. There is some talk about the very popular private sector canopy coaches providing input to (some type of, not precisely identified yet) USPA canopy coaching program or document, but I think instruction would be better if there were just more (good) private sector canopy coaches available. In another message you wrote: "i spend close to 2 hours on the ground when i start with someone and that is before they ever grab the rig. we talk about how to break up the canopy portion into learning, pattern, and final approcah. we walk the landing area and discuss ground references to use while setting up. we talk about control surfaces and the reasons to learn thing. the list keeps going and going and going." I'm glad you do! I can see that you care a lot about the people you teach. I (and some others) are concerned that if a "canopy coach" rating is created, that it will be used (mainly) as a revenue source. It depends on the person doing the teaching. By the way, to complete my position, I do not at this time support a mandatory "wing loading" requirement. It's more than just wing loading.

I just made 4 jumps a few hours ago. What's the SuperBowl? After last weekend and yesterday having bad weather, about 8 of us had a good ol' time this afternoon jumping from a C182 at 4000 feet in about 40 degree weather, (several times). The TV is on, but the SB is mere background noise....

This is not exactly an answer to your question, but is more for the skydivers reading this thread. The Parks College Parachute Research Group web site creates so many inquiries from students about science projects related to parachutes, that we created a Student Area on the web site. Feel free to mention it to any student that asks. http://www.pcprg.com/student.htm

Point of clarification please: Brian has included "USPA" in his document in preparation for convincing the organization to adopt it as a recommendation. Because of this, some people like yourself, will think it is a USPA document, opinion, etc. It is not. In what previous ways do you think USPA has "missed the boat"?

It is because Velcro toggles (with Velcro in good condition) and simply much stronger than any other toggle stowage method. The convenience of not having to replace worn Velcro is arguable, but not the strength. You will notice that most rig manufacturers continue to use Velcro on reserve toggles. When it really needs to be secure, use Velcro. I believe the stowage of my main canopy's toggle to be really important, therefore I use Velcro.

Because none of them are as accurate as you assume they are, or as accurate as the manufacturers (and most people) imply. See www.pcprg.com/baro.htm for technical details on why these devices that give you a "magic number" after the jump are not accurate.

My canopy color program has a random pattern function which you can sit and watch. That, and the now public domain clip art package can be found at: http://www.skydivestlouisarea.com/peeksa.htm

Wow John, you rejuvinated an old thread, I was wondering where that question came from. I haven't used a Tandem Vector for a while so I haven't had the occasion to review their manual. I don't have all that many experienced jumpers going along with my Tandem students, but it is always someone I know and trust to be in a safe place at pull altitude. I also reiterate with students when _not_ to pull.

Does anyone do anything like that to an AFF student? No? Then don't do it to a Tandem student. (Disclaimer: Rhetorical questions for effect.) It amazes me some of the things that people think they need to do with Tandem students.

Tom, I assumed a guy like you would have the rating. I wish you would have gotten it, because now you can't. The BOD decided (against my strong objections of course) to not allow any further applicants. (The rating and privileges stand.) We "old I/E's" are going to gradually die off now. (The actual words of a few USPA BOD/HQ directors.) I'm sorry you thought the information needed to pass the test was not worth it. This information was even older back when I took the test, but I felt like only about 10% was of questionable value. Oh, well, perhaps we can blame Turoff! I think he was the one to last update the test. :)

And what is outdated about it? The test perhaps, and that is because so few people cared to (or perhaps lacked the knowledge and experience to get this esteemed rating) that USPA HQ lost interest in maintaining the documentation associated with it. The I/E rating was intended to recognize expertise in many areas of skydiving and skydiving instruction. Do you think Glenn Bangs, Mike Turoff, and the late Don Yahrling qualify as experts? I think so. I am proud of my Tandem, AFF, S/L, and IAD I/E ratings, and take them very seriously. I don't know everything, but neither am I a "jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none".

I am so delighted that you mentioned these! They are both so true. Althought the first involves a decision that must be made by the DZO, the second can be practiced by all skydivers.

OK, I'm confused. I made only one post on this subject and it was a question to NWFlyer. Are you asking me in particular these questions or did you just happen to click on my post to reply?

OK, that's enough to get irritated at USPA over! Oh, well, sometimes administrative issues go from bad to worse. Sorry it happened to you. Definitely send the Membership Services department (and BOD committee) a nasty-gram (well, not too nasty). They need to know when things get that screwed up.

My reply is for the benefit of anyone in the same position as you were. Two solutions: 1. Forward your renewal and payment to someone who can sign off your instructional rating currency requirements, and have them sign, and forwrd to USPA HQ. (I do this for about 10-15 people a year. If they send it with a stamped and addressed to USPA HQ envelope it is a piece of cake.) 2. Send your renewal to USPA HQ on time with the membership payment only, and without the instructional rating requirements signed off. You will then be a current member. Get another renewal form and have the instructional rating renewal requirements signed whenever you can, and send it and the instructional rating renewal fee to USPA HQ with an explanation. You will then be a current instructor. #2 means more work for USPA HQ because they might wind up issuing 2 membership cards, but use it if you need to. Neither of these two options are difficult enough to be irritated with USPA as an organization are they?

Actually, I have a Stiletto 150 loaded at about 1.9 and I hook-turn the living shit out of it sometimes, but, correct, I cannot instruct someone on the finer points of swooping, since I have never tried getting any extra-special performance out of it. (Once your canopy flys faster than you can run on a no-wind day, what more do you need, besides a brush to clean your rig?) Few people see me jump my Stiletto at the WFFC because fortunately I have 3 other rigs with more appropriate canopies for that situation. (Hint, hint, for some of you....) When you have a Man O' War the Manta is the "small" canopy, ha, ha..... But anyway folks, not to interrupt Bill's point....

http://www.pcprg.com/hardop.htm This study utilized only larger sliders. Pocket sliders would also work.

When I made my study a few years ago, the sliders on Sabre canopies from 135 to 210 were almost exactly the same size. Have you found differently? What are the sizes you have measured on the various canopies?

Thanks everyone that has responded so far. I find it interesting to hear from many of you that are making so many jumps in a short period of time that it is practical to skip a license. (I also forgot about that water training requirement for "B" license when I quickly wrote that question. Some times that is a real challenge to get done.)

Unfortunately I think this could often be caused by all of the idiots yelling "beer" when someone lands in places like these. Peer pressure working against the student. For this reason I find myself emphasizing to students that it is much safer to land on pavement in a controlled manner than to do something rash to avoid it.

Why haven't you gotten your B license? We were sitting there talking about how when we were at that point in our skydiving career, that we could hardly wait to get that next license. It was a goal. IT was something we were proud of. But we see quite a few people now lingering there with quite a few jumps, but have not gotten their next license. In particular a lot of USPA "A" licensed people that have delayed getting their "B" license, although they are qualified (as far as we can tell). If you are one of those, why the wait? (To make this thread more manageable, can we skip the "D" license night jump requirement issue?)

Care to elaborate? Not mentioning names of course.