HP From an Old Fart

Just a guess Dave, but I would suspect canopies are different because they are non-motorized. I cant think of any non-motorized anything that is regulated outside of hot air balloons and gliders (?) perhaps - anyone can strap on skis and hit a double black diamond with no training, same with rock climbing, etc.
Or am I totally off base on that guess?
Edit to add that I suppose you could make an arguement that even hot air balloons are "motorized" after a fashion...

Quote

Just a guess Dave, but I would suspect canopies are different because they are non-motorized. I cant think of any non-motorized anything that is regulated outside of hot air balloons and gliders (?) perhaps - anyone can strap on skis and hit a double black diamond with no training, same with rock climbing, etc.
Or am I totally off base on that guess?

We, as in the USPA, would the ones to regulate that. However, the BOD is too busy tossing $10,000 to their friends to start a demo team to actually tackle important issues like canopy control!

Quote

>I agree with you Bill but what I am saying is that, on the older more
>benign canopies the margin for error was huge, compared to today's
>canopies.

Depends on the canopy. For example, a 160 lb jumper is a lot safer under a Pilot 117 than under a Micro Raven 135.

However, in general I agree - the smaller the canopy, and the more aggressively it's trimmed, the less forgiving it is.

Nice attempt to try to present your opinion as fact.

The Pilot has a higher propensity for off heading openings, line twists, and has a far more dynamic and dangerous fight mode from asymmetric loading durring line twists.

The Raven requires more technical skill to land well.

Quote

Just a guess Dave, but I would suspect canopies are different because they are non-motorized. I cant think of any non-motorized anything that is regulated outside of hot air balloons and gliders

Who exactly is it that regulates anything? Some sort of governing body, some kind of official group or organization, usually affiliated with one country or another. So if we had a group or orgaization in the US that oversaw skydiving and skydiving activities, maybe we could look to them?

Last time I checked, which was never, but I heard it from a hang glider / skydiver I know, they regulate the type of glider you can fly. They have them broken down in classes, and they have licenses that go along with each class. According to what this guy says, it's a big no-no in the hang gliding community to fly a wing above your license.

Scuba diving also has different classes of certification depending on what kind of diving you want to do. Not just anyone can hop in and breathe some weird gas while diving into a cave (I'm not up on the technincal jargon of diving, but I know the rough idea). Sure, anyone can jump in the water and do what they please, but not under the supervision of a PADI dive company or PADI instructor (the same could be said about possible canopy regulations, that anyone with a plane and a credit card can do whatever they want, but I'm limiting my sights to 'established' jumping at a DZ).

All of the above aside, fuck everything else, why can't we just do what seems right for ourselves, regardless of there is an example out there to follow?

It seems like such a no-brainer to me. Canopies have progressed significantly in their performance and capabilities. Some of the higher performance ones are real animals that you need to know how to handle. With that in mind, we're going to classify them and limit what the new guys can jump until they have some experience and specific training. Why does that seem so outlandish to people?

Can I prove, without a doubt, that this will solve 100% of the canopy related problems? Of course not, nobody can really make that claim about anything. With the idea of a guaranteed solution out the door, let's just start with something that makes sense. Let's build some structure and organization into canopy selection and training, and give it the respect that it's due.

Are we able to review the idea in a year? Or two? Of course. Can we revise, rewrite, or shitcan the whole thing based on that review. Of course. So the question remains why not do something? Let's get started with the most simple and obvious idea, some general limitations on what the new guys can jump, and some required continuing education, and see what happens.

What's the downside to trying? The only argument thus far has been that DZO will suddenly be 'responsible' for everyones WL, and thus liable in the case of an accident, but that's bullshit. They're no more responsible for that then they are for the actions of any licesned jumper. Even now if a newbie goes in with a WL of 1.4, you can find ten 'expert witnesses' to testify that the WL is against the 'standard industry practice', they'll point to the reccomended WL on the warning label, and paint the DZO as uncaring and allowing the new jumper to go against 'the norm'. You don't need a BSR for a lawyer to get up your ass in court.

Fuck, I can't believe the sheer selfishness and ego demonstrated on this thread!

Nearly 50% of fatalities now are under a fully opened and functioning canopy.

You have a thread about which is the most lethal canopy.

And you guys DON'T SEE THAT AS A PROBLEM?

All you people defending Lethal Canopies, are you trying to tell me you've never had an "Oh Shit Moment" where the only thing that saved you was pure dumb luck. If that is what you are trying to say, well, I don't believe you!

By saying the problem is training you are merely exacerbating the problem.
You are accepting putting people with less experience than you on canopies that are quite capable of killing them and you. When the inevitable happens you say it was lack of training.

No training organization would accept the dangers to their students and instructors that you, as a sport so blithely accept.

Now, for God's sake' grow the fuck up.

I guess we should also restricted the speed on every vehicle so it cant go any faster than ... 40km/hr?

Education is the answer to your questions, but you are always going to have people that don't want to be educated.

Also, I just finished reading the Bryan Burke article and I think if you go and read it you might realized what the actual data and the reasons of why people are actually dying under a good canopy. most of them isn't because the canopy collapse, or went into a mal, or all the other reason you mention.

Here is the link
/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_attachment;postatt_id=128510

Quote

I guess we should also restricted the speed on every vehicle so it cant go any faster than ... 40km/hr?

Education is the answer to your questions, but you are always going to have people that don't want to be educated.

Also, I just finished reading the Bryan Burke article and I think if you go and read it you might realized what the actual data and the reasons of why people are actually dying under a good canopy. most of them isn't because the canopy collapse, or went into a mal, or all the other reason you mention.

Here is the link
/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_attachment;postatt_id=128510

I suggest you go back and read the article!
75% of their incidents are under a fully open, functioning canopy. Not the nearly 50% that I quoted.

Still, that article is a good first step in reducing the carnage.

Maybe DZO's are starting to think after all!

Hi Pablo,
at 130 jumps you don't have enough experience to know what you don't know.

Hi Marisan,
You are of course 100% correct that he (and I) dont have the jump #s to know what we dont know. However, that truism should not be used to discount participation in this discussion for anyone, 0 jumps to 1000+. You never know where the next lifesaving idea will come from....

Again I ask the question (for curiosity sake) - when adjusted for inflation, have total fatalities gone up or down overall?
We all can see they have shifted categories from no/low pulls to open canopy incidents....

Quote

Hi Marisan,
You are of course 100% correct that he (and I) dont have the jump #s to know what we dont know. However, that truism should not be used to discount participation in this discussion for anyone, 0 jumps to 1000+. You never know where the next lifesaving idea will come from....

Hi Crotolus01. You are of course correct and I shouldn't have discounted his input but I read that article differently and frankly it horrifies me. That is what I meant by " You don't know what you don't know. Or to quote one of your former Defence Secretaries. "It's an unknown unknown")

Quote

Again I ask the question (for curiosity sake) - when adjusted for inflation, have total fatalities gone up or down overall?
We all can see they have shifted categories from no/low pulls to open canopy incidents....

It's the change of category that scares me. Back in the day, if it was square and flying straight the dangerous part was over. With the exception of wraps you were safe for your next jump.

Hi,

I just read through this thread and I am having a hard time deciphering your agenda, other than of course fueling this stimulating debate. Are you pushing for greater HP canopy regulations, or seeking to completely ban these 'lethal' canopies?

Hi Marsha,
If the last canopy u jumped was a Pegasus then I wonder why u r doing all this rambling?? That Pegasus is a 220'sq F-111 7-cell!! You've never even jumped a F-111 9-cell and a ZP Eliptical is just a pipe dream to you. So, what's yer point??

Quote

Hi,

I just read through this thread and I am having a hard time deciphering your agenda, other than of course fueling this stimulating debate. Are you pushing for greater HP canopy regulations, or seeking to completely ban these 'lethal' canopies?

Hi, My personal opinion is to ban them but I'm realistic enough to realise that will not happen. Jumpers lost that chance 15 years ago.

It is a stimulating debate though.

My biggest concern is that someone else will ban them and thereby finish the entire sport.

All it will take is some mad swooper to take out X number of spectators on a demo and then your version of the FAA will ban it for you.

If every jumper then has to buy a new rig to suit those regulations how many jumpers will be left?

Quote

Hi Marsha,
If the last canopy u jumped was a Pegasus then I wonder why u r doing all this rambling?? That Pegasus is a 220'sq F-111 7-cell!! You've never even jumped a F-111 9-cell and a ZP Eliptical is just a pipe dream to you. So, what's yer point??

It's Marisan not Marsha!

My point is that you guys are KILLING yourselves under these canopies.
We didn't under our canopies.

Don't you think this may just be a problem?

Quote

Quote

Just say no to mandated training

Like AFF? That's mandated if you want an A licesne, should we just say no to that?

There was a time where canopy control was a more 'casual' aspect of the sport. Canopies were more docile, and there were fewer 'big' DZs around. If everyone jumped 200+ sq ft canopies out of Cessna 182s, we would be in a different postion right now. As it sits, people jumper higher performing, more capable canopies into much busier traffic patterns.

The problem now, and what it's been for the last decade is that canopies took a huge step forward in performance and capability, and canopy control training did not.

You cannot rely on mentoring, or word of mouth, or the generousity of others. We don't do it with AFF, and we shouldn't be doing it with canopies. If you want to jump a canopy like a big boy, then you need to be trained like a big boy.

It all comes back to what I keep saying, WL restrictions that pretain to jump numbers, and required continuing education if you want to progress. The basic idea is that if you want to train like you're in 1985 (meaning no canopy control training at all), that's your choice but you have to jump a canopy like they had in 1985 (more or less, a modern Z-po wing, just at a 1985 WL). If you want to jump a more modern canopy, then you need to train to jump that canopy.

Try this - grab any whuffo off the street, and ask them this, "Today in skydiving we have parachutes that are so manuverable and so fast, that they can kill you if you land them at half of their top speed. Right now in the US, there are no rules or regulations regarding what parachutes you can jump and no training required beyond the basic training you recieve when you first start jumping, and the parachutes used are much slower and easier to control. Does that make sense to you?" See what they say. I have a feeling that it won't make sense to anyone. It doesn't make sense to me.

If you want to jump like an 'old school' jumper, then the old school training (or lack of) is fine. If you want to be a part of 'modern' skydiving, it takes a little more effort.

Thanks Dave. Worth bumping your post as a reminder.

Quote

Quote

Hi Marsha,
If the last canopy u jumped was a Pegasus then I wonder why u r doing all this rambling?? That Pegasus is a 220'sq F-111 7-cell!! You've never even jumped a F-111 9-cell and a ZP Eliptical is just a pipe dream to you. So, what's yer point??

It's Marisan not Marsha!

My point is that you guys are KILLING yourselves under these canopies.
We didn't under our canopies.

Don't you think this may just be a problem?

It is a huge problem, but training is the answer. The problem is that the average skydiver is as mature as my 11 year old. You mention training and dedication and they have a tantrum.

Canopy control training needs a complete overhaul. At present the USPA (ignoring other countries) is ducking the issue. They suggest training and have an outline syllabus, but there is no mandate. It is also vague. A more informed jumper is a safer jumper. There are guidance notes in the SIM, but they are scattered and obtuse. The SIM has a little gem that you should be able to land your canopy downwind within a 10 meter target before downsizing. It probably takes 100 jumps or more to be able to do this consistently. The USPA should be outlining a detailed syllabus and actually giving out a canopy pilot coach rating. While they are at it, they should stop the bull of confusing canopy piloting with swooping. To be a swooper you MUST be a good canopy pilot (to survive), but you do not need to be a swooper to be a good canopy pilot.

A fair question was asked, and you replied to the post but didn't answer the question. This was coming from a guy with more time in the sport and more jumps then you, and I have 2x your jump numbers, so we're qualifed to speak on this. How about you respond to the question -

Quote

If the last canopy u jumped was a Pegasus then I wonder why u r doing all this rambling?? That Pegasus is a 220'sq F-111 7-cell!! You've never even jumped a F-111 9-cell and a ZP Eliptical is just a pipe dream to you.

I took your references to the 'old days' as a comparison, not as your complete frame of reference. If you've never jumped a modern canopy, let alone anything HP, then a big chunk of what you've said needs to be re-examined.

An otuside observer might see one thing, but if you have knowledge of the situation (both the good and bad) has a real understanding of the situation. If you;ve never jumped a modern canopy, your catagorization of canopied in the first post also makes sense, when again, an outside observer might see one thing, while an active participant would see the real truth.

Modern canopies can be safely jumped and managed, if just requires additional training and education as compared to the 'old days'. Countries that have requirements in place as far as WL, type of canopy, and continuing education have very few canopy related incidents. In the US, we currenly have no regulation or requirements for education, and that's what need to change, not the canopies. A HUGE number of jumpers jump these canopies all day, every day, with no problems.

In terms of the guys with 1000+ jumps who go in on a swooping canopy, those are fatalities that are a result of the new 'sport' of swooping. Just like people will always die skydiving, people will always die swooping, but that a risk that they choose to take, no canopy swoops by itself. A jumper could choose not to swoop, and choose to jump a canopy not designed for swooping, and they will never die swooping.

Quote

Fuck, I can't believe the sheer selfishness and ego demonstrated on this thread!

Nearly 50% of fatalities now are under a fully opened and functioning canopy.

You have a thread about which is the most lethal canopy.

And you guys DON'T SEE THAT AS A PROBLEM?

All you people defending Lethal Canopies, are you trying to tell me you've never had an "Oh Shit Moment" where the only thing that saved you was pure dumb luck. If that is what you are trying to say, well, I don't believe you!

By saying the problem is training you are merely exacerbating the problem.
You are accepting putting people with less experience than you on canopies that are quite capable of killing them and you. When the inevitable happens you say it was lack of training.

No training organization would accept the dangers to their students and instructors that you, as a sport so blithely accept.

Now, for God's sake' grow the fuck up.

You have a hard time understanding why people can not see your point of view, but have post like this. It is hard for me to read anything else in this post except to see your frustration. You can't really make a point of grow up people and say it in that form.

There is no doubt that there are too many people under the wrong wing. There are countless more that are under the proper wing due to the education and mentoring of more experienced jumpers. When we take a civil approach and intelligently discuss these topics more people will see the light. If we ban everything that has a higher risk of killing people we could simply start with skydiving itself. We could also ban smoking, drinking, driving, and most anything else when we dig hard enough for the statistics. The stats are absolutely there for fatalities under perfectly good wings. We need to grow from the situation not withdraw.

There was a day that a square canopy was considered dangerous, according to your post you should remember those days. What changed? Education is one of the major changes. I have seen a lot of changes in canopy education in my limited time in this sport and have seen a lot of good come from it. I have personally helped several jumpers understand the risk of their choice and to help them make a better choice, as has Aggiedave and Diablopilot and many others. By saying "You are accepting putting people with less experience than you on canopies that are quite capable of killing them and you. " you are making an assumption that we are accepting this. Many of us are not! Fortunately the industries eyes are wide open on this topic and a lot us are not accepting it. Instead of ranting on DZ.com get out to your local DZ and influence your local jumpers. Educate them about the dangers of canopy selection. Help them and others understand the whys and wheres. Or continue to argue with people on DZ.com.

The fact of the matter is the answer is a combonation of things that need to happen.

1. COMMON SENSE
2. Education
3. Mentoring
4. Peer policing/reccomendations for canopy changes/styles of flying. (and not some bullshit "yup, hes fine," It shoudl be an aggreement between more than one "peer" who truly give a shit to do the right thing.)

This could come from some governing body, like the USPA, but more than likely it could start at the DZO level. Yes you will get a few idiots that will throw their hands up in the air, say its not fair, and threaten to go give their business elsewhere, but the normal SANE individuals will take this in a caring way.

But there is also the plain old fact: Some people are too stupid, too cocky or just don't get it and never will. And for these people, the best thing you can do unfortunately (after speaking with them about the risks 1,000,000 times) is just stay out of their way, warn people about them, and let nature take its course.

Quote

Hi Pablo,
at 130 jumps you don't have enough experience to know what you don't know.

Hmmmmm....

I haven't updated my profile in 2 years, I have 530 ish jumps and my last 300 or so have been HP landings and with in the last 6 months. I started on a WL of 1.2 on a saber 2, and after I got a pass from my canopy coach now I am on a Xfire2 139. I have had a few closed calls, where my training kicked in and saved myself (with my canopy coach).

Quote

It's the change of category that scares me. Back in the day, if it was square and flying straight the dangerous part was over. With the exception of wraps you were safe for your next jump.

I'd like to defend Marisan on this issue... to a point!

Years ago… we (students) were told "100 jumps before you jump a square". Most of us progressed to squares well before we had 50 jumps. This happened mostly because of the introduction of canopies like the Pegasus that were leaps and bounds better/safer than their predecessors. Back then, when a new canopy was introduced, it was because it was an improvement in the current design. If it was faster, it also landed and opened better. Wing loading was not a problem because most canopies were larger and most jumpers were looking to do CRW (which require a standard glide rate). Smaller skydivers jumped 5 cells, medium jumpers jumped 7 cells, and the big boys bought 9 cells (and at the time, were happy they could).

Today…. There is a large selection of canopy size and designs. One size does not fit all. No one does CRW anymore, so, standard glide goes out the window. Nobody wants to dive a Ford Pinto when the Ferrari sells for the same price? And we’re all qualified to drive the Ferrari, right? So, Marisan is right that the canopies today are dangerous! In fact, many are extremely dangerous, especially in the wrong hands. Can we all agree on that point so far?

Marisan, this is where I separate from your point of view. I believe qualified people, with expert training and proper attitude can safely fly and land today’s extremely high performance canopies. I am NOT one of those people. My guess is that 96% of you reading this are also not one of those people. True, you could be one of those people some day, but that would take years of training, hard work, proper attitude and experience. The big question we need to answer here is… How do we ensure the years of training, hard work, proper attitude and experience?

I believe it will take regulation and I also believe many will not be happy with that regulation. Tough!!

Quote

The big question we need to answer here is… How do we ensure the years of training, hard work, proper attitude and experience?

I believe it will take regulation and I also believe many will not be happy with that regulation. Tough!!

I believe that there are two primary causes enabling jumpers to fly canopies past their skill range. The first is the mindset of defining what is acceptable by hard numbers (ie 500 jumps for fully elliptical, 300 for 1.3 WL, etc). The second is the lack of education that these younger canopy pilots have. Most are so undereducated that they do not even realize that they do not know. Hell, I bet half of the folks trying their first swoops do not even have a concept of what a proper swoop is.

I've put quite a bit of thought into a solution for our current situation. It may not be perfect, but it is an idea. Feel free to support it, help mold it, or shoot it down. But nonetheless, keep in mind that it is an honest effort to help shift this current paradigm.

In a nutshell:
I purpose a mentor/coach hybrid program. Qualified individuals would be designated as HP canopy instructors (HPCI). Each student wishing to break into the swooping world and/or wishing to transition to a HP canopy would be assigned to a HPCI. The involvement of the HPCI should remain flexible, ranging from monitoring, policing, and approving downsizes at no cost, to personalized paid coaching and advice. Not only would this offer a more thorough approach to regulating canopy safety, but will also promote networking and friendships within the skydiving community.

In depth:
What qualifies an individual for HPCI status?
This is a big one. A HPCI should be a well seasoned canopy pilot who is still active, making at least 250 jumps on HP canopies each year. Simply put, refined skill on, consistency with, and knowledge of HP canopies are the requisites. I do not believe that a S&TA status, 10,000 jump badge, or any other type of rating should translate to HPCI status.

What are the duties of the HPCI?
The HPCI at a minimum keeps an eye (when possible) on their students in an effort to regulate and police the individual, as well as observe firsthand the student's skill level and abilities. With an accurate understanding of the student's abilities, the HPCI would also give final approval for downsizing. This approval, in a tangible form, could also help regulate sales of canopies from major factories. These services would be provided to the student at no cost, with the exception of a downsizing checkout jump (which I will elaborate on in a minute).

If the student wishes to become more involved in the program, then the HPCI should be able to offer additional help, in the form of paid coaching, advice, canopy courses, or videotaping landings.

What qualifies a jumper to downsize/swoop?
In order to transition to HP canopy (elliptical, or a WL in excess of 1.5), a jumper must have a minimum of 300 jumps, 100 of which must have been completed within the last year. They must attend a mandatory canopy class that covers HP canopy characteristics and basic swoop principles. Education is key here. And finally, they will be assigned a HPCI to chat with the student about the student's goals, gain an understanding of the student's abilities, and give the final approval to move on to a HP canopy or swooping.

Before the HPCI can give the student permission to downsize, the student must complete a checkout jump, similar to an A-license checkout. This would consist of one or two hop'n'pops on which the student would have to demonstrate skill sets appropriate for their skill levels...

For example:
-> To start swooping, a student should demonstrate moderate accuracy while performing a downwind landing (with a straight-in approach). Or perhaps a 90 degree flat turn under 125 ft.
-> To downsize to a 2.0 Xbrace while swooping, you should be able to demonstrate a safe 270 with reasonable accuracy.

To maintain the ability to fly a HP canopy or swoop, the jumper must complete 100 jumps a year on their canopy and be checked out by a HPCI. Perhaps a HP canopy pilot rating could be added to the USPA membership card, which would help regulate jumpers visiting new dropzones.