HP From an Old Fart

Quote

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

I'm going to shoot it down, and I'll tell you why - complexity and lack of scope.

It's too complex in that you end up needing a coach/mentor for each jumper looking to progress, and that's just not feasbile. You cannot count on having that many people, available on a reliable basis, willing to work for no money. It leaves too many 'cracks' for jumpers to fall through if nobody is around or paying attention.

It lacks scope in that you're only looking at one set of jumpers, those looking to swoop and with the pre-set qualifications to swoop. What about jumpers with 100 jumps? 200 jumps? Jumpers who don't want to swoop? What oversight and education do they get?

What's needed is an effort right from jump one to both regulate, educate, and impress upon jumpers the importance of quality canopy piloting skills, and prudent canopy selection.

WL restrictions are a snap. You write up a chart, and jumpers simply follow the chart. Easy.

Continuing education is also easy to administer. Let's say there are 3 canopy control courses required to advance to the 'unlimited' catagory. DZs can simply schedule the different classes once or twice per season. Just because a jumper has the jumps to advance in WL, they smiply have to wait until the next calss to get the educational requirement met, and advance to the next class/size of canopy.

It's not all the different than live water training. You need it for a B license, but most DZs only offer it once or twice per year. If you're otherwise B qualified, you just have to wait for the next training session. Ditto for night jumps, if you want your D, you have to wait for the next round of night jumps.

Back to the canopy contol classes, when you run it like a class, you need one instructor for the entire class. one guy can teach a room full of people all at once, as opposed to a coach/mentor, where you need a bunch of them, all working in an unstructured environment.

If make things too complicated, it's not going to work. If you try to involve too many people, it's not going to work. If you don't make it a requirement for all jumpers, it's not going to work.

What's needed is a shift in the thinking and approach to canopy flight for all jumpers on every DZ, and you can't make that happen by only targeting a select few.

Quote

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...

That is closest that I have heard on this forums on what we do at our DZ.
It was myself who wanted to get into swooping. There was only one instructor at our DZ that jump a xbraced and was doing 450 ( He does in the range of 300-560 jumps a year). So I approached this instructor saying¨ I want to learn how to swoop¨. Since then we have taken a few canopy courses together, also we video almost every landing ( we take turns every jumps and whoever land first video the other person and the other way around)

We also have swoop gates, and now we are making a second set of swoop gates (just to make the angle of the video optimal and the video person can still practice on swoop gates).

He started coaching me by doing drills, and going thru many different scenarios on what could go wrong to the point where he mention I should increase my turn, I should start using rears, get a fully elliptical swooping canopy, etc etc)

To be honest I was lucky that this instructor was there every weekend, but in my particular case it worked great.


------------------------------
I apologize for my grammar mistakes in advance

Quote

Quote

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

I'm going to shoot it down, and I'll tell you why - complexity and lack of scope.

It's too complex in that you end up needing a coach/mentor for each jumper looking to progress, and that's just not feasbile. You cannot count on having that many people, available on a reliable basis, willing to work for no money. It leaves too many 'cracks' for jumpers to fall through if nobody is around or paying attention.

It lacks scope in that you're only looking at one set of jumpers, those looking to swoop and with the pre-set qualifications to swoop. What about jumpers with 100 jumps? 200 jumps? Jumpers who don't want to swoop? What oversight and education do they get?

What's needed is an effort right from jump one to both regulate, educate, and impress upon jumpers the importance of quality canopy piloting skills, and prudent canopy selection.

WL restrictions are a snap. You write up a chart, and jumpers simply follow the chart. Easy.

Continuing education is also easy to administer. Let's say there are 3 canopy control courses required to advance to the 'unlimited' catagory. DZs can simply schedule the different classes once or twice per season. Just because a jumper has the jumps to advance in WL, they smiply have to wait until the next calss to get the educational requirement met, and advance to the next class/size of canopy.

It's not all the different than live water training. You need it for a B license, but most DZs only offer it once or twice per year. If you're otherwise B qualified, you just have to wait for the next training session. Ditto for night jumps, if you want your D, you have to wait for the next round of night jumps.

Back to the canopy contol classes, when you run it like a class, you need one instructor for the entire class. one guy can teach a room full of people all at once, as opposed to a coach/mentor, where you need a bunch of them, all working in an unstructured environment.

If make things too complicated, it's not going to work. If you try to involve too many people, it's not going to work. If you don't make it a requirement for all jumpers, it's not going to work.

What's needed is a shift in the thinking and approach to canopy flight for all jumpers on every DZ, and you can't make that happen by only targeting a select few.

Dave, at last a reasonable response. This is what I've been trying to get. Now lean on the USPA and tell them that, if they don't finance this, they won't have a job.
Jumpers HAVE to be seen doing something about this carnage otherwise the FAA WILL do something about it. Public servants tend to react to something that is annoying them by making the whole problem go away ie: ban jumping. ( See the thread on the FAA Letter) With no jumping USPA will have nothing to do. Then they are all unemployed. Don't think it won't happen. It did happen in the late sixties in New Zealand. Jumpers became such a pest that jumping was banned for 6 months.

People are now talking about the problem which they weren't before. All the flaming was worth it (I hope)

I don't want to take you all back to my days, I just want the carnage to end.

Quote

>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.

Yep. Such problems, historically, do not kill or injure people.

>The Raven requires more technical skill to land well.

Which is what I said.

Still flawed logic. In the case of the pilot, people have the option of cutting away from said problems.

Quote

at last a reasonable response. This is what I've been trying to get.

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.

Quote

People are now talking about the problem which they weren't before.

This issue has been discussed in these forums for YEARS. Try the search option.

Quote

All the flaming was worth it

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.

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!

Marsha works until you fill out your profile... my $.02

Quote

It's Marisan not Marsha!

Marsha works until you fill out your profile... my $.02

Ouch!!!

Speaking from the perspective of complete inexperience with a desire to learn and be safe, all these different opinions out there from a lot of experienced skydivers get pretty confusing.

For example, the SIM Section 5 recommends that A and B license holders stay to a 1.0 wingloading. It further states that any canopy 150 SF or under is considered High Performance, and falls under the D license guidelines. The in Section 6-10 it states that any canopy smaller than 150 SF is considered advanced equipment. So which is a 150 SF canopy? How does this "advanced equipment" translate, since it also says any canopy from 150-189 loaded over 0.9 is also "advanced", apparently including the Spectre 170 that I'm loading 1:1. Should I be using a 190 (with no problem with that 190 being, say, a Stiletto, which Bill just listed as the old-timey big killer)? Should I also be waiting until 500 jumps to downsize to a 150 at 1.13:1?

There's a disconnect between what USPA is recommending and what instructors are telling people. For example, my Basic Skills (not Skillz) canopy coach was very comfortable with me flying this canopy (I realize there is no USPA designated canopy coaching rating). Personally, I'll take the recommendation of a skilled/respected coach who has some experience with my ability to fly and land my canopy over a book, but why is there such a significant disconnect?

On a more positive note, I'm glad to see that there is a canopy requirement to the B license starting in 2012; looking over it, it will be interesting to see how S&TAs approach this. I'm looking forward to working through that Canopy Piloting Proficiency Card at the beginning of 2012. What do experienced folks think of that new requirement? Will it help at all?

http://www.uspa.org/Portals/0/Downloads/Form_CPProficiencyCard.pdf

Hi Marisan,

Good to recognise the care in your posts.
Put quite simply " Most newbies just don't know what they're %#@in with !
The well meaning amoungst us try to limit the damage caused by the wholesale swallowing of the ZP HP bait. Skydivers have gulped it down, hook line and sinker. They're caught proper.

You mentioned before that Jyro has a lot to amswer for. Well, I agree, but he's an easy target.
The larger industry that he's a part of is the real worry.
Early ZP canopies, (many poorly made copies by Jyro's included,) killed and injured a large number of very good skydivers. Of coures the pilots were to blame, they were just crap at flying lethal canopies.

Early Jyro's were death traps, accidents just waiting to happen. The things would dive into the ground with the greatest of ease . So did the early Blue Tracks which were like psycho racehorses..they'd just go anywhere sometimes.
Bandits killed a few people and I can remember when the first whuffo was killed by a mad stealth swooper strike .

The same mob in the industry keep pushing their latest designs on skydivers.
These canopy designs really should only be flown by full time or extremely current jumpers....but they get dumped on the general public after a couple of years of testing and..... 'bingo' , we're all test pilots for the beggars.
They not heros, they don't give a shit about the trail of destuction. Have you seen the way these industry guys walk around a DZ ? they are so full of themselves and their minions bow down as they walk past.

Then newbies think you 're full of BS if you don't fly the latest and the greatest.
Then the hot shots want to train everyone to fly the dankerous little things.

So old school wisdom is now sidelined and its all about learning to fly a fast little parachute that's more like a jet with the flame out than any life saving canopy ever was.

. ALL sorts of dangerous things are going on that would NEVER have been allowed to become so entrenched back in the day...but thats exactly what has happened.
The old school pissed off and got married and left us with ....what you see now.

Hey Marisan have you seen how most of these people try to freefly. Apart from the 'pay the god' loads, Every jump for most newbies is just like an old 16 way no build zoo dive.
people turn up from other groups , tracking blindly past
That's why they concentrate so much on having their little canopies cause the free fall absolutely sucks at most places ....totally.
Just imagine dozens of newbies all with little canopies head down zooming around.
the stuff of great nightmares

That bloke calling you marsha , what a puddy cat

Quote

Hey Marisan have you seen how most of these people try to freefly. Apart from the 'pay the god' loads, Every jump for most newbies is just like an old 16 way no build zoo dive.
people turn up from other groups , tracking blindly past
That's why they concentrate so much on having their little canopies cause the free fall absolutely sucks at most places ....totally.
Just imagine dozens of newbies all with little canopies head down zooming around.
the stuff of great nightmares

That bloke calling you marsha , what a puddy cat

So, based on your post, your "self proclaimed" skillz are far and beyond, vastly superior, and just plain better than the rest. If that's indeed true (I'm not questioning your skill, just explaining how I read your post), mentor a NOOB!! Just one! Bring him/her along and help them become your equal. Then, and only then, will you have a comparable mate to jump with. ...For what it's worth.

Or, you can just keep waiting for great skydivers to magically appear??

in reply to "So, based on your post, your "self proclaimed" skillz are far and beyond, vastly superior, and just plain better than the rest. If that's indeed true (I'm not questioning your skill, just explaining how I read your post), mentor a NOOB!! Just one! Bring him/her along and help them become your equal. Then, and only then, will you have a comparable mate to jump with. ...For what it's worth.

Or, you can just keep waiting for great skydivers to magically appear?? "
...............................................

Not self proclaimed at all mate, I've thrown away all my skydiving medals and trophies cause the people that gave them to me were full of shit.

They've let the sport devolve into a dangerous miasma of inexperience led by ambition and greed, not skill or dedication.

The freeflyers of the naughties didn't recreate anything worth experiencing unless you're a speed dealer or a millionaire.

....mentoring sucks just look at the base community. A newbie bozo can be a mentor.
What our sport needs is standards ..set high. that people HAVE to pass to progress.

WE used to do this naturally but now we pay all the little goddies who set the standards, and they just don't know how to share knowledge and experience without being paid in $$$$$ or ego strokes.

DZ's could usually be relied on to throw up at least one decent watchable (from the ground) dive a day. Haven't seen it lately,
One major DZ I visited, couldn't even build a 30 way at an annual boogie cause the skill level is so low. This has very little to do with my abilities but is an indication of a low skill set compared to before freeflying and HP took over.

The only freeflyer still freeflying after 5 years at one DZ was the guy getting free jumps to lead the crowd. I saw someone openly abuse him Not one single person that he had led was still there.
They didn't create the environment for others to grow........ cause it was all about them.
Selfish @#$%s.

Just for anyone interested in what our leaders in australia are feeding people through the national skydiving mag.

I've got my opinions of the ASM/drug /fast canopy connection but they are unprintable.

Quote

They've let the sport devolve into a dangerous miasma of inexperience led by ambition and greed, not skill or dedication.

The freeflyers of the naughties didn't recreate anything worth experiencing unless you're a speed dealer or a millionaire.

....mentoring sucks just look at the base community. A newbie bozo can be a mentor.
What our sport needs is standards ..set high. that people HAVE to pass to progress.

WE used to do this naturally but now we pay all the little goddies who set the standards, and they just don't know how to share knowledge and experience without being paid in $$$$$ or ego strokes.

DZ's could usually be relied on to throw up at least one decent watchable (from the ground) dive a day. Haven't seen it lately,
One major DZ I visited, couldn't even build a 30 way at an annual boogie cause the skill level is so low. This has very little to do with my abilities but is an indication of a low skill set compared to before freeflying and HP took over.

The only freeflyer still freeflying after 5 years at one DZ was the guy getting free jumps to lead the crowd. I saw someone openly abuse him Not one single person that he had led was still there.
They didn't create the environment for others to grow........ cause it was all about them.
Selfish @#$%s.

Again, I through the ball back into your court.... It's up to guys like you to bring along the NEWBS. Hell, I'd love to learn a thing or two from you. Mentor the youngons and form them into skilled jumpers.... the 30 ways will return to your local DZ!

Quote

All you people defending Lethal Canopies, . . .

Canopies themselves are not lethal; slamming oneself into the ground or colliding with someone else can be lethal - under any canopy.

The lethal canopies thread is titled in a very misleading manner. The data is pretty meaningless unless we know how many jumps have been made under each canopy. It should be titled something like "Canopies most commonly being flown at the time somebody fucked up."

BTW - do you think by capitalizing lethal canopies you have somehow made your claim more valid?

We could do the same for autos. Which ones are most commonly involved in accidents and/or fatal accidents? Let's identify them, classify them, establish a DL rating system, etc. Pretty silly.

in reply to "Again, I through the ball back into your court.... It's up to guys like you to bring along the NEWBS. Hell, I'd love to learn a thing or two from you. Mentor the youngons and form them into skilled jumpers.... the 30 ways will return to your local DZ! "
............................................

I'm sure you're fun to jump with too mate. I tend to be slow but sure. Practise makes perfect.
Funny how you don't hear 'rushing like a madman makes perfect'.

I disagree though about bringing along the newbs. That's not my responsibilty. They got to bring themselves along for the ride...form their own groups based on gradual skill aquisition and dedication to the task. of course it suits some temperaments to have a gaggle of newbs but not me.
.... they get real heavy man...and dependent.

GIVE em the basics (taking $$$$ for this is just fine by me), SHARE the rest.

One thing, if anyone jumps with me, I learn WITH them, not them learning FROM me. I'm learning right now. This is an important distinction necessary to create a true learning environment...eg on every jump.

So many pro's just don't get that...and they've taken your money and gone before you realise , they've got things to learn too, but YOU're paying.
..and are most likely left with a HP canopy you don't really know how to control unless you pay another pro.
That, my friend, is a set up . You're left always chasing some-one elses ball.


Funny thing, a mate and me were watching some newbie freeflying videos, and it occurred to us that the skill level was about on par with pioneering baton passing from the dark ages.
They really looked like pioneers.
These guys had been professionally trained
just not exposed to sport skydiving yet.

Quote

Quote

All you people defending Lethal Canopies, . . .

Canopies themselves are not lethal; slamming oneself into the ground or colliding with someone else can be lethal - under any canopy.

The lethal canopies thread is titled in a very misleading manner. The data is pretty meaningless unless we know how many jumps have been made under each canopy. It should be titled something like "Canopies most commonly being flown at the time somebody fucked up."

BTW - do you think by capitalizing lethal canopies you have somehow made your claim more valid?

We could do the same for autos. Which ones are most commonly involved in accidents and/or fatal accidents? Let's identify them, classify them, establish a DL rating system, etc. Pretty silly.

Re Cars: The Ford Pinto springs to mind as does Ralph Nader's book " Unsafe at Any Speed"

Quote

We could do the same for autos. Which ones are most commonly involved in accidents and/or fatal accidents? Let's identify them, classify them, establish a DL rating system, etc. Pretty silly.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Re Cars: The Ford Pinto springs to mind as does Ralph Nader's book " Unsafe at Any Speed"

You're making an incorrect comparison. The Pinto had a design flaw that prevented it from being safe, even with the best driver. In canopy terms, the Nova was a canopy that was 'unsafe at any speed' in that even the best pilot could not stop it from collapsing. The original Crossfire was similar in that it exhibited a tendency to collapse (though not as bad as the Nova). The Nova went out of production, and the Crossfire has an update issued, and eventually was replaced by the Crossfire II.

A Velocity, like I jump, and many other HP canopies do not have design flaws, and can be flown safely be the right pilot. I have jumped every HP canopy on the (US) market over the course of 1000's of jumps without incident. It's not the parachute, it's the pilot.

You still have not responded to my quesiton about your actual experience with modern, ZP canopies. If you have none, come forward and admit it. Many of your comments about the nature of modern canopies are incorrect and your arguments are, in turn, also flawed because they're based on those incorrect conclusions.

Quote

Quote

We could do the same for autos. Which ones are most commonly involved in accidents and/or fatal accidents? Let's identify them, classify them, establish a DL rating system, etc. Pretty silly.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Re Cars: The Ford Pinto springs to mind as does Ralph Nader's book " Unsafe at Any Speed"

You're making an incorrect comparison. The Pinto had a design flaw that prevented it from being safe, even with the best driver. In canopy terms, the Nova was a canopy that was 'unsafe at any speed' in that even the best pilot could not stop it from collapsing. The original Crossfire was similar in that it exhibited a tendency to collapse (though not as bad as the Nova). The Nova went out of production, and the Crossfire has an update issued, and eventually was replaced by the Crossfire II.

A Velocity, like I jump, and many other HP canopies do not have design flaws, and can be flown safely be the right pilot. I have jumped every HP canopy on the (US) market over the course of 1000's of jumps without incident. It's not the parachute, it's the pilot.

You still have not responded to my quesiton about your actual experience with modern, ZP canopies. If you have none, come forward and admit it. Many of your comments about the nature of modern canopies are incorrect and your arguments are, in turn, also flawed because they're based on those incorrect conclusions.

Okay Dave, I admit that I have no experience with modern ZP Canopies. The last canopy I jumped when I gave it away after 2,500 jumps and 20+ years was a Pegasus.

I am not putting down your skills or Aggie Dave's. But I am saying that both of you have had an "Oh Shit" moment that you survived by pure dumb luck. (Not now but when you were first learning about HP Canopies)

See the table below. Nearly 20 people per year have been killed under HP Canopies and the Velocity is over a third of them.

Top 5 w/ number of fatalities per:
Velocity 24
Stiletto 12
Sabre2 11
Katana 7
Spectre 7

So how are these stats to be changed?

Mentoring doesn't work because otherwise you wouldn't have these stats.

Banning these canopies is, realistically, not going to happen unless someone with a really big stick enforces it. (And I can see this happening because what you are doing now is NOT working)

So what is to be done?

How about MANDATED training before you downsize. (With a qualified trainer) ie before every downsize you MUST attend a training course on that wingloading and specific canopy and pass said course.
Until then you CAN'T buy or jump that canopy.
This is going to take a lot of co-operation between Gear Manufacturers, Resellers and DZO's (And cost the Manufacturers, Resellers and DZO's a lot of money)
This is what Base Jumpers are starting to do to keep totally unqualified people from their sport.

So Dave, how are you going to do that and ENFORCE it?

As I said earlier, Mentoring doesn't work otherwise we wouldn't be having this argument.

Quote

Quote

Quote

We could do the same for autos. Which ones are most commonly involved in accidents and/or fatal accidents? Let's identify them, classify them, establish a DL rating system, etc. Pretty silly.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Re Cars: The Ford Pinto springs to mind as does Ralph Nader's book " Unsafe at Any Speed"

You're making an incorrect comparison. The Pinto had a design flaw that prevented it from being safe, even with the best driver. In canopy terms, the Nova was a canopy that was 'unsafe at any speed' in that even the best pilot could not stop it from collapsing. The original Crossfire was similar in that it exhibited a tendency to collapse (though not as bad as the Nova). The Nova went out of production, and the Crossfire has an update issued, and eventually was replaced by the Crossfire II.

A Velocity, like I jump, and many other HP canopies do not have design flaws, and can be flown safely be the right pilot. I have jumped every HP canopy on the (US) market over the course of 1000's of jumps without incident. It's not the parachute, it's the pilot.

You still have not responded to my quesiton about your actual experience with modern, ZP canopies. If you have none, come forward and admit it. Many of your comments about the nature of modern canopies are incorrect and your arguments are, in turn, also flawed because they're based on those incorrect conclusions.

Okay Dave, I admit that I have no experience with modern ZP Canopies. The last canopy I jumped when I gave it away after 2,500 jumps and 20+ years was a Pegasus.

I am not putting down your skills or Aggie Dave's. But I am saying that both of you have had an "Oh Shit" moment that you survived by pure dumb luck. (Not now but when you were first learning about HP Canopies)

See the table below. Nearly 20 people per year have been killed under HP Canopies and the Velocity is over a third of them.

Top 5 w/ number of fatalities per:
Velocity 24
Stiletto 12
Sabre2 11
Katana 7
Spectre 7

So how are these stats to be changed?

Mentoring doesn't work because otherwise you wouldn't have these stats.

Banning these canopies is, realistically, not going to happen unless someone with a really big stick enforces it. (And I can see this happening because what you are doing now is NOT working)

So what is to be done?

How about MANDATED training before you downsize. (With a qualified trainer) ie before every downsize you MUST attend a training course on that wingloading and specific canopy and pass said course.
Until then you CAN'T buy or jump that canopy.
This is going to take a lot of co-operation between Gear Manufacturers, Resellers and DZO's (And cost the Manufacturers, Resellers and DZO's a lot of money)
This is what Base Jumpers are starting to do to keep totally unqualified people from their sport.

So Dave, how are you going to do that and ENFORCE it?

As I said earlier, Mentoring doesn't work otherwise we wouldn't be having this argument.

Hi Marsha d-s,
So you list a rack of canopies that were involved in fatalities and you mention that banning them realistically is not going to happen. Astute observation. So banning these canopies and nopbody gets killed under them, just the next rack of canopies on the list!! Why do you even care who gets killed?? You don't jump any more no way no how!! Well I havn't jumped in a few years after a shoulder injury but now it's pretty well healed and I have enough other stuff settled in my life that I can dust off my "Stiletto" and go jump again, Oh no I cant because you are "Banning them!!" Get serious Marsha!! I will jump my Stiletto and I doubt seriously Marsha that you will stop me, Just Try!!

Quote

This is what BASE jumpers are starting to do to keep totally unqualified people from their sport.

You mean BASE jumpers can't buy HP BASE canopies because they're regulated now?

Quote

I will jump my Stiletto and I doubt seriously Marsha that you will stop me, Just Try!!

My god man! Not a Stiletto!! And at a w/l of 1.18? Almost certain death.
Statistically speaking of course.

Hi Marsha d-s,
So you list a rack of canopies that were involved in fatalities and you mention that banning them realistically is not going to happen. Astute observation. So banning these canopies and nopbody gets killed under them, just the next rack of canopies on the list!! Why do you even care who gets killed?? You don't jump any more no way no how!! Well I havn't jumped in a few years after a shoulder injury but now it's pretty well healed and I have enough other stuff settled in my life that I can dust off my "Stiletto" and go jump again, Oh no I cant because you are "Banning them!!" Get serious Marsha!! I will jump my Stiletto and I doubt seriously Marsha that you will stop me, Just Try!!

I have no intention of stopping you from jumping your Stiletto. But given your rabid rant I will find a certain SCHADENFREUDE. when YOUR name turns up on the incident list.

I, however, will mourn the people that die on HP Canopies because they had no right jumping them and people like you didn't stop them!

schadenfreude, huh!?

that's pretty bad karma; i hope it's not biting you in the ass sometime..