Canopy Safety Discussion

At the February Board meeting in Reno, Nevada, the Safety & Training Committee discussed many issues related to canopy control and canopy training. The goal was to come up with viable ways to help jumpers learn more about canopy flight and become better canopy pilots without instituting overly burdensome requirements. After looking through the many member suggestions from our website and meeting with canopy experts and other industry leaders, the Committee is proposing the following changes:

Revise the Integrated Student Program student progression to include five jumps that are dedicated solely to canopy-control training.
Revise the accuracy landings requirements for licenses to include declaring intent before the jump, similar to the PRO rating requirements.
Require completion of a Canopy Progression Card for achieving a B license.
Require the completion of the Canopy Progression Card before every coach and instructor’s next rating renewal.
Change the license tests to include more questions on canopy control.
Change the Coach and Instructor Rating Courses to include more training and evaluation on teaching canopy control.
Require each coach or instructor rating candidate to attend a canopy course geared toward teaching the candidates more about canopy control and how to teach canopy control. (This course has not been developed.)
Develop methods to ensure that each drop zone is separating high-performance landings from other canopy traffic and ensuring that each jumper is flying an established landing pattern.

These ideas have been posted to solicit additional feedback from USPA members. At the upcoming July board meeting, the committee will decide how to progress with the proposals. These ideas do not include the details of implementation. While some of the points are relatively straightforward, others will require a large amount of detailed planning for implementation.

Submit Your Comments

Note: Comments will appear once approved.

Name: *

USPA or License Number: *

E-mail (will not be published): *

Your Comment:

Enter the code shown above:

Comments

JC Coldren, D10483 on 03/17/11 - 14:54:21

As an S&TA and an I/E with nearly 30 years of USPA active membership, I am very pleased with this list.
It is comprehensive, and evolutionary.
I volunteer to help develop the canopy course curriculum and work through the methodology we need to use to teach canopy control.
I think there may be room for a USPA Canopy Coach rating.
Great job USPA.
-JC

Doug Garr, D-2791 on 03/17/11 - 15:04:18

I am in favor of all of the above, especially items #1 and #2. I came up under round canopies, like many other older jumpers. The advent of ram-air parachutes has drastically changed the progression, and I've noticed far too many beginners and novices thinking that accuracy is "landing on the airport." They need to understand that the flight characteristics are not unlike flying an airplane (or glider). They need to understand lift and draft and flight basics, as well as what happens when you pull a toggle. They need more practice and supervision than we're giving them, perhaps because so much of our curriculum focuses so intently on learning how to free fall safely. These are changes that are long overdue, in my view.

Joseph Mowery, B-31589 on 03/17/11 - 15:05:52

As a young skydiver I'm worried about the additional costs associated with canopy courses.

As a recent college grad:
I can barely afford, gear.
I can barely afford the AFF course.
I can barely afford jump tickets.
I can barely afford the gass that is reguired to drive to most dropzones.
I can barely afford USPA membership and reserve packjobs

Not to mention any college depts, or any of my other bills.

I would like to know what USPA is doing to make skydiving more affordable to young skydivers? The reason more tandem students don't continue skydiving is because skydiving is extremely expensive.

So I hope you will consider the ever increasing costs of skydiving when you are deciding to mandate canopy courses.

Thanks for reading,
- Joe Mowery

Ben Ligas, A53777 on 03/17/11 - 15:07:14

Having completed to Canopy courses at my drop zone I found the extra training and observations very helpful. One element that may help instructors and DZ sponsoring canopy courses would be a written quiz at the end to see if the intended points of instruction were effectively communicated to participants. This would serve well to improve the quality of instruction.

At our DZ safety day review of minimum safe distances to allow time to react and avoid canopy collision upon opening was very helpful. It stressed the importance of maximum tracking after breaking away from formations.

Forrest Dix, B-32716 on 03/17/11 - 15:08:50

I think it would be useful if the USPA conducted a study on what level of canopy piloting skill leads to lower chances of injury when downsizing. A big portion of that would simply be understanding what to measure. I don't think it would necessarily be a good idea to regulate downsizing; but, having accurate information to base recommendations on would be very useful in improving safety.

J. Washabaugh, D-26070 on 03/17/11 - 15:19:11

As a former PRO jumper, I support these measures and would even require more training every time a jumper downsizes canopies. Of course implementation of these requirements will be difficult to enforce, but it is all in the interest of jumper safety. Those of us older jumpers have a responsibility to share our knowledge and experience with younger jumpers, many of whom do not fully consider the risks associated with downsizing canopies without receiving any formal training. Peer pressure to downsize and get a bigger rush out of swooping must be tempered by any and all reasonable controls to ensure jumper safety. If experienced jumpers do not intervene, the consequences could be fatal. Who among us wants to be responsible for a fellow jumper's death or serious injury just because we did not want to apper to be "uncool"? Attending your friend's funeral or visiting them in the hospital is certainly not "cool". Our collective goal as responsible skydivers ought to be to grow our sport, and one way to grow would be to achieve a zero death year for USPA. Feel free to publish these remarks. I welcome feedback and opposing points of view.

Beth Johnson, C-37471 on 03/17/11 - 15:20:14

I think this is a great list. I especially like #1 - 3. I went through AFP 5 years ago and felt like canopy skills were pretty glossed over. As someone else said -- if I landed on the airport, and didn't break myself, that was good enough. Today I still struggle with my accuracy. I really love #1 -- with everything you have to learn as a student, to have jumps that are ONLY focused on canopy work would really cement the importance of that.

Walt Appel, USPA 9805 on 03/17/11 - 15:23:23

While I think accuracy is a critical skill, I also think that focusing on it early in a jumper's career is potentially dangerous since it can lead to target fixation and cause jumpers to *not* continuously scan the area around them while under canopy.

My gut feel is that emphasis on flying the established pattern would increase safety more than increasing accuracy requirements.

Also, requiring CRW achievements for licenses would greatly increase jumpers' canopy skills.

Steve Ernst, C-36015 on 03/17/11 - 15:33:36

I think that declared intent for student landing accuracy requirement can lead to canopy collisions because the student, in order to avoid a "miss", may be too focused on the landing spot than on other canopy pilots in the pattern. The inexperienced student would not want to add an extra jump for missing a landing accuracy requirement and not have the practical experience to be able to look for traffic at the same time. Great care must be taken in the instructions to and training of the student prior to declared landing accuracy jumps. Maybe require that declared accuracy landing jumps for students be done with separate passes (such as a hop'n'pop) or small plane loads, or in an otherwise "clear" landing pattern. It feels to me that the "declared" accuracy jumps would be more of a danger than general landing accuracy jumps. The intent should be to make a student land more consistently in the correct area than just on particular jumps.

Mike Livieri, c-15131 on 03/17/11 - 15:38:10

Keep up the good work. I'm sick of losing good friends to canopy incidents!!

I like the training initiatives and the new requirements for instructors, however, keep it simple and don't make it a chore to renew your ratings. I understand ...this stuff is important. My fear is, it will become a rating renewal monster.

Alexander Shyrokov, 194661 on 03/17/11 - 15:51:07

What about providing students with better educational tools, such as computer simulations? It is one thing to ask a person if they know what to do, it is another to see them do it in a simulation.

Thanks,
Alexander

Trent K. Purcell, D-15615 on 03/17/11 - 15:57:24

I think it is a great idea to separate the high performance canopy landing area from the other landing area. I have read that some canopy collisions involve high performance canopies not seeing and then hitting the low performance canopies. If the high performance people want to take the extra risk of killing themselves at least they won't take me or some low-time jumper with them.

Richard Schnedl, C-13244 on 03/17/11 - 15:58:25

I've been around a LONG time and before we had AFF we had a 30 jump progression that went from static line to 30 sec. freefall. During that time the only thing other than arch and delay that was stressed was canopy control and landings. No one teaches what an airfoil is and how it pertains to canopies. No one teaches deep brake descents or flat turns or how to read the wind from the trees or someones burning trash pile. But we also have to remember there are a lot of people jumping now that would not have physically been able to jump when PC's and Pap's were the rave, or even the Strato Star. PLF's were an everyday landing. So we have a sport that's equipment has been an enabler. So what if you slow some of these people down, and restrict their canopy choices. In aviation, just because you get your private pilot license doesn't mean you can go out and buy a LearJet and bore holes in the sky.

Michael Hotchkiss, B-35021 on 03/17/11 - 15:59:31

I am a rather new skydiver, and I have to say that although my instruction was top notch, most of the direct instructor feedback, especially during AFF, was on the freefall portion of the dive. I took a Canopy Control course right after my A license, and found those jumps extremely helpful. When a jump is dedicated soley to how to fly your canopy, you are more likely to pay attention to better performance and really notice the aspects of flying your canopy. I am happy to see the USPA attempt to address the safety issues regarding canopy control, but I am cautious about asking for too much regulation.

In light of the incidents last year, and already starting this year, I am for items 1 and 3. (Possibly 8, but my dropzone already does this well, and I think it would be very hard to regulate in any effective way.)

Item 1: Giving instructors the opportunity to really watch a student throughout their whole pattern and focus on canopy flight will go a long way to prevent problems from that jumper 50 jumps down the road, after his bad habits are solidified.

Item 3: Getting real canopy instruction is never a bad thing, especially considering that B license gives you the ability to night jump, where landing accuracy is very important, and baloon jumps, where you will almost certainly be landing off in unfamiliar territory and potentially avoiding obstacles.

Mike McKenzie, C-29803 on 03/17/11 - 16:05:51

I strongly agree with Walt that CRW training and achievements should be emphasized for advanced licenses. In addition, I believe CRW emergency procedures should be taught early on as well. As students graduate and start jumping with other folks, the potential for canopy collisions increases greatly. Knowing what to do in a wrap or entanglement can mean the difference between life and death.

Connect with USPA