mspurgeo@oucsace.cs.OHIOU.EDU (Mike Spurgeon) (02/16/91)
For those of us who started on rags & PC's, the evolution that square parachutes brought _in the air_ was truly amazing. I did my first four stack in 1979 & 10 stack in 1980. I believe we made our first diamond in 1981 (boy, did _that_ bring up the learning curve. Funnel after funnel, followed by calls to Doc Johnson to see what to do next. Then back into the air to try again. If memory serves, we are Rocket Diamond #'s 28, 29, 30, 31 (or something in high 20's range). Sound's like a great idea to include it in license requirements, at least for a 'D'. Less experienced jumpers are learning at incredible rates nowadays, & CRW is definitely one of the things we should be at least understanding of at a minimum level. Mike Spurgeon
wtm%gr.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Thomas McCollough) (02/19/91)
I do not think that the general skydiving population is ready for a CRW license requirement. There are many skydivers who are, and they have been recognized via the awards program. But if CRW were made a license requirement, then what next? Would we require a bungee jump from an aircraft? CRW emergency procedures are about as well understood by most skydivers. If you've ever been engulfed by lines and canopy then you can better understand and respect an individual's right to call him or herself an expert skydiver without participating in CRW. I believe that a CRW license requirement would kill many more people than any other license requirement we have. Tom McCollough Night 4-Stack #691
ds4a@dalton.acc.Virginia.EDU (Dale Southard) (02/19/91)
As I started this thread, I will ATTEMPT to solicit a lively discussion... From message <1991Feb18.121056.16982@hellgate.utah.edu> >I do not think that the general skydiving population is ready for a CRW >license requirement. There are many skydivers who are, and they have >been recognized via the awards program. But if CRW were made a license >requirement, then what next? Would we require a bungee jump from an >aircraft? CRW emergency procedures are about as well understood by >most skydivers. If you've ever been engulfed by lines and canopy then >you can better understand and respect an individual's right to call him >or herself an expert skydiver without participating in CRW. I believe >that a CRW license requirement would kill many more people than any >other license requirement we have. > >Tom McCollough >Night 4-Stack #691 Tom: Yes, that is a response I expected... The relative danger of CRW (??) is one reason why I suggest only a two stack/plane as the requirement. Yes, it does subject the jumper to the risk of entanglement. BUT when that 40-way goes low, and everybody opens at the same altitude, doesn't knowing about CRW give added safety?? I have had as many lines around me as I care to, and I choose to take those risks, but when I am heading towards the DZ under canopy, I would rather be near the people that I have done CRW with -- because they are usually MUCH SAFER to be around, far less likely to hit me. (No, I don't get real close, but if you had the choice, who would you rather fly between, two jumpers that had CRW experience or two that didn't?). I think even a fairly poor skydiver should be able to safely build a two stack (hey, I built my first one when I had 20 jumps, well I flew and someone else nabbed me). Isn't the knowledge of relative canopy manuvering gained by doing CRW more immportant than the safety of never trying it? Final point -- lots of skydivers that have never done CRW get into intanglements -- Think that is safe? But, whatever. Tom's point is valid. I am just fishing for opinions here. Tom -- Lets do diamonds some time! --> --> Dale UVa (ds4a@virginia.edu)
mspurgeo@oucsace.cs.OHIOU.EDU (Mike Spurgeon) (02/19/91)
In article <1991Feb18.121056.16982@hellgate.utah.edu>, wtm%gr.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Thomas McCollough) writes: > I do not think that the general skydiving population is ready for a CRW > license requirement. There are many skydivers who are, and they have > been recognized via the awards program. But if CRW were made a license Let's not confuse the license program with the awards program. Awards show an achievement in _one_ aspect of our sport, while licenses show a level of skill in many. > requirement, then what next? Would we require a bungee jump from an > aircraft? Don't make the mistake of believing that since one thing takes place, other things _have to follow_. Requirements for both awards _and_ licenses have evolved with the sport and the skills of those in it. > most skydivers. If you've ever been engulfed by lines and canopy then > you can better understand and respect an individual's right to call him > or herself an expert skydiver without participating in CRW. Of course! But not necessarily a 'D' licensed jumper. The license re- quirements are meant to reflect a skill level in more than one aspect of our sport. Those aspects, as well as the skill levels of jumpers have evolved with time. > I believe > that a CRW license requirement would kill many more people than any > other license requirement we have. Name a license requirement that has killed someone. If you don't want to fulfill the requirements for a license, or don't feel confident of your abilities, by all means, don't attempt them. However, most of us will try to learn as much as possible of what can be done, while at the same time, learn what we as individuals enjoy. We learn style, RW, ac- curacy, and other skills for a given license, but that doesn't mean I, for one, will ever be a style and accuracy freak. I prefer to teach a little, and have fun a lot. Mike Spurgeon | My belief is that, while we should have P.O. Box 1 | the greatest respect for reality, we Athens OH 45701 | should not let it control our lives.
wtm%gr.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Thomas McCollough) (02/20/91)
In article <2956@oucsace.cs.OHIOU.EDU> mspurgeo@oucsace.cs.OHIOU.EDU (Mike Spurgeon) writes: >In article <1991Feb18.121056.16982@hellgate.utah.edu>, wtm%gr.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Thomas McCollough) writes: >> I believe >> that a CRW license requirement would kill many more people than any >> other license requirement we have. > >Name a license requirement that has killed someone. Let me clarify this. Take, for example, all the skydiving deaths in the past past 10 years. If any of those skydivers made their final jump with the motivation, in part or in full, of fulfulling a license requirement, then you can say that the USPA license system has indeed killed someone. Maybe it only amounts to one half death in 10 years. My point is that if we introduce a license requirement that is difficult to fulfill safely (relatively speaking), then I believe USPA members will scream. If you want to be recognized for a bridge jump, then you apply to the BASE association. I believe that at this time you'll have to form your own organization if you want a license for CRW. Tom McCollough
ccjoan@aggie.ucdavis.edu (Joan Gargano) (02/22/91)
In article <1991Feb19.114224.19554@hellgate.utah.edu> wtm%gr.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Thomas McCollough) writes: >In article <2956@oucsace.cs.OHIOU.EDU> mspurgeo@oucsace.cs.OHIOU.EDU (Mike Spurgeon) writes: >>In article <1991Feb18.121056.16982@hellgate.utah.edu>, wtm%gr.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Thomas McCollough) writes: The skill that needs to be demonstrated by licensing is canopy control to ensure it reflects the skydiver's ability to avoid hazards and not present a hazard to others while under canopy. This can be demonstrated by a series of maneuvers and accuracy requirements. CRW isn't really required here. I have done a little CRW. The first time was at Pope Valley under a Unit when CRW was just becoming popular. With about 150 jumps under my belt, I watched half of my canopy collapse and wasn't amused. At that point I decided it was more important for me to have an open canopy. To me, my canopy is a system to get me safely to the ground, not a vehicle I wanted to fly to its limits. I choose not to actively put myself in a situation that may compromise my functioning safety system and require me to activate a backup system. (I did actually practice CRW for a while once I was more experienced and performed very simple maneuvers at demos. It gave me a real respect for the skill required and reinforced my belief that it was not for me. I appreciate style and accuracy and CRW but it isn't the same for me as relative work and freestyle) I have the same attitude towards my cars (a Toyota stationwagon and a Honda Accord). I don't drive a Porsche and take it to trials on a speed way. While those skills would greatly enhance my ability to handle emergency procedures, they involve what I consider an unnecessary risk and they are not required for me to be an experienced driver capable of operating within the vast majority of situations I will encounter. The same goes for skydiving. I don't think it is required to be experienced at CRW to be safe within the vast majority of situations you will encounter. As a side note, Bill and I had a great time watching a style and accuracy meet at Antioch. Slam Factor was practicing CRW and decided to enter the meet. They came in as a stack and broke of in sequence at about 100 feet. They all came within about of the foot of the disc on each round and a couple of them hit it often enough to place in the meet. The dedicated S&A competitors were not amused but the rest of us really enjoyed watching it. Joan Gargano
mspurgeo@oucsace.cs.OHIOU.EDU (Mike Spurgeon) (02/22/91)
In article <10617@aggie.ucdavis.edu>, ccjoan@aggie.ucdavis.edu (Joan Gargano) writes: > > The skill that needs to be demonstrated by licensing is canopy control > to ensure it reflects the skydiver's ability to avoid hazards and not > present a hazard to others while under canopy. This can be > demonstrated by a series of maneuvers and accuracy requirements. CRW > isn't really required here. > I still have to disagree. If each and every one of us did nothing but style and accuracy, we also would not need the RW license requirements. The license requirements tend to reflect what significant numbers of jumpers are 'currently' doing. Witness the changes over the years. I am still of the opinion that a relatively simple CRW requirement on the D license is a showing of 'basic skills' at an appropriate level. > >I choose not to actively > put myself in a situation that may compromise my functioning safety system > and require me to activate a backup system. But isn't this what we do _every time_ we go out the door? > As a side note, Bill and I had a great time watching a style and > accuracy meet at Antioch. Slam Factor was practicing CRW and decided > to enter the meet. They came in as a stack and broke of in sequence > at about 100 feet. They all came within about of the foot of the disc > on each round and a couple of them hit it often enough to place in the > meet. The dedicated S&A competitors were not amused but the rest of > us really enjoyed watching it. Great story! I do believe most of us would have enjoyed that. Mike Spurgeon