Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

New Regulations On The Use Of The Main Wing - Ffp (Not Bpa)


  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

#1 BlueSkyBri

BlueSkyBri
  • Administrators
  • 2,160 posts
  • Home DZ:Bit of a nomad. Freelance AFFI and FS Load Organiser, based primarily at Langar.
  • Jumps:>2k

Posted 27 April 2016 - 11:18 AM

As per the Topic Title this came out of the FFP (Federation Francaise de Parachutisme) and NOT the BPA.

 

The FFP have come up with regulations on how many jumps you need before you can downsize depending on your weight. 

 

The page I've linked to is in French but Google Translate does a passable job on the web page (not the PDF) and luckily you can get the gist of the regs from the graph and table that I've posted below. 

 

Graph showing the minimum canopy size for a given number of jumps, as introduced by the FFP.

Attached File  Screen Shot 2016-04-27 at 12.07.24.png   226.1KB   21 downloads

 

Table showing the recommended canopy size per body weight (not inc kit) and jump experience, as introduced by the FFP. 

Attached File  Screen Shot 2016-04-27 at 12.08.20.png   840.81KB   19 downloads

 

 

I haven't been able to fully translate the PDF file unfortunately, just the web page. If someone knows a way, that would be helpful.  :doh:  :thumbs:

 

I'd like to see their incident list that caused them to bring this in.

 

Does anyone know if the French have been historically more aware and more pro-active of incident reduction than the BPA? 

 

cheers

 

PS I'd be super interested to hear from you if you wouldn't be allowed to jump your current canopy in France. Anyone got a holiday planned?  :scream:


  • -1

#2 BlueSkyBri

BlueSkyBri
  • Administrators
  • 2,160 posts
  • Home DZ:Bit of a nomad. Freelance AFFI and FS Load Organiser, based primarily at Langar.
  • Jumps:>2k

Posted 27 April 2016 - 11:19 AM

Sauts = jumps

Poids = weight

Nu = naked


  • 1

#3 Donna J

Donna J
  • Members
  • 603 posts
  • Home DZ:Usually found at Dunkeswell or Netheravon and Airkix Basingstoke, occasionally ventures north to Langar
  • Jumps:450+

Posted 27 April 2016 - 12:12 PM

That's would be me buggered if I was a Frenchie then! I jump a Sabre 2 120, have 435 jumps (about 50 on this canopy), and weigh (at the mo) just over 59kg (and falling).  That chart only starts at 60kg too which is not that handy for us small females.

 

Would also be interested to see if they will be forcing this regulation on visiting skydivers, will be one to scratch off the dz countries bucket list if so.


  • 0

#4 degeneration

degeneration
  • Members
  • 2,218 posts
  • Home DZ:Swansea

Posted 27 April 2016 - 12:37 PM

I wouldn't be allowed to jump my current canopy based on those rules. I have a 100/105 in my two rigs, and have been jumping those canopies and a couple of others in the same size for approx 100 or so jumps, and love them, but according to the chart I would only be allowed a 135. :shock:

 

Fortunately I didn't have plans on the horizon to jump in France


  • 0

#5 Mariusz

Mariusz
  • Members
  • 92 posts
  • Home DZ:Peterlee
  • Jumps:300+

Posted 27 April 2016 - 05:57 PM

If I'm reading the table right then I wouldn't be able to jump my canopy (Sabre 2 170ft) there either :(
  • 0

#6 Joellercoaster

Joellercoaster

    UKS Forum Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 4,817 posts
  • Home DZ:Sibson, Bodyflight Bedford
  • Jumps:1200

Posted 27 April 2016 - 08:34 PM

I'm not sure exactly what the French have done, but the impression I get from places like the Netherlands (who have had rules about wingload, main size *and* canopy planform for many years) is that as long as you aren't doing anything they consider completely ridiculous, then foreigners are OK as long as they aren't breaking their home country rules.

 

For those of you saying "well I wouldn't be able to jump mine, screw 'em", I have a question: does this make you wonder about your own choices? Or just assume that the French know nothing about safety?

 

(I ask as someone who has made questionable canopy choices in his past compared to recommendations like these, and looks back on his younger self as lucky rather than justified.)


  • 1

#7 degeneration

degeneration
  • Members
  • 2,218 posts
  • Home DZ:Swansea

Posted 27 April 2016 - 08:57 PM

I'm not sure exactly what the French have done, but the impression I get from places like the Netherlands (who have had rules about wingload, main size *and* canopy planform for many years) is that as long as you aren't doing anything they consider completely ridiculous, then foreigners are OK as long as they aren't breaking their home country rules.

 

For those of you saying "well I wouldn't be able to jump mine, screw 'em", I have a question: does this make you wonder about your own choices? Or just assume that the French know nothing about safety?

 

(I ask as someone who has made questionable canopy choices in his past compared to recommendations like these, and looks back on his younger self as lucky rather than justified.)

 

That French chart is even more conservative than Brian Germain's equivalent chart, which is generally considered a good yard stick to measure by.

 

I was on a 150 at a 1.17-1.2 WL from approx jump 100-400, which I didn't think was that aggressive at all at the time, and still don't if I'm honest. I wouldn't have been allowed to jump that Pilot 150 until the 400th jump based on the French chart (I'm about 67kg). My canopy choices now though, maybe a bit too aggressive in the downsizing to get here, but I've found a canopy and size that I'm loving, I'm doing canopy courses to ensure I fly them better and safely, and I'm enjoying flying them. 

 

I don't assume the French know nothing about safety, just that they've gone for a very conservative side of safety conscious.  At the more experienced end, how many swoopers out there, casual or competitive, are in the sub 2000 jump region, and are jumping sub 100 canopies? Unless they don't weigh a great deal, they are falling foul of this chart. Someone who's 75kg (prob. 190-200lbs exit weight?) can't go sub 100 canopy size until they've got more than 2000 jumps. So they can't go over a 2.0 WL potentially until >2000 jumps. I think that is a little too conservative. 

 

But then, I've only got 750 jumps or thereabouts, maybe when I have more than 2000 I'll have had a change of opinion.


  • 0

#8 Donna J

Donna J
  • Members
  • 603 posts
  • Home DZ:Usually found at Dunkeswell or Netheravon and Airkix Basingstoke, occasionally ventures north to Langar
  • Jumps:450+

Posted 27 April 2016 - 09:12 PM

Honestly, doesn't make me reconsider mine, I am a conservative flyer with mine and have had no issues that would make me think I shouldn't be on it, neither has anyone who knows me expressed concern that I'm not able to fly it safely. I remember the slider bar chart floating about a year or two ago too, I believe even on that I'm considered at the right wingloading for my level.

I don't think they are necessarily wrong, just very conservative in their estimates, very much like the club kit charts in the UK which tend to be the same.

If they only start at weights of 60kg naked though, I wonder how they plan to police the people smaller than that..maybe there is an extended one somewhere..
  • 0

#9 Joellercoaster

Joellercoaster

    UKS Forum Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 4,817 posts
  • Home DZ:Sibson, Bodyflight Bedford
  • Jumps:1200

Posted 28 April 2016 - 07:13 AM

So the general consensus (OK from a sample size of two) is that the French rules are "very conservative".

 

Given that they have gone from effectively no formal rules, to something "very conservative" - why do people think they might have done that? Is it possible they've actually run the numbers (which Brian Germain apparently did way back when) and evaluated the risk objectively, and the risk turns out to be higher than people have thought all this time (meaning all the people who don't have a problem with DonnaJ's wingload, or mine for that matter, were running on flawed instinct)? Or is it some other reason?

 

I am very curious - the French are, as a country, historically pretty aggressive by comparison to us and others in their approach to parachuting. Why this, and why now?


  • 1

#10 p.d

p.d
  • Members
  • 161 posts
  • Home DZ:Langar
  • Jumps:3000

Posted 28 April 2016 - 07:45 AM

The original document also appears to have some rules regarding carrying out a certain number of jumps when downsizing, and restricting the rotation on low turns to 90degress in certain areas.

 

Seeing as we're all Europeans now, you'd think the BPA might drop the French a line and politely ask what the rules are based on, and what's behind it all. It might avoid reinventing the wheel somewhere further down the line..


  • 0

#11 paulpaula

paulpaula
  • Members
  • 52 posts
  • Home DZ:Netheravon

Posted 28 April 2016 - 10:24 AM

Apologies if you have seen this already, otherwise,  if you click on the calculator & add your nude weight with number of jumps it does calculate less than 60 kg e.g. I tried as low as 48kg for example & it gives a canopy size specific to weight in kg and exact number of jumps.  E.g. any weight between 48 kg to 60 kg with up to 99 jumps = 175ft (2).  Or  for Donna your 59 kg and 435 jumps = 133ft (2), just out of curiosity. All the best.

 

Degeneration, could you put the link you mentioned about Brian Germain's chart on for me please? Thank you.

 

Any information on the FFP calculations and what data they base their decision charts on would be greatly appreciated if anyone discovers them, thank you.


  • 0

#12 OzzieDave

OzzieDave
  • Members
  • 11 posts
  • Home DZ:Sibson
  • Jumps:3200

Posted 28 April 2016 - 10:36 AM

the opposite end of the spectrum, and contrary to many national bodies/dz's, is Skydive Chicago's approach. In short they use Sabre 2's as student canopies sized between 150 and 230 and target a 1:1 wing loading with the dropzone doing 5-6000 student jumps a hear and had a significant decrease in lower limb injuries (something like 90% decrease). Their AFF ground school and levels briefs and debriefs have very in-depth canopy sections.

 

I can't find the paper the outlines all the specifics (and my memory could be a touch hazy) but a quick Google search gave me the below link which is a forum response from Roger Nelson which sort of touches on some of that. There is an article somewhere that looks at 10 years of data at the Skydive Chicago dropzone and the impact switching from F1-11 to ZP canopies and increasing the loading had. Under loaded canopies have their own issues as do over loaded canopies relative to experience and while it is much harder than a 'one size fits all' approach more selective canopy choices for students/up jumpers based on aptitude, age, weight and more in-depth canopy training could have the outcome intended by rules like the ones referenced above (which has been, at least anecdotally, proven by Skydive Chicago)

http://sporttoday.or...f2eae07e7_1.htm


  • 1

#13 paulpaula

paulpaula
  • Members
  • 52 posts
  • Home DZ:Netheravon

Posted 28 April 2016 - 11:58 AM

 very useful to have this info., thanks Ozzie


  • 0

#14 degeneration

degeneration
  • Members
  • 2,218 posts
  • Home DZ:Swansea

Posted 28 April 2016 - 12:12 PM

Apologies if you have seen this already, otherwise,  if you click on the calculator & add your nude weight with number of jumps it does calculate less than 60 kg e.g. I tried as low as 48kg for example & it gives a canopy size specific to weight in kg and exact number of jumps.  E.g. any weight between 48 kg to 60 kg with up to 99 jumps = 175ft (2).  Or  for Donna your 59 kg and 435 jumps = 133ft (2), just out of curiosity. All the best.

 

Degeneration, could you put the link you mentioned about Brian Germain's chart on for me please? Thank you.

 

Any information on the FFP calculations and what data they base their decision charts on would be greatly appreciated if anyone discovers them, thank you.

 

 

I didn't actually click the link to see the calculator! Only used the graphs brian copied in.

 

Brian's downsizing chart is here: http://www.bigairspo...sizingchart.pdf


  • 0

#15 radical_flyer

radical_flyer
  • Members
  • 13 posts
  • Home DZ:Dunkeswell
  • Jumps:21

Posted 28 April 2016 - 01:03 PM

What's wrong with under-loaded canopies?
  • 0

#16 OzzieDave

OzzieDave
  • Members
  • 11 posts
  • Home DZ:Sibson
  • Jumps:3200

Posted 28 April 2016 - 01:41 PM

At radical_flyer, going on your listed jump numbers possibly best to have this conversation with an instructor that knows you, not some bafoon on a internet forum. But in short canopies are design with a working range, though the minimum is rarely listed (0.5 for F1-11 and .7 for ZP or something like that?). Different wing loadings effects all aspects of canopy flight including opening, flight, stability in turbulence and landing. I believe in Skydive Chicago's case, through their ground school and radio control and briefings, the characteristics of the slightly more loaded canopies yielded better landings and outcomes for their students. What they did may not be suitable for every dropzone or person I just put the info up as a counter to the FFP system.


  • 1

#17 Donna J

Donna J
  • Members
  • 603 posts
  • Home DZ:Usually found at Dunkeswell or Netheravon and Airkix Basingstoke, occasionally ventures north to Langar
  • Jumps:450+

Posted 28 April 2016 - 03:06 PM

I didn't actually click the link to see the calculator! Only used the graphs brian copied in.

Brian's downsizing chart is here: http://www.bigairspo...sizingchart.pdf


So on this one I'm jumping the minimum he would recommend for my exit weight.

I'd say that was fair, I personally am happy on my 120 and have no interest in downsizing further any time soon.

I agree on the possible issues with under loading, I jumped a 170 for a good number of my early jumps despite being considered to be under loading it by many, I would spend a lot of time on the ground due to turbulence, which even a small amount would result in the accordion effect on my canopy, and the flare wasn't too powerful, although very forgiving, I also had issues where I would start going backwards or straight down in not much more than student winds limits.

I didn't really understand why people enjoyed the canopy ride until I jumped my 135, it was more responsive both in turns and flare, turbulence wasn't as terrifying as it didn't affect me anywhere near as much and I could jump up to the UK wind limits without going backwards.

My 120 however had me grinning under canopy when I first started flying it with how nice it was to both fly and land, and I was shocked to see just how much range I could get out of it, this could have been because I went from a sabre 1 to 2 though.

Would definitely be interesting to see what the thoughts were around why this was bought in. There was a bit of a discussion on a skydiver from Paraclete XP on Instagram the other day - 37 jumps and on a sabre 2 150 at 48kg, the comments say she has also downsized to a 135 recently. A UK skydiver commented that this seemed a little dangerous and challenged someone with 10,000+ jumps on why she considered this fine, it resulted in quite a few other very small females saying they had done the same...
  • 1

#18 paulpaula

paulpaula
  • Members
  • 52 posts
  • Home DZ:Netheravon

Posted 29 April 2016 - 02:45 PM

Thank you Degeneration for the link.  All the best PP


  • 0

#19 Joellercoaster

Joellercoaster

    UKS Forum Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 4,817 posts
  • Home DZ:Sibson, Bodyflight Bedford
  • Jumps:1200

Posted 29 April 2016 - 02:46 PM

Not sure if this is useful or topical but: It has occurred to me that most of the people making "appropriateness" decisions for small women in the UK are large men. If those large men are doing it because they have the stats in front of them then, fine. If not, then their ideas about what might be a good idea for someone small and light.... hmm. 120 loaded at 1.2 is a very different beast then a 190 loaded the same - which Brian's chart takes into account, according to him.

 

One other thing: Brian's chart, last time I saw it, basically said after 500 jumps you're a grown-ass person and can do what you want. Since then people jumping over 2.0 has become routine, and over 3.0 somewhat common.

 

This doesn't mean that 1.5 or 2.1 are somehow less dangerous than they were - just that the upper limits of the danger are heading further up, the total experience levels needed to deal with them likewise, and so I think you're going to see recommendations like "don't jump this without already having 1000 jumps on a crossbrace and 2000 minimum."

 

A Peregrine 67 ain't your father's Velo 96 :P

 

(Full disclosure: I jump a non-crossbraced canopy loaded at a "mere" 1.8. My understanding of this stuff is entirely second- and third- hand, so it's worth what you paid for it. But it's interesting to think about, huh?)

 

On the Roger Nelson AFF students thing: in the years since his death, how the sport thinks about canopy flight has changed almost entirely. And in some ways, his ideas have been borne out! Students on ZP - effectively, big sport canopies - are fully accepted. But in other ways, the statistics gathering and professionalism around canopy flight/instruction as a discipline of its own might have surprised him. Or maybe not, he was a pretty forward-thinking guy by all accounts. But pointing to him as a modern authority is maybe not correct.


  • 0

#20 paulpaula

paulpaula
  • Members
  • 52 posts
  • Home DZ:Netheravon

Posted 29 April 2016 - 04:39 PM

Hi Donna, Good to hear your experience regarding weight and different size canopies - given me something to think about, thank you. PP

 

Re Sizing Charts,

I've written to ask BPA  their opinion (extremely helpful & very informative as always).  They have written to ask the French Federation of Para. what data they base their calculations on out of pure interest.  I will add the reply from FFP to BPA if received, on here if anyone is interested.


  • 1




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users