Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!wuarchive!emory!hubcap!gatech!mcnc!uvaarpa!murdoch!dalton.acc.Virginia.EDU!ds4a
From: ds4a@dalton.acc.Virginia.EDU (Dale Southard)
Newsgroups: rec.skydiving
Subject: Re: Mid air canopy crash
Message-ID: <1991Feb15.153242.3010@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Date: 15 Feb 91 15:32:42 GMT
References: <1991Feb12.205904.20430@eng.ufl.edu> <1acXw4w163w@ireta.cynic.wimsey.bc.ca>
Sender: usenet@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU
Organization: University of Virginia
Lines: 34
Ireallyam: ds4a

From a bunch of previous posts...
+--------
|> [text deleted about tangled skydivers]
|> 
|> Why didn't the lower person cut away. From the article it seems they 
|> had the altitude?
|
|I would think that they were too shocked at being tangled in each other to
|notice their altimeters...  Unless they had time to be calm and think about
|the situation.  I don't think they would, but I may be wrong.
+--------

This brings up an interseting discussion topic:

Should the USPA be requiring CRW in its license programs?

I was talking with Paul Sitter about this a few years ago.  He said that
USPA was of the opinion that jumpers learn the necessary avoidance/emergency
techniques on their way to fufilling the accuracy requirement.

Comments?

My _Opinion_:

The D license should have as a requirement one (1) CRW formation. Anything,
even a two-stack.  That would be enough to teach them that canopies don't 
bite.  And in learning to build a formation, the jumper would learn more
about canopy control RELATIVE to other jumpers, something I don't believe
accuracy teaches very effectively.

Of course none of this may apply to the incident we were discussing.


-->  -->  Dale  UVa  (ds4a@virginia.edu)