Sounds like you really hate the Para-Cloud. Guess you're still on a Paracommander huh?
No, my first square was a StratoStar. My last was a Pegasus.
Now a couple of questions for you.
Have you ever been on a Dak load where 45 people were all trying to land in an area 200 yards by 200 yards. If there were canopy collisions they sorted themselves out by ground level. What changed? The speed and sensitivity of the canopies.
Ever been on a Twin Otter load into a football stadium with no canopy collisions or injuries. What changed? The speed and sensitivity of the canopies.
If sanctimonious PA removed by slotperfect like you can't see the problem what hope is there for skydiving!
(This post was edited by slotperfect on Nov 20, 2011, 4:11 AM)
Going by those parameters ALL canopies are by definition lethal. I have 3 canopies, a 190 Sabre, a 189 Safire and a 170 Vengeance - I think I could get any of my canopies to do at least a couple of those things on your list (some more than others obviously). Edit to add I am not trying to be sarcastic, just pointing this out...
(This post was edited by crotalus01 on Nov 18, 2011, 6:58 PM)
Nov 18, 2011, 7:02 PM
Post #8 of 456
(4577 views)
Shortcut
Re: [crotalus01] HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
Going by those parameters ALL canopies are by definition lethal. I have 3 canopies, a 190 Sabre, a 189 Safire and a 170 Vengeance - I think I could get any of my canopies to do at least a couple of those things on your list (some more than others obviously). Edit to add I am not trying to be sarcastic, just pointing this out...
When I started jumping it was C9's in B4 harness's
Yes it was a dick waving competition (I'm brave, I jump out of aeroplanes) but C9's and B4's did not kill with the regularity that is seen now.
Sounds like you really hate the Para-Cloud. Guess you're still on a Paracommander huh?
It was either a 'Para-Plane' or a 'Strato-Cloud'...kids today!
And hey, if ya hooked a P.C. too low it would really rattle your nuts as well!
Doc Stewart is my father in the sport. He took me under his wing when I was a young jumper and taught me how to be a skydiver, not just how to skydive.
Anyways, he blew his ankle apart in the late '60s by hooking in a PC for a hit and chug.
If sanctimonious Pricks like you can't see the problem what hope is there for skydiving!
Well, I can see that you're ready and willing to have a constructive conversation with a canopy pilot, swooping competitor and canopy coach like me...
So since you have all this experience can you tell me why so many people are dying under a fully functional canopy? Your input would be much appreciated.
If sanctimonious Pricks like you can't see the problem what hope is there for skydiving!
Well, I can see that you're ready and willing to have a constructive conversation with a canopy pilot, swooping competitor and canopy coach like me...
So since you have all this experience can you tell me why so many people are dying under a fully functional canopy? Your input would be much appreciated.
I can tell ya why...high speed impact with the planet.
I blame the operator more than the wing.
Parachutes don't kill people...they just give them a choice on how & when to kill themselves.
Sounds like you really hate the Para-Cloud. Guess you're still on a Paracommander huh?
It was either a 'Para-Plane' or a 'Strato-Cloud'...kids today!
And hey, if ya hooked a P.C. too low it would really rattle your nuts as well!
Doc Stewart is my father in the sport. He took me under his wing when I was a young jumper and taught me how to be a skydiver, not just how to skydive.
Anyways, he blew his ankle apart in the late '60s by hooking in a PC for a hit and chug.
If quoted PA removed by slotperfect like you can't see the problem what hope is there for skydiving!
Well, I can see that you're ready and willing to have a constructive conversation with a canopy pilot, swooping competitor and canopy coach like me...
So since you have all this experience can you tell me why so many people are dying under a fully functional canopy? Your input would be much appreciated.
Sure. It comes down to a couple of factors: 1. the jumper is over their head, 2. the jumper is trying something too advanced with the canopy or 3. the jumper reacts to conditions incorrectly.
That all comes down to education and creating a culture in skydiving in which jumpers feel greater peer pressure to make better choices and/or get more training.
Now I'm going to repost something that I posted in the previous thread, since it still applies:
Quote:
This is an interesting point. Even if this turns out not to be a contributing factor for this fatality, it has been a contributing factor for far too many fatalities.
If you are unwilling or unable to safely execute a crosswind or downwind landing then one or more of the following factors are in play: 1. The conditions are beyond your comfortable safety zone, 2. The conditions are beyond your skill set and training, or 3. Your canopy choice is inappropriate for you skill level.
If any of those conditions are present, then you should not jump. By jumping you are not only putting yourself at risk, you are putting the skydivers around you at risk of injury or death as well.
If it is item #2 or #3 then you as a jumper need to take responsibility for this, choose a more appropriate canopy, and/or seek and obtain a higher level of training. Reading a book does not impart the skills you need to be a safe canopy pilot, it only imparts knowledge. A skill set is born only from dedicated training.
(This post was edited by slotperfect on Nov 20, 2011, 4:13 AM)
Nov 18, 2011, 7:18 PM
Post #14 of 456
(4558 views)
Shortcut
Re: [virgin-burner] HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
Sounds like you really hate the Para-Cloud. Guess you're still on a Paracommander huh?
It was either a 'Para-Plane' or a 'Strato-Cloud'...kids today!
And hey, if ya hooked a P.C. too low it would really rattle your nuts as well!
Doc Stewart is my father in the sport. He took me under his wing when I was a young jumper and taught me how to be a skydiver, not just how to skydive.
Anyways, he blew his ankle apart in the late '60s by hooking in a PC for a hit and chug.
did he win? if yes, good man!
He said that he was pissed because his fellow jumpers wouldn't let him have his "god damned beer" while sitting in the ambulance waiting to go to the ER.
about your previous post, as in the other thread, i been digging around the fatality-database on here, it appears your chances of dying are the greatest as a student or as a what can be called a very experienced (1000+ jumps) skydiver.
raising pull-altitudes probably would BY FAR have a greater effect on fatalities than any restrictions on canopies would have, since it appears there's a relatively large amount of entanglements or reserves not being deployed in time to inflate..
Hi Aggie Dave, Since most jumpers are, by definition average, wouldn't it make sense to limit their access to those HP Canopies?
Yes and no.
Yes in regards that if everyone was forced to jump a Navigator 300 then less people would die when they hook it in.
No in regards that the problem is not the gear, the problem is the overall culture of skydiving. To use some corporate cliche, what we need is a paradigm shift in skydiving. The lack of serious canopy control training through out most student programs, coupled with the desire to downsize to "be a cool skydiver" has created our current problem.
Making it cool to be a highly experienced canopy pilot who flies an appropriate canopy would save more people in the long run.
Nov 18, 2011, 7:29 PM
Post #18 of 456
(4532 views)
Shortcut
Re: [virgin-burner] HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
i can imagine..
about your previous post, as in the other thread, i been digging around the fatality-database on here, it appears your chances of dying are the greatest as a student or as a what can be called a very experienced (1000+ jumps) skydiver.
raising pull-altitudes probably would BY FAR have a greater effect on fatalities than any restrictions on canopies would have, since it appears there's a relatively large amount of entanglements or reserves not being deployed in time to inflate..
I can understand the student fatality rate. They don't know what they don't know. That's what AAD's are for.
Why are 1000+ jumpers dying though. Do you want to see H&P's from 12,000'
That saddle time is how I learned and practiced the important foundation of skills that taught me how to be a high performance canopy pilot. It is beyond important!
The Airforce doesn't take people with a Private Pilot's licence and put them in an F16. But that appears to be what jumpers are doing.
Mandate training yourself or someone else will do that for you!
And they will do it the easy way. They will just ban the canopies and solve it overnight
"They" didn't ban the Bonanza...
"They" would probably just create a type rating.
If you have enough money you can buy a high performance jet as a private pilot. You can even buy it with no license what-so-ever. It just costs a lot more than a $3500 Velocity.
The Airforce doesn't take people with a Private Pilot's licence and put them in an F16. But that appears to be what jumpers are doing.
Mandate training yourself or someone else will do that for you!
And they will do it the easy way. They will just ban the canopies and solve it overnight
"They" didn't ban the Bonanza...
Ahh Aggie, now you're obfuscating.
No one can go from a Cessna 150 to " The Fork Tailed Doctor Killer" without, at least , a type rating. Might not stop them killing themselves but at least they have had some MANDATED training. Where is the MANDATED training for jumpers?
"They" would probably just create a type rating.
If you have enough money you can buy a high performance jet as a private pilot. You can even buy it with no license what-so-ever. It just costs a lot more than a $3500 Velocity.
No one can go from a Cessna 150 to " The Fork Tailed Doctor Killer" without, at least , a type rating. Might not stop them killing themselves but at least they have had some MANDATED training. Where is the MANDATED training for jumpers?
Nope, I'm not obfuscating, the truth just stings sometimes.
Some of us have called for mandated training. The problem, at least in the US, is that the BOD would rather hand out $10,000 to their friends who want to start a demo team then approach comprehensive and positive change to the sport.
So we're left with people like me, passionate, able and willing to teach how to fly a canopy safely and well. We're like the kid walking on a beach throwing starfish back into the sea. We can't save everyone, but I can save THIS one!
No one can go from a Cessna 150 to " The Fork Tailed Doctor Killer" without, at least , a type rating. Might not stop them killing themselves but at least they have had some MANDATED training. Where is the MANDATED training for jumpers?
Nope, I'm not obfuscating, the truth just stings sometimes.
Some of us have called for mandated training. The problem, at least in the US, is that the BOD would rather hand out $10,000 to their friends who want to start a demo team then approach comprehensive and positive change to the sport.
So we're left with people like me, passionate, able and willing to teach how to fly a canopy safely and well. We're like the kid walking on a beach throwing starfish back into the sea. We can't save everyone, but I can save THIS one!
That's the problem Dave. And it's not just in the States, it's all over the world. Nothing will be done until some hotshot stuffs up a demo and takes out 5+ of the general public. THEN you'll see a response. Jyro and the other manufacturers have a lot to answer for (And I first met him when he was a student on rounds)
That's the problem Dave. And it's not just in the States, it's all over the world. Nothing will be done until some hotshot stuffs up a demo and takes out 5+ of the general public. THEN you'll see a response. Jyro and the other manufacturers have a lot to answer for (And I first met him when he was a student on rounds)
And we're back to my point. The problem isn't the gear, it is the person flying the gear.
That's the problem Dave. And it's not just in the States, it's all over the world. Nothing will be done until some hotshot stuffs up a demo and takes out 5+ of the general public. THEN you'll see a response. Jyro and the other manufacturers have a lot to answer for (And I first met him when he was a student on rounds)
And we're back to my point. The problem isn't the gear, it is the person flying the gear.
I almost agree Dave with one caveat: It's the training the person flying the gear has received. In the States the FAA is already looking and, if they are worried enough, the response will be DRACONIAN.
I think it’s an inevitable generational and sports thing. In all sports, windows are continually being pushed to the limits, with greater risks, talent, and records being broken. Unfortunately, as the antes are raised, failures to perform become more and more expensive.
The quad spin in skating, rock climbing without ropes, deeper scuba depths, higher horse power in cars and motorcycles, and longer ski jumps. All made possible by greater athletes, with greater peril for those who emulate them (and for the experts themselves too). In all sports, equipment gets more responsive and aggressive. In all sports, failure to perform to higher standards carries greater penalties. I would imagine that when large square parachutes were first jumped, many “old” military farts with experience on rounds thought Paracommanders and the like were crazy too.
As to raising the risk for other more conservative jumpers sharing air space with high performance flyers, the same stands in other sports. In auto racing, they won’t even let granny on the track with the pros. It is kind like separating varying performance landing zones. But on the big-boy tracks, professionals still die, just as amateurs do in street racing.
The bottom line is that the current observed culture and climate may be inevitable. Do I like it? No, but I'm an old fart.
As to being potentially lethal; yes, skydiving is just that.
I think it’s an inevitable generational and sports thing. In all sports, windows are continually being pushed to the limits, with greater risks, talent, and records being broken. Unfortunately, as the antes are raised, failures to perform become more and more expensive.
The quad spin in skating, rock climbing without ropes, deeper scuba depths, higher horse power in cars and motorcycles, and longer ski jumps. All made possible by greater athletes, with greater peril for those who emulate them (and for the experts themselves too). In all sports, equipment gets more responsive and aggressive. In all sports, failure to perform to higher standards carries greater penalties. I would imagine that when large square parachutes were first jumped, many “old” military farts with experience on rounds thought Paracommanders and the like were crazy too.
As to raising the risk for other more conservative jumpers sharing air space with high performance flyers, the same stands in other sports. In auto racing, they won’t even let granny on the track with the pros. It is kind like separating varying performance landing zones. But on the big-boy tracks, professionals still die, just as amateurs do in street racing.
The bottom line is that the current observed culture and climate may be inevitable. Do I like it? No, but I'm an old fart.
As to being potentially lethal; yes, skydiving is just that.
I agree with the facts that it is the pilot, that we need more and better continuing education. My question is, what are you doing to help that, or are you just ranting on dramazone?
Nov 19, 2011, 5:13 AM
Post #34 of 456
(1462 views)
Shortcut
Re: [djmarvin] Re:HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
around here, it's mandatory now that once you get a drivers license, you are obliged to take an additional safety-training/course thing within two years i think.
how about implementing a mandatory canopy-course, say within a year of getting your A?
i always kinda cringe when i hear "i only need a parachute to get me down to earth safely!"; i mean, WTF, the canopy-ride is the longer part of a skydive, and as fatalities show, quite a substantial one..
Nov 19, 2011, 5:26 AM
Post #35 of 456
(1459 views)
Shortcut
Re: [virgin-burner] Re:HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Quote:
how about implementing a mandatory canopy-course, say within a year of getting your A?
That could be part of a larger solution. But there are jumpers who will want/need additional training beyond that. As they progress in the sport, they may wish to downsize to smaller canopies and different types of wings. How does the sport provide training for those people?
Do you think that the people with 1000+ jumps would be safer if they had come up in a sport with a different culture of education, training and respect for HP canopies? How do we prepare the next 1000-jump wonder?
(This post was edited by craigbey on Nov 19, 2011, 5:43 AM)
Nov 19, 2011, 5:49 AM
Post #36 of 456
(1447 views)
Shortcut
Re: [craigbey] Re:HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
Quote:
how about implementing a mandatory canopy-course, say within a year of getting your A?
That could be part of a larger solution. But there are jumpers who will want/need additional training beyond that. As they progress in the sport, they may wish to downsize to smaller canopies and different types of wings. How does the sport provide training for those people?
Do you think that the people with 1000+ jumps would be safer if they had come up in a sport with a different culture of education, training and respect for HP canopies? How do we prepare the next 1000+ wonder?
those that WANT additional education shouldnt be a problem, those that NEED it.. well, how about some additional test for at least the one canopy-course? that could be a possibility to weed out the one or other potatoe..
at my dz it's quite established that once you downsize, you sign up for the next cc-course. i'd say at least 3/4 of the boys and girls do it. it's not mandatory, it's "good practice".
and while we're at it, i STILL think 25 jumps for a license is not enough. out of those are 7 for AFF and i dont know how many coaching-jumps you guys have. if the jumper would need to make say 50 SUPERVISED jumps/landings, that would leave you with roughly 3 times more educational opportunities to bang proper patterns and what not into their heads.
i know quite a couple jumpers that have/had in the range of 100 jumps before they got a license. while i think that's a little excessive.. at least one of them is now rocking the swooping-circus pretty hard!
oh, and yes, i DO think if MORE education was needed there would be much less incidents/fatalities..
(This post was edited by virgin-burner on Nov 19, 2011, 5:53 AM)
Nov 19, 2011, 5:58 AM
Post #37 of 456
(1440 views)
Shortcut
Re: [virgin-burner] Re:HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
and as for student-fatalities.. those numbers shocked me pretty good. why are THEY so high!? bad instruction/teachers!? that's the first thing that comes to mind, and that is FUCKING SCARY!
if piss-poor instruction is delivered to students, how should they become good skydivers?
i'm not saying this is the case, someone with one or twenty jumps is much more prone to brainlock or do wrong decisions that will end up getting them killed.
but it's surely something to think about more than only concentrating on WL's or types of canopies, since the majority of fatalities seems to happen to highly experienced jumpers!
Nov 19, 2011, 5:59 AM
Post #38 of 456
(1437 views)
Shortcut
Re: [virgin-burner] Re:HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Quote:
those that WANT additional education shouldnt be a problem, those that NEED it.. well, how about some additional test for at least the one canopy-course? that could be a possibility to weed out the one or other potatoe..
at my dz it's quite established that once you downsize, you sign up for the next cc-course. i'd say at least 3/4 of the boys and girls do it. it's not mandatory, it's "good practice".
It sounds like the culture at your DZ is a little better than most and people are participating in canopy training. But why wait until someone downsizes?
The testing part of the solution is valuable, if the process requires the demonstration of certain knowledge and skills before the jumper downsizes or moves to another type of wing.
Nov 19, 2011, 7:19 AM
Post #39 of 456
(1419 views)
Shortcut
Re: [bodypilot90] HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Quote:
Just say no to mandated training
Like AFF? That's mandated if you want an A licesne, should we just say no to that?
There was a time where canopy control was a more 'casual' aspect of the sport. Canopies were more docile, and there were fewer 'big' DZs around. If everyone jumped 200+ sq ft canopies out of Cessna 182s, we would be in a different postion right now. As it sits, people jumper higher performing, more capable canopies into much busier traffic patterns.
The problem now, and what it's been for the last decade is that canopies took a huge step forward in performance and capability, and canopy control training did not.
You cannot rely on mentoring, or word of mouth, or the generousity of others. We don't do it with AFF, and we shouldn't be doing it with canopies. If you want to jump a canopy like a big boy, then you need to be trained like a big boy.
It all comes back to what I keep saying, WL restrictions that pretain to jump numbers, and required continuing education if you want to progress. The basic idea is that if you want to train like you're in 1985 (meaning no canopy control training at all), that's your choice but you have to jump a canopy like they had in 1985 (more or less, a modern Z-po wing, just at a 1985 WL). If you want to jump a more modern canopy, then you need to train to jump that canopy.
Try this - grab any whuffo off the street, and ask them this, "Today in skydiving we have parachutes that are so manuverable and so fast, that they can kill you if you land them at half of their top speed. Right now in the US, there are no rules or regulations regarding what parachutes you can jump and no training required beyond the basic training you recieve when you first start jumping, and the parachutes used are much slower and easier to control. Does that make sense to you?" See what they say. I have a feeling that it won't make sense to anyone. It doesn't make sense to me.
If you want to jump like an 'old school' jumper, then the old school training (or lack of) is fine. If you want to be a part of 'modern' skydiving, it takes a little more effort.
Nov 19, 2011, 7:39 AM
Post #40 of 456
(1409 views)
Shortcut
Re: [craigbey] Re:HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
Quote:
those that WANT additional education shouldnt be a problem, those that NEED it.. well, how about some additional test for at least the one canopy-course? that could be a possibility to weed out the one or other potatoe..
at my dz it's quite established that once you downsize, you sign up for the next cc-course. i'd say at least 3/4 of the boys and girls do it. it's not mandatory, it's "good practice".
It sounds like the culture at your DZ is a little better than most and people are participating in canopy training. But why wait until someone downsizes?
The testing part of the solution is valuable, if the process requires the demonstration of certain knowledge and skills before the jumper downsizes or moves to another type of wing.
BTW: It's pronounced po-tah-to.
the same 3/4 will take a CC once they have their license and their first rig. again, usually it's not the skydive that kills, it's the landing. physics is a bitch and the ground wont move..
Nov 20, 2011, 3:12 AM
Post #41 of 456
(1280 views)
Shortcut
Re: [djmarvin] Re:HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
I agree with the facts that it is the pilot, that we need more and better continuing education. My question is, what are you doing to help that, or are you just ranting on dramazone?
I'd like to add that the continuing education should not only be for students but should be a REQUIRMENT for instructors. Let's face it this is now an industry and has changed to an extent that the self development of instructors and their skills after receiving their ratings is no longer keeping up with the needs of the students, and it's getting worse with each successive generation of instructor.
slotperfect (D 13014)
Moderator
Nov 20, 2011, 4:17 AM
Post #42 of 456
(1269 views)
Shortcut
Nov 20, 2011, 6:58 AM
Post #43 of 456
(1239 views)
Shortcut
Re: [diablopilot] Re:HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
I'd like to add that the continuing education should not only be for students but should be a REQUIRMENT for instructors. Let's face it this is now an industry and has changed to an extent that the self development of instructors and their skills after receiving their ratings is no longer keeping up with the needs of the students, and it's getting worse with each successive generation of instructor.
As much as it pains me to say this, I agree with you JP :P
billvon (D 16479)
Moderator
Nov 20, 2011, 10:14 AM
Post #44 of 456
(1214 views)
Shortcut
>Any Canopy that, when it opens in line twists, spins up to a speed that >makes cutaways problematic is by definition lethal. (etc)
Agreed.
To condense all your arguments - any canopy that can kill you is, by definition, lethal. And all canopies can kill you if you're dumb enough.
I agree with you Bill but what I am saying is that, on the older more benign canopies the margin for error was huge, compared to today's canopies.
On the modern canopies an error of judgement, turbulence or a myriad of other factors can have you in a world of hurt before you have time to react. There is NO margin of error.
Unfortunately for some, “no margin of error” is what many find enticing. It is interesting that using a parachute for the simple purpose of saving your life following an exciting airplane exit and freefall has become boring.
We must realize though that with the redesign of high performance canopies, a somewhat new sport has been invented and for many, high performance canopy flight is as exciting, if not more exciting than freefall. In fact many do hop and pops to eliminate the need for freefall and move directly to high performance canopy flight.
To each; his/her own.
billvon (D 16479)
Moderator
Nov 20, 2011, 12:21 PM
Post #47 of 456
(1174 views)
Shortcut
I agree with you Bill but what I am saying is that, on the older more benign canopies the margin for error was huge, compared to today's canopies.
On the modern canopies an error of judgement, turbulence or a myriad of other factors can have you in a world of hurt before you have time to react. There is NO margin of error.
Then what's my excuse? Of 5000+ jumps, at least 4800 are swoops, and 4600 of them were made on canopies sized 107 and down. Despite this, I've never been hurt. How could this be?
It comes back the same thing I keep saying, the canopies are different, and so the approach to canopy flight needs to be different.
Back when canopies were benign and had a huge margin for error, canopy control training didn't exist. There literally was no such thing as a canopy control course. On top of that, it wasn't uncommon to bang a two-stack together below 2k, and fly it through the pattern.
Now that canopies have changed, canopy control courses exist, and nobody does improptu CREW in the landing pattern. Different canopies, different approaches to canopy flight.
However, despite those changes, the fundamental training and oversight of canopy selection has not changed, and that cannot stand. You can't change the canopies, and most of the behaviours with them, and not change the training and oversight. It's an imcomplete situation, and it shows in the fatality and incident reports.
Let's also remember that more jumps are being made into busier traffic patterns than back in the day. Pre-1990 (when the Z-po revolution started) there was less and different activity on DZs then today, so any comparison made has to consider that.
Just like airplanes, motorcycles and cars, performance levels will go up, and as long as training and skill development goes up too, there shouldn't be a problem.
Airplanes have type-ratings, complex rating, high performance ratings, and all sorts of requirements if you plant o get insurance on anything 'fun'. You can't get your PPL one day, and just fly whatever you please the next, you have to work your up to bigger/better/faster and earn the right. Why are canopies different?
I am curious, have the total number of fatalities per year (all types, not just canopy related) increased or decreased when taking into account the total number of jumps per year? Obviously canopy fatalities are a huge concern. I am just wondering if there are more fatalities per jump now, or if the number has actually decreased and moved into a different category (moving from no/low pull to open canopy)? I hope that makes sense....
Just a guess Dave, but I would suspect canopies are different because they are non-motorized. I cant think of any non-motorized anything that is regulated outside of hot air balloons and gliders (?) perhaps - anyone can strap on skis and hit a double black diamond with no training, same with rock climbing, etc. Or am I totally off base on that guess? Edit to add that I suppose you could make an arguement that even hot air balloons are "motorized" after a fashion...
(This post was edited by crotalus01 on Nov 20, 2011, 6:16 PM)
Nov 20, 2011, 6:16 PM
Post #52 of 456
(1247 views)
Shortcut
Re: [crotalus01] HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
Just a guess Dave, but I would suspect canopies are different because they are non-motorized. I cant think of any non-motorized anything that is regulated outside of hot air balloons and gliders (?) perhaps - anyone can strap on skis and hit a double black diamond with no training, same with rock climbing, etc. Or am I totally off base on that guess?
We, as in the USPA, would the ones to regulate that. However, the BOD is too busy tossing $10,000 to their friends to start a demo team to actually tackle important issues like canopy control!
>I agree with you Bill but what I am saying is that, on the older more >benign canopies the margin for error was huge, compared to today's >canopies.
Depends on the canopy. For example, a 160 lb jumper is a lot safer under a Pilot 117 than under a Micro Raven 135.
However, in general I agree - the smaller the canopy, and the more aggressively it's trimmed, the less forgiving it is.
Nice attempt to try to present your opinion as fact.
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.
The Raven requires more technical skill to land well.
Nov 20, 2011, 7:21 PM
Post #54 of 456
(1233 views)
Shortcut
Re: [crotalus01] HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Quote:
Just a guess Dave, but I would suspect canopies are different because they are non-motorized. I cant think of any non-motorized anything that is regulated outside of hot air balloons and gliders
Who exactly is it that regulates anything? Some sort of governing body, some kind of official group or organization, usually affiliated with one country or another. So if we had a group or orgaization in the US that oversaw skydiving and skydiving activities, maybe we could look to them?
Last time I checked, which was never, but I heard it from a hang glider / skydiver I know, they regulate the type of glider you can fly. They have them broken down in classes, and they have licenses that go along with each class. According to what this guy says, it's a big no-no in the hang gliding community to fly a wing above your license.
Scuba diving also has different classes of certification depending on what kind of diving you want to do. Not just anyone can hop in and breathe some weird gas while diving into a cave (I'm not up on the technincal jargon of diving, but I know the rough idea). Sure, anyone can jump in the water and do what they please, but not under the supervision of a PADI dive company or PADI instructor (the same could be said about possible canopy regulations, that anyone with a plane and a credit card can do whatever they want, but I'm limiting my sights to 'established' jumping at a DZ).
All of the above aside, fuck everything else, why can't we just do what seems right for ourselves, regardless of there is an example out there to follow?
It seems like such a no-brainer to me. Canopies have progressed significantly in their performance and capabilities. Some of the higher performance ones are real animals that you need to know how to handle. With that in mind, we're going to classify them and limit what the new guys can jump until they have some experience and specific training. Why does that seem so outlandish to people?
Can I prove, without a doubt, that this will solve 100% of the canopy related problems? Of course not, nobody can really make that claim about anything. With the idea of a guaranteed solution out the door, let's just start with something that makes sense. Let's build some structure and organization into canopy selection and training, and give it the respect that it's due.
Are we able to review the idea in a year? Or two? Of course. Can we revise, rewrite, or shitcan the whole thing based on that review. Of course. So the question remains why not do something? Let's get started with the most simple and obvious idea, some general limitations on what the new guys can jump, and some required continuing education, and see what happens.
What's the downside to trying? The only argument thus far has been that DZO will suddenly be 'responsible' for everyones WL, and thus liable in the case of an accident, but that's bullshit. They're no more responsible for that then they are for the actions of any licesned jumper. Even now if a newbie goes in with a WL of 1.4, you can find ten 'expert witnesses' to testify that the WL is against the 'standard industry practice', they'll point to the reccomended WL on the warning label, and paint the DZO as uncaring and allowing the new jumper to go against 'the norm'. You don't need a BSR for a lawyer to get up your ass in court.
Nov 20, 2011, 7:29 PM
Post #55 of 456
(1228 views)
Shortcut
Re: [diablopilot] HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Fuck, I can't believe the sheer selfishness and ego demonstrated on this thread!
Nearly 50% of fatalities now are under a fully opened and functioning canopy.
You have a thread about which is the most lethal canopy.
And you guys DON'T SEE THAT AS A PROBLEM?
All you people defending Lethal Canopies, are you trying to tell me you've never had an "Oh Shit Moment" where the only thing that saved you was pure dumb luck. If that is what you are trying to say, well, I don't believe you!
By saying the problem is training you are merely exacerbating the problem. You are accepting putting people with less experience than you on canopies that are quite capable of killing them and you. When the inevitable happens you say it was lack of training.
No training organization would accept the dangers to their students and instructors that you, as a sport so blithely accept.
I guess we should also restricted the speed on every vehicle so it cant go any faster than ... 40km/hr?
Education is the answer to your questions, but you are always going to have people that don't want to be educated.
Also, I just finished reading the Bryan Burke article and I think if you go and read it you might realized what the actual data and the reasons of why people are actually dying under a good canopy. most of them isn't because the canopy collapse, or went into a mal, or all the other reason you mention.
Here is the link http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_attachment;postatt_id=128510
Nov 20, 2011, 8:03 PM
Post #57 of 456
(1213 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Pablo.Moreno] HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
I guess we should also restricted the speed on every vehicle so it cant go any faster than ... 40km/hr?
Education is the answer to your questions, but you are always going to have people that don't want to be educated.
Also, I just finished reading the Bryan Burke article and I think if you go and read it you might realized what the actual data and the reasons of why people are actually dying under a good canopy. most of them isn't because the canopy collapse, or went into a mal, or all the other reason you mention.
Here is the link http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_attachment;postatt_id=128510
I suggest you go back and read the article! 75% of their incidents are under a fully open, functioning canopy. Not the nearly 50% that I quoted.
Still, that article is a good first step in reducing the carnage.
Hi Marisan, You are of course 100% correct that he (and I) dont have the jump #s to know what we dont know. However, that truism should not be used to discount participation in this discussion for anyone, 0 jumps to 1000+. You never know where the next lifesaving idea will come from....
Nov 20, 2011, 8:54 PM
Post #60 of 456
(1199 views)
Shortcut
Re: [crotalus01] HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Again I ask the question (for curiosity sake) - when adjusted for inflation, have total fatalities gone up or down overall? We all can see they have shifted categories from no/low pulls to open canopy incidents....
Nov 20, 2011, 9:09 PM
Post #61 of 456
(1193 views)
Shortcut
Re: [crotalus01] HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
Hi Marisan, You are of course 100% correct that he (and I) dont have the jump #s to know what we dont know. However, that truism should not be used to discount participation in this discussion for anyone, 0 jumps to 1000+. You never know where the next lifesaving idea will come from....
Hi Crotolus01. You are of course correct and I shouldn't have discounted his input but I read that article differently and frankly it horrifies me. That is what I meant by " You don't know what you don't know. Or to quote one of your former Defence Secretaries. "It's an unknown unknown")
Nov 20, 2011, 9:12 PM
Post #62 of 456
(1192 views)
Shortcut
Re: [crotalus01] HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
Again I ask the question (for curiosity sake) - when adjusted for inflation, have total fatalities gone up or down overall? We all can see they have shifted categories from no/low pulls to open canopy incidents....
It's the change of category that scares me. Back in the day, if it was square and flying straight the dangerous part was over. With the exception of wraps you were safe for your next jump.
I just read through this thread and I am having a hard time deciphering your agenda, other than of course fueling this stimulating debate. Are you pushing for greater HP canopy regulations, or seeking to completely ban these 'lethal' canopies?
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??
Nov 20, 2011, 11:20 PM
Post #65 of 456
(1176 views)
Shortcut
Re: [EppyNephrine] HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
Hi,
I just read through this thread and I am having a hard time deciphering your agenda, other than of course fueling this stimulating debate. Are you pushing for greater HP canopy regulations, or seeking to completely ban these 'lethal' canopies?
Hi, My personal opinion is to ban them but I'm realistic enough to realise that will not happen. Jumpers lost that chance 15 years ago.
It is a stimulating debate though.
My biggest concern is that someone else will ban them and thereby finish the entire sport.
All it will take is some mad swooper to take out X number of spectators on a demo and then your version of the FAA will ban it for you.
If every jumper then has to buy a new rig to suit those regulations how many jumpers will be left?
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!
My point is that you guys are KILLING yourselves under these canopies. We didn't under our canopies.
Like AFF? That's mandated if you want an A licesne, should we just say no to that?
There was a time where canopy control was a more 'casual' aspect of the sport. Canopies were more docile, and there were fewer 'big' DZs around. If everyone jumped 200+ sq ft canopies out of Cessna 182s, we would be in a different postion right now. As it sits, people jumper higher performing, more capable canopies into much busier traffic patterns.
The problem now, and what it's been for the last decade is that canopies took a huge step forward in performance and capability, and canopy control training did not.
You cannot rely on mentoring, or word of mouth, or the generousity of others. We don't do it with AFF, and we shouldn't be doing it with canopies. If you want to jump a canopy like a big boy, then you need to be trained like a big boy.
It all comes back to what I keep saying, WL restrictions that pretain to jump numbers, and required continuing education if you want to progress. The basic idea is that if you want to train like you're in 1985 (meaning no canopy control training at all), that's your choice but you have to jump a canopy like they had in 1985 (more or less, a modern Z-po wing, just at a 1985 WL). If you want to jump a more modern canopy, then you need to train to jump that canopy.
Try this - grab any whuffo off the street, and ask them this, "Today in skydiving we have parachutes that are so manuverable and so fast, that they can kill you if you land them at half of their top speed. Right now in the US, there are no rules or regulations regarding what parachutes you can jump and no training required beyond the basic training you recieve when you first start jumping, and the parachutes used are much slower and easier to control. Does that make sense to you?" See what they say. I have a feeling that it won't make sense to anyone. It doesn't make sense to me.
If you want to jump like an 'old school' jumper, then the old school training (or lack of) is fine. If you want to be a part of 'modern' skydiving, it takes a little more effort.
Thanks Dave. Worth bumping your post as a reminder.
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!
My point is that you guys are KILLING yourselves under these canopies. We didn't under our canopies.
Don't you think this may just be a problem?
It is a huge problem, but training is the answer. The problem is that the average skydiver is as mature as my 11 year old. You mention training and dedication and they have a tantrum.
Canopy control training needs a complete overhaul. At present the USPA (ignoring other countries) is ducking the issue. They suggest training and have an outline syllabus, but there is no mandate. It is also vague. A more informed jumper is a safer jumper. There are guidance notes in the SIM, but they are scattered and obtuse. The SIM has a little gem that you should be able to land your canopy downwind within a 10 meter target before downsizing. It probably takes 100 jumps or more to be able to do this consistently. The USPA should be outlining a detailed syllabus and actually giving out a canopy pilot coach rating. While they are at it, they should stop the bull of confusing canopy piloting with swooping. To be a swooper you MUST be a good canopy pilot (to survive), but you do not need to be a swooper to be a good canopy pilot.
A fair question was asked, and you replied to the post but didn't answer the question. This was coming from a guy with more time in the sport and more jumps then you, and I have 2x your jump numbers, so we're qualifed to speak on this. How about you respond to the question -
Quote:
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.
I took your references to the 'old days' as a comparison, not as your complete frame of reference. If you've never jumped a modern canopy, let alone anything HP, then a big chunk of what you've said needs to be re-examined.
An otuside observer might see one thing, but if you have knowledge of the situation (both the good and bad) has a real understanding of the situation. If you;ve never jumped a modern canopy, your catagorization of canopied in the first post also makes sense, when again, an outside observer might see one thing, while an active participant would see the real truth.
Modern canopies can be safely jumped and managed, if just requires additional training and education as compared to the 'old days'. Countries that have requirements in place as far as WL, type of canopy, and continuing education have very few canopy related incidents. In the US, we currenly have no regulation or requirements for education, and that's what need to change, not the canopies. A HUGE number of jumpers jump these canopies all day, every day, with no problems.
In terms of the guys with 1000+ jumps who go in on a swooping canopy, those are fatalities that are a result of the new 'sport' of swooping. Just like people will always die skydiving, people will always die swooping, but that a risk that they choose to take, no canopy swoops by itself. A jumper could choose not to swoop, and choose to jump a canopy not designed for swooping, and they will never die swooping.
Fuck, I can't believe the sheer selfishness and ego demonstrated on this thread!
Nearly 50% of fatalities now are under a fully opened and functioning canopy.
You have a thread about which is the most lethal canopy.
And you guys DON'T SEE THAT AS A PROBLEM?
All you people defending Lethal Canopies, are you trying to tell me you've never had an "Oh Shit Moment" where the only thing that saved you was pure dumb luck. If that is what you are trying to say, well, I don't believe you!
By saying the problem is training you are merely exacerbating the problem. You are accepting putting people with less experience than you on canopies that are quite capable of killing them and you. When the inevitable happens you say it was lack of training.
No training organization would accept the dangers to their students and instructors that you, as a sport so blithely accept.
Now, for God's sake' grow the fuck up.
You have a hard time understanding why people can not see your point of view, but have post like this. It is hard for me to read anything else in this post except to see your frustration. You can't really make a point of grow up people and say it in that form.
There is no doubt that there are too many people under the wrong wing. There are countless more that are under the proper wing due to the education and mentoring of more experienced jumpers. When we take a civil approach and intelligently discuss these topics more people will see the light. If we ban everything that has a higher risk of killing people we could simply start with skydiving itself. We could also ban smoking, drinking, driving, and most anything else when we dig hard enough for the statistics. The stats are absolutely there for fatalities under perfectly good wings. We need to grow from the situation not withdraw.
There was a day that a square canopy was considered dangerous, according to your post you should remember those days. What changed? Education is one of the major changes. I have seen a lot of changes in canopy education in my limited time in this sport and have seen a lot of good come from it. I have personally helped several jumpers understand the risk of their choice and to help them make a better choice, as has Aggiedave and Diablopilot and many others. By saying "You are accepting putting people with less experience than you on canopies that are quite capable of killing them and you. " you are making an assumption that we are accepting this. Many of us are not! Fortunately the industries eyes are wide open on this topic and a lot us are not accepting it. Instead of ranting on DZ.com get out to your local DZ and influence your local jumpers. Educate them about the dangers of canopy selection. Help them and others understand the whys and wheres. Or continue to argue with people on DZ.com.
The fact of the matter is the answer is a combonation of things that need to happen.
1. COMMON SENSE 2. Education 3. Mentoring 4. Peer policing/reccomendations for canopy changes/styles of flying. (and not some bullshit "yup, hes fine," It shoudl be an aggreement between more than one "peer" who truly give a shit to do the right thing.)
This could come from some governing body, like the USPA, but more than likely it could start at the DZO level. Yes you will get a few idiots that will throw their hands up in the air, say its not fair, and threaten to go give their business elsewhere, but the normal SANE individuals will take this in a caring way.
But there is also the plain old fact: Some people are too stupid, too cocky or just don't get it and never will. And for these people, the best thing you can do unfortunately (after speaking with them about the risks 1,000,000 times) is just stay out of their way, warn people about them, and let nature take its course.
Nov 21, 2011, 9:51 AM
Post #73 of 456
(1077 views)
Shortcut
Re: [diablopilot] HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
I haven't updated my profile in 2 years, I have 530 ish jumps and my last 300 or so have been HP landings and with in the last 6 months. I started on a WL of 1.2 on a saber 2, and after I got a pass from my canopy coach now I am on a Xfire2 139. I have had a few closed calls, where my training kicked in and saved myself (with my canopy coach).
It's the change of category that scares me. Back in the day, if it was square and flying straight the dangerous part was over. With the exception of wraps you were safe for your next jump.
I'd like to defend Marisan on this issue... to a point!
Years ago… we (students) were told "100 jumps before you jump a square". Most of us progressed to squares well before we had 50 jumps. This happened mostly because of the introduction of canopies like the Pegasus that were leaps and bounds better/safer than their predecessors. Back then, when a new canopy was introduced, it was because it was an improvement in the current design. If it was faster, it also landed and opened better. Wing loading was not a problem because most canopies were larger and most jumpers were looking to do CRW (which require a standard glide rate). Smaller skydivers jumped 5 cells, medium jumpers jumped 7 cells, and the big boys bought 9 cells (and at the time, were happy they could).
Today…. There is a large selection of canopy size and designs. One size does not fit all. No one does CRW anymore, so, standard glide goes out the window. Nobody wants to dive a Ford Pinto when the Ferrari sells for the same price? And we’re all qualified to drive the Ferrari, right? So, Marisan is right that the canopies today are dangerous! In fact, many are extremely dangerous, especially in the wrong hands. Can we all agree on that point so far?
Marisan, this is where I separate from your point of view. I believe qualified people, with expert training and proper attitude can safely fly and land today’s extremely high performance canopies. I am NOT one of those people. My guess is that 96% of you reading this are also not one of those people. True, you could be one of those people some day, but that would take years of training, hard work, proper attitude and experience. The big question we need to answer here is… How do we ensure the years of training, hard work, proper attitude and experience?
I believe it will take regulation and I also believe many will not be happy with that regulation. Tough!!
Nov 21, 2011, 12:02 PM
Post #75 of 456
(1032 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skyjumpenfool] HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
The big question we need to answer here is… How do we ensure the years of training, hard work, proper attitude and experience?
I believe it will take regulation and I also believe many will not be happy with that regulation. Tough!!
I believe that there are two primary causes enabling jumpers to fly canopies past their skill range. The first is the mindset of defining what is acceptable by hard numbers (ie 500 jumps for fully elliptical, 300 for 1.3 WL, etc). The second is the lack of education that these younger canopy pilots have. Most are so undereducated that they do not even realize that they do not know. Hell, I bet half of the folks trying their first swoops do not even have a concept of what a proper swoop is.
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. But nonetheless, keep in mind that it is an honest effort to help shift this current paradigm.
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...
For example: -> To start swooping, a student should demonstrate moderate accuracy while performing a downwind landing (with a straight-in approach). Or perhaps a 90 degree flat turn under 125 ft. -> To downsize to a 2.0 Xbrace while swooping, you should be able to demonstrate a safe 270 with reasonable accuracy.
To maintain the ability to fly a HP canopy or swoop, the jumper must complete 100 jumps a year on their canopy and be checked out by a HPCI. Perhaps a HP canopy pilot rating could be added to the USPA membership card, which would help regulate jumpers visiting new dropzones.
(This post was edited by EppyNephrine on Nov 21, 2011, 12:04 PM)
billvon (D 16479)
Moderator
Nov 21, 2011, 12:39 PM
Post #76 of 456
(1271 views)
Shortcut
>Any sport that has a thread like the above has major problems.
Pretty much _every_ dangerous sport has a thread like the above.
billvon (D 16479)
Moderator
Nov 21, 2011, 12:41 PM
Post #77 of 456
(1271 views)
Shortcut
Re: [diablopilot] HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
>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.
Nov 21, 2011, 12:50 PM
Post #78 of 456
(1266 views)
Shortcut
Re: [EppyNephrine] HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
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.
Nov 21, 2011, 2:20 PM
Post #79 of 456
(1253 views)
Shortcut
Re: [EppyNephrine] HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
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
(This post was edited by Pablo.Moreno on Nov 21, 2011, 8:02 PM)
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.
>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.
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.
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
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?
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
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??
Nov 23, 2011, 4:43 PM
Post #88 of 456
(1046 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skyjumpenfool] HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
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 $$$$$ or ego strokes.
DZ's could usually be relied on to throw up at least one decent watchable (from the ground) dive a day. Haven't seen it lately, One major DZ I visited, couldn't even build a 30 way at an annual boogie cause the skill level is so low. This has very little to do with my abilities but is an indication of a low skill set compared to before freeflying and HP took over.
The only freeflyer still freeflying after 5 years at one DZ was the guy getting free jumps to lead the crowd. I saw someone openly abuse him . Not one single person that he had led was still there. They didn't create the environment for others to grow........ cause it was all about them. Selfish @#$%s.
They've let the sport devolve into a dangerous miasma of inexperience led by ambition and greed, not skill or dedication.
The freeflyers of the naughties didn't recreate anything worth experiencing unless you're a speed dealer or a millionaire.
....mentoring sucks just look at the base community. A newbie bozo can be a mentor. What our sport needs is standards ..set high. that people HAVE to pass to progress.
WE used to do this naturally but now we pay all the little goddies who set the standards, and they just don't know how to share knowledge and experience without being paid in $$$$$ 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!
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.
Nov 25, 2011, 1:30 PM
Post #92 of 456
(945 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skyjumpenfool] HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
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.
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"
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.
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.
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!!
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!
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?
Here's where your disconenct from reality is showing through. The Sabre2 and the Spectre are most certainly NOT HP canopipes.
As for the others, yes, people are going to die under high performance canopies because they're engaging in a dangerous activity. Much like we all make the choice to accpet the risk of skydiving in general, some of us make the choice to accept the risk of flying and swooping high performance canopies.
It's like motorcycle racing, or car racing, or boat racing, it takes an activity that already has an aspect of danger, and adds to that by increasing the speed of performance of the vehicle. It also surely adds to the number of fatalities or injuries, but it's not because there's anything wrong with racecars or bikes.
The problem we have, and I've said it many times before, it all the people who are injured or killed who are not swooping and all the people who are trying to swoop without sifficient experience and training. The VAST majority of swoopers are not injured or killed as a result of swooping, and that's becasue it can be done safely. The EXACT same thing could be said about skydiving in general.
Quote:
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
How about I've been saying that almost since the day I registered on DZ.com? I'm willing to bet I've put that forth several times in this thread already. I've also freely admitted that it wasn't my idea or concept, I stole it right from all the countries in Europe that already have such systems in place.
I don't think training needs to be specific to one canopy or WL, but it should cater towards classes of canopies and WL. For example, your 'A' license will come with a 'Canopy 1' rating, and that clears you up to a 1.1 WL on a certain list of canopies, all docile and easy going. You could hang on to your 'Canopy 1' rating for your entire life, and just leave it at that. There's no need for further training, the traiing you recieved in earning your A license is enough to allow you to jump at the 'Canopy 1' level (the canopy control training to revieve an A license will need to be boosted a bit).
Beyond that, if you want the 'Canopy 2' rating, you need to earn it by making a set number of jumps, lets say 150, and taking a canopy control class that get's into some more advacned techniques and concpets of canopy flight. This would start to work in some aerodynamics and canopy theory, because the faster you want to go, the more of this you need. Did anyone ever notice that every military fighter pilot has a college degree in some form of aerodynamics, avaiation tech, or the like? There's a reason for that.
Once you earn the 'Canopy 2' rating, now you're cleared for a higher WL, and mayebe some additional canopies. Not every level of canopy rating is going to include a new set of canopies you can jump, there just aren't that many differences to allow enough classes to go along with the number of steps in WL you shuld be taking. From your first jump (with an 'Canopy 1' rating at 1.1 WL or lower) up to the 'Unlimited' rating, there should be at least 4 'steps' in your downsizing. That's not to say that 4 steps is enough to go from 1.1 to 2.5 WL, but it's enough to go from 1.1 with just basic training, to 'Unlimited' which starts at 1.5 at which point you have the training (and hopefully the judgement) to be smart enough not to make a huge downsize.
So you could have three classes of canopy, Beginner, Intermediate, and Advanced. Beginner canopies would serve the 'Canopy 1' and 'Canopy 2' ratings, with a bump in allowable WL inbetween the two. Intermediate canopies would serve the 'Canopy 3' and 'Canopy 4' ratings, again with a bump in allowable WL for each rating, and the Advanced canopies would gl along with the 'Unlimited' rating.
The whole system is pretty simple. If you would gather up a panel of instructors, canopy control coaches, manufacturers, and canopy competitors, and lock them in a room for 3 days, you would have your system. Based on their experience and knowledge, they would hack the canopies up into the three classes, bolster the training required for the A licesne, and develop the cirriculum for the 3 additional canopy control course (most of which already exists in the cirriculum of privately run canopy control courses).
Then it's just a matter of the USPA giving it some 'teeth' and making it a BSR. Each DZ could select an 'instructor' to run the classes, and it could be anyone who understands the material and has an ability to speak to a room full of people. You don't need a rating or to be certified, you're not jumpnig with anyone or working with students, this is classroom time with experienced jumpers. With a well-written cirriculum, it's about the same as the stewardess going through the safety procedures on an airplane (not exactly, but you get my point).
What to do is not really our problem. Getting it done is the problem. There's no way I'm the first guy to think of this, but with regards to this subject, I think USPA stands for 'USless Parachute Association'.
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 Marty, heheheheheh, me an my Stiletto........""190!!!"" Really High Speed man!! 'Don't really care 'bout those high speed, screemer landings, my bonz don't bend like they usedta'!! 'Jez thought I'd jerk Marsha's chain for a few laughs!! Looks like I did good! Funny about breaking bonz and canopies, I survived the 7-TU era with only a sprained ankle but did manage to break my tib-fib with a Scare-a-Commander MK-1. 'Nothing more than a few bruises with Ram Airz, an those go back to Strato Scarez!!!! Let ole' ding-a-ling keep rantin' bout all those high speed crashers and I'll jez' keep doin my powder puff toudhdowns with my "HP!!!" Stilletto ""190!!!!"" BTW my old bud Harry Leicher's been gone for a while but the comment he put at the end of his posts still rings true, same for the one by Mike "Sparky" Owens. Ain't none of us gonna get outa this place alive!!
in reply to "through. The Sabre2 and the Spectre are most certainly NOT HP canopipes. " ........................................................
Hi davelepka, you're a real good skydiver, I can tell. I like your posts and have learnt a lot considering them. But you're wrong on this one.
A Sabre2 IS a HP canopy, especially compared to a Pegasus. Your Velocity is an EXTREME HP canopy.
you hot shots have changed the accepted standards. Now A licensees are expected to learn to fly a HP canopy pretty well from the get go.
Your 16 years in the sport puts you starting in the mid 1990's. Have you even seen a Pegasus?
When the Pegasus came out it was a hot canopy for the times. All the good guys, not the wannabes, were jumping them. If Marisan was flying one , with his 2000 jumps way back then, that is an indication to me that it is more than likely, that he is a pretty hot skydiver. He's seen and done things very few of us will ever get to experience. ...and we're the poorer for it. He did it in a safer environment with better canopies suited to the purpose and with mates that cared greatly about him and his continued survival.
Now who's leading the crowd.? Go Fast? or is that just more redbullshit. It doesn't look to me like they care as much as Marisan and his mates.
If students were introduced to skydiving with a peaceul canopy and not allowed to fly HP , Sabre2's included, until they had proved themselves on their docile little life saver. A couple of hundred jumps when you're starting out , where your canopy doesn't constantly try to kill you.
I think we'd all have more fun people to skydive with and not just a bunch of speedy canopy freaks....and the litter of bodies they leave behind.
A Sabre2 IS a HP canopy, especially compared to a Pegasus
How could you compare the two? If you compare them WL for WL, you'll find that the Sabre2 is not a high performance canopy. How big was a Pegasus? 220sq ft I think, so if you put an average sized jumper on a Sabre2 210 or 230, it is not going to perform like a HP canopy. It's going to perform better than a Pegasus, but it's not high performance.
The problem is that average sized jumpers don't jump 210sq ft or 230 sq ft canopies. The average sized jumper is jumping 150sq ft and 170 sq ft canopies. Like any canopy, the more you load it, the higher the performance.
So once again, it's not the canopy, it's the pilot and what they're doing with it. If you load a Sabre2 at .8 or .7 to 1, like a Pegasus, it's a very doclie and forgiving canopy. Likewise, try loading a Pegasus at 1.2 or 1.3, and see how forgiving it is then.
Quote:
If students were introduced to skydiving with a peaceul canopy
They are. We give students PD Navigators where I jump, and I don't know of any DZ where they give students anything close to a HP canopy, or anything with a WL that would add performance to a canopy. Every DZ I've ever been to has 90% of their student rigs with canopies larger than 200sq ft. I think we have one 190 in our student room, and that's in the rig with the little harness for the leightweights, and even then they don't start off with that.
Again, students are trained on the right equipment, it's just that once they're done training, they are free to jump what they want. Based on what they see, and 'popular opinion', they make the choices they do. If they didn't have carte blanche right off the bat, they couldn't make bad choices. Once they have the commensurate experience and training, then they can have carte blanche, and jump whatever they please.
in reply to " How could you compare the two? If you compare them WL for WL, you'll find that the Sabre2 is not a high performance canopy. How big was a Pegasus? 220sq ft I think, so if you put an average sized jumper on a Sabre2 210 or 230, it is not going to perform like a HP canopy. It's going to perform better than a Pegasus, but it's not high performance. " ........................................
Toggle/ riser response on a Sabre 2 makes it HP in my book...even at lower loading that thing will turn radical without too much effort.
A Pegasus had much higher control input required and to get a similar radical turn you had to really work at it. This is a kind of built in safety device that modern light toggle/riser pressure canopies don't have.
Light toggle/riser pressure can of course make a big difference on a newbies first panic turn. The HP monster part of your nice docile Sabre2 is sitting there waiting , it may only monster you when you don't want it too...but it will be your fault not the canopies , never the canopies
eg a recently noted Sabre2 newbie landing. too high ...bit of front riser...oopss.... overshoot ......half flare ..pop-up......float........not sure what to do with toggles.....bit sideways ...let up toggles a bit ...reflare.... contact....up quick ....dust off...bit limpy .
I can't remember Pegasus canopies being like that even heavily loaded , although then they did have a nasty stall, but most canopies do don't they?
If I was a student now and had full knowlege of the fast canopy death and injury trail, I wouldn't go anywhere near anything even slightly elliptical eg Sabre2, until I had done my time on a truly forgiving rectangular canopy.
I've had multiple prangs on 7cell F111 200 size canopies , prangs that would have killed me if I'd been under a Sabre2.
Its more than just the loading, how does that sucker perform when things go wrong? If your canopy goes all HP just when you need it to set you down safe, then that's not forgiving, its dangerous. How'd would you like to land off with a Sabre2 on a night jump. not me, my old 7cell no worries deep brake , slow motion. With my Katana , no thank you.
It has a lot to do with the canopies . I expect them to save my life as well as be fun.
For the record... My first "new" canopy was a Pegasus. I loved that canopy. It was leaps and bounds ahead of the old rags I was jumping at the time. Back then, it was HP. Students worked their way up to the likes of this canopy.
A couple years ago, we started putting together some old f-111 rigs to do some CRW. In the process, I found a used Furry (Pegasus clone) for sale. It was like new and only had 35 jumps on it. The lines were still pure white and the fabric was shiny and clean. I've put a few jumps on it now and I can tell you, it flies like my Pegasus 30 years ago.
So, the following perspective is based not on my aging memory, but rather on current jump experience. The Sabre II is a much more responsive canopy than the Pegasus. And although both can be flown safely to the ground, both have the ability to kill you if you're not careful.
The Pegasus has a much slower forward speed, and is not nearly as responsive to toggle pressure. It flies like a truck compared to the Sabre II. However, come landing time, the Sabre II has way more flare power and soft landings are easier. If you burry a toggle on the Pegasus, it starts to come around slowly and speeds up gradually into the turn. The Sabre, given similar toggle pressure, responds much more quickly and turns harder.
So, how does this information play into this discussion? One of the canopies I jump today is a Sabre 135. At my current W/L, it is indeed a HP canopy. Jumping a Sabre 210 is not the same animal. Back in the day, we didn’t have smaller canopies to downsize to. (Well, except for maybe the Strato Star.) If I’d of had access to a Sabre II 135 back in the day, I’d surely be dead! I’m alive today not because I’m a better canopy pilot, but because I’m more aware of how easily this canopy can kill me.
Multiply this scenario times a Velocity, and you begin to see the problem Marisan has identified. Davelepka hit the nail on the head above. "It has a lot to do with the canopies. I expect them to save my life as well as be fun."
So, don’t discount an “old farts” ability to identify a problem just because he no longer jumps. There is much to be learned from his\her experience.
Nov 28, 2011, 7:56 AM
Post #109 of 456
(1036 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skyjumpenfool] HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Quote:
Davelepka hit the nail on the head above. "It has a lot to do with the canopies. I expect them to save my life as well as be fun."
So, don’t discount an “old farts” ability to identify a problem just because he no longer jumps. There is much to be learned from his\her experience.
First off, that was not my quote. Not that I don't agree with it, but it wasn't me.
Second, I'm not discounting the opinion of older jumpers, but the way he was speaking about modern canopies was as if he had expereince with them. He made a great number of generalzations, most of which were incorrect.
Back to canopies, even if you jump a Pegasus and a Sabre2 at the same WL, yes the Sabre2 will have lower toggle pressure and a better flare, both of which I see as good things.
Let's make yet another comparison to cars, newer cars flat out perform better than older cars. They turn quicker, handle better, stop better, and in most cases, are faster. Does that mean that everyone should learn to drive in a 1977 Olds Cutlass? No, it just means that new drivers need to be taught to drive a modern car, and the way you do that is to train them in modern cars, and teach them techniques for driving modern cars.
Related example - I have an 81 Superglide w/ a Shovelhead. Riding it is akin to driving a tractor, the controls are heavy, and the throws are long. I have to lift my foot off the peg to upshift, as my ankle doesn't flex enough to just 'flick' the shifter. Riding the bike involves big exaggerated movements for the clutch, throttle, shifter and the brakes (which aren't the best, even with two discs). If I learned to ride on that bike, and then got a newer bike, I would be over-doing the control movements, and would have to learn to 'tone down' my movements to suit a more modern bike.
In terms of canopies, a jumper who learns to jump on a newer wing, and downsizes slowly to a Sabre2 at 1 to1 will have no problem with the lower toggle pressure. They will just come to know that as 'toggle pressure', because without the Pegasus to jump for comaprison, the toggle pressure isn't light or heavy, it just 'is'.
If you were trying to interject a Sabre2 into 1986 skydiving, you might have a point, but it's not 1986 and that's part of the problem. While the old equipment isn't around anymore, the training isn't much different. Jumpers today have the advantage of being 'calibrated' to new canopies with lighter toggle pressure and better flare, but that's just curcumstantial based on what they have available to jump. That circumstance would be enough if people stayed at, or around, 1 to1 WL, like they did in the Pegasus days, but they don't. Most jumpers don't even buy a first rig at 1 to 1, it seems like 1.1 or 1.2 is more of a standard starting point.
It all comes back the training, or lack thereof. The canopies, when compared WL for WL are not all that different, and the few changes are for the better. The scope of canopies has expanded exponentially in the last 20 years, and the training has not. HP canopies are not to blame, it's the jumpers. The canopies do exactly what the jumpers tell them to do.
in reply to "In terms of canopies, a jumper who learns to jump on a newer wing, and downsizes slowly to a Sabre2 at 1 to1 will have no problem with the lower toggle pressure. They will just come to know that as 'toggle pressure', because without the Pegasus to jump for comaprison, the toggle pressure isn't light or heavy, it just 'is'.
You're making it very clear to us oldies what has gone wrong. Thank you. I'm lucky, BS doesn't baffle me.
The basic problem is newbies getting onto canopies they aren't ready for .
Who's allowing this irresponsibility? Who's encouraging this irresponsibility?
One thing creating and perpetuating this problem is guys like you, that don't really know what it was like in the 1980's, telling newbies what it was like in the 1980's..and pushing the line that all things are better now.
" its all OK, the lighter control input required to kill yourself is normal now ", you are adding I hope that "it will be MUCH easier for you to hurt yourself on this canopy than it was for those people flying those safer older canopies."
you could also tell them "Us modern skydivers, discarded the hard earnt wisdom of our elders and started over again. That's why we recreated all the death and injury under canopy, so we could be better than them.
You see that's why so many people are getting killed and injured under canopies too hot for them. These guys think its OK to fly around on an elliptical rocket, straight out of student training....cause they're used to it ??????
Most of these modern AFF trained people feeding their lines constantly to newbiesguys are simple usurpers. They aren't caring properly for their charges .
In the dim ol'past, eg 1986, these newbies just wouldn't have been allowed to jump those canopies, especially given the incident rate. And you know the funny thing, they wouldn't have wanted to.
These modern up to date skydiver guys are telling newbies to fly these things but don't know how to teach them to save themselves.
Once again davelepka , you got some great stuff to share mate, but please don't try telling us what it was like when you weren't there. We can tell the difference , you're just guessing.
Watched a guy, back in the day, trying a new accuracy technique with his 220 F111 canopy. It involved coming in downwind and initiating a 180 turn and hopefully coming out of it at about 10 feet lined up with the disc. Didn't work and he landed short of the peas 3 times. He gave it up after that. Funny thing was, he got up and walked away from each jump without even a limpy limpy.
There was another technique that even worked on a StratoStar. If you misjudged your final turn (Too low) when you reached normal flare height you just flared with the non turn toggle and landed normally. Great for when you'd put yourself in Hazard City.
A couple of years ago on a rare visit to the DZ I watched a young jumper (roughly 200 jumps) try really hard to hurt himself. He'd turned in hot and was heading for hazard city (Cars, fences, powerlines etc.) At about 20 feet he initiated a 45 turn to get out of the shit. I couldn't believe how hard he hit.
(This post was edited by Marisan on Nov 28, 2011, 2:01 PM)
in reply to "At about 20 feet he initiated a 45 turn to get out of the shit. I couldn't believe how hard he hit. " ............................
That guy was lucky, he only hit from 20ft. You should see the mess when they hit from higher up....
sorry no you shouldn't , its disgusting , such a pointless waste of life. it looks psychotic and is.
you know straight after, what happens ?
the little chooks run around all surprised and freaked the fuck out, hiding their drugs , as if they're surprised that the 3 day binge finally caught up with them.
Wait til happens near you and see what you think.
and the solution is so simple....but our sports balls aint dropped yet apparently.
So, as many people on this and many other threats have agreed, it is not the canopy, it is the pilot.
Now at our DZ before the student jumps from a F111 280 Manta they get a "Sport canopy endorsement" that it is mandatory to anyone who is getting their 'A' license here is the link. http://www.cspa.ca/en/cwc/cops/qaq-cop/117-sport-canopy
After that, there is another "B canopy endorsement" which is the novice doing all the talking (with the coach correcting on wrong info) and also increase the complexity of the theory information.
Nov 28, 2011, 5:36 PM
Post #114 of 456
(970 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skyjumpenfool] HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Quote:
So, don’t discount an “old farts” ability to identify a problem just because he no longer jumps. There is much to be learned from his\her experience.
If you're referring to the old farts that are posting in this thread, I don't think there's much to learn. The longer they are away from the sport and the more they cling to 'the way things were', the more irrelevant they become.
People who have been in the sport that long have a LOT to offer if they remain current and can work with new jumpers to impart their wisdom and experience.
But if all they're going to do is get nostalgic and holier-than-thou, I offer this...
Yeah, just sitting back trying to recapture A little of the glory of, well time slips away And leaves you with nothing mister but Boring stories of glory days
So, don’t discount an “old farts” ability to identify a problem just because he no longer jumps. There is much to be learned from his\her experience.
If you're referring to the old farts that are posting in this thread, I don't think there's much to learn. The longer they are away from the sport and the more they cling to 'the way things were', the more irrelevant they become.
People who have been in the sport that long have a LOT to offer if they remain current and can work with new jumpers to impart their wisdom and experience.
But if all they're going to do is get nostalgic and holier-than-thou, I offer this...
Yeah, just sitting back trying to recapture A little of the glory of, well time slips away And leaves you with nothing mister but Boring stories of glory days
Ahh craigbey, your generation isn't offering the newbies that instruction that they so desperately need. You seem to be satisfied with just watching the carnage.
You're making it very clear to us oldies what has gone wrong. Thank you. I'm lucky, BS doesn't baffle me.
The basic problem is newbies getting onto canopies they aren't ready for
How is that different from what I've been saying all along. If you read my post, I stated the following, which says the same-
Quote:
Jumpers today have the advantage of being 'calibrated' to new canopies with lighter toggle pressure and better flare, but that's just curcumstantial based on what they have available to jump. That circumstance would be enough if people stayed at, or around, 1 to1 WL, like they did in the Pegasus days, but they don't. Most jumpers don't even buy a first rig at 1 to 1, it seems like 1.1 or 1.2 is more of a standard starting point.
Again, it's not the canopies, it's the people, and what they choose to fly. If everyone stuck to larger canopies, even the new ones would be docile and forgiving.
Quote:
In the dim ol'past, eg 1986, these newbies just wouldn't have been allowed to jump those canopies, especially given the incident rate. And you know the funny thing, they wouldn't have wanted to.
Want to talk BS? That's it right there. Skydivers will always be skydivers, and they'll always want the 'hot' canopy. Why do you think everyone was jacking-off on the Pegasus? It's because it was faster and better than everything esle. The difference now is the scope of canopies available, and the top end of that scope is a touch higher performance than a Pegasus.
Quote:
Once again davelepka , you got some great stuff to share mate, but please don't try telling us what it was like when you weren't there. We can tell the difference , you're just guessing
Guess again, slick. My first 10 jumps were on various F-111 canopies, sized from 280 to 240. Then I was allowed to jump the 'hot' student rig, an F-111 220sq ft Cruise Lite (aka the Bruise Lite), and I latched onto it for about 40 jumps. When I finally bought my own rig around jump 50, it was stuffed full of clapped out F-111 PD190, and I pounded in on that right up until jump 100, when I finally had the money to upgrade to a Z-po canopy.
I've been there, and experienced the suck. I've also been here, and everywhere in between. The canopies are good, they do what they're told, it's all in the lack of training.
................ I've been there, and experienced the suck. I've also been here, and everywhere in between. The canopies are good, they do what they're told, it's all in the lack of training and the inability for any of us to choose the proper canopy.
I took the liberty to fix it for you... As edited, +1
your generation isn't offering the newbies that instruction that they so desperately need
Wrong. The instruction is there. Right now, it's just too difficult to find at some DZ's and participation is voluntary.
You know that the culture did not change over night. It tooks many years to evolve and become what it is today. During that time you and others in 'your generation' were involved in the sport in some way.
As pointed out by Trae, there were warning signs many years ago. What did you do about it then?
Nothing? So now others are being blamed for 'just watching the carnage'?
You are absolutely right. Back in the 70's, the culture was the same. The difference is, we didn't have any 79 foot Velo's. Believe me, "weda jumped em if weda had em". And, isn't that the real point of this thread? Can we all agree that this "Culture" needs to change?
We get so wound up with the "Who's better, the old farts or the gun sharps?" that we forget about the common ground we all share. Can we all please agree that this "Culture" needs to change? Assigning a "who's to blame" for the problem is not helping.
in reply to "Wrong. The instruction is there. Right now, it's just too difficult to find at some DZ's and participation is voluntary.
You know that the culture did not change over night. It tooks many years to evolve and become what it is today. During that time you and others in 'your generation' were involved in the sport in some way.
As pointed out by Trae, there were warning signs many years ago. What did you do about it then?
Nothing? So now others are being blamed for 'just watching the carnage'? " ..................................
craigbey. What did I do about it ? What a tale that would be.....its still going on now.
I'm a regular jumper, I jump as much as I want to. I jumped last weekend, wanna jump this weekend etc etc
As a FT instructor in the 1990's I'd say to people "you shouldn't be jumping that canopy you're not ready for it. its dangerous to you and other people. " They saw that like saying they should go back to kindergarten, when it was just the truth. I'd already seen the same canopies knock out highly experienced people...and these guys were turkeys.
The people that had the power to actually say "NO you can't jump that canopy", didn't use it. At the time they were too distracted by their new tandem industry...and the sudden influx of real money. Plus ....the operators, generally weren't very good skydivers and they knew it. They let the controls slip out of their hands and straight into the hands of the fastest landing person on the DZ. Many still do.
DZ's I like to get to lately are very well run . I'm impressed . If a person turns into a skydiver at one of these DZ's they're getting old school wisdom along the way...and lots of it.
New school? you guys skipped too many classes.
edited cause got dyslexic...again
(This post was edited by Trae on Nov 29, 2011, 5:32 PM)
Wrong again. We have many CC classes available now that you did not have back in your day. I've taken several ... you?
My guess is that you have not. But you don't have to, right? It's not your problem, right?
Quote:
What did I do about it ? What a tale that would be.....its still going on now.
In a prior post, you stated that you were no longer responsible to impart your wisdom and experience to others. So, which is it?
Quote:
DZ's I like to get to lately are very well run . I'm impressed . If a person turns into a skydiver at one of these DZ's they're getting old school wisdom along the way...and lots of it.
And their CC program is what, exactly? What are the requirements for CC training? What do they do to ensure that jumpers get the training they need?
We could cross swords on this , your experiences verses mine ,etc etc But this isn't about me or you, its about our sport allowing the crap to continue.
its become normal has it ?
When people bounce, sensible people find out why. If the gear sucks they avoid it. How many this year ??? What about how many in the last 20 years?
My guess (your's is wrong by the way) is that our industry will pull its finger out eventually and mandate canopy type/ experience levels to protect the public as they enter our sport.
in reply to"Guess again, slick. My first 10 jumps were on various F-111 canopies, sized from 280 to 240. Then I was allowed to jump the 'hot' student rig, an F-111 220sq ft Cruise Lite (aka the Bruise Lite), and I latched onto it for about 40 jumps. When I finally bought my own rig around jump 50, it was stuffed full of clapped out F-111 PD190, and I pounded in on that right up until jump 100, when I finally had the money to upgrade to a Z-po canopy.
...........................................
The thing is,generally speaking , I don't even disagree with you. I just think a Sabre2 is a HP canopy and you don't.
in reply to "I've been there, and experienced the suck. I've also been here, and everywhere in between. "
Now that's just a gem. can't wait to go everywhere ....must be fun.
I just think a Sabre2 is a HP canopy and you don't
It just depends on the WL. If people loaded them the same way they loaded a Pegasus, the Sabre2 is not high performance. The problem is, people load them heavier than a Pegasus, and don't recieve any training beyond what you would have recieved to jump a Pegasus.
Lighter control inputs don't make something high performance. Again, look at modern cars. If you turn the wheel or step on the brake in a car with power steering and brakes with the same force that you used in a car without power steering and brakes, you would swerve off the road, or come to a very quick halt in the middle of the road. Despite this, brain-dead teenagers everywhere manage to drive modern car, with their lightly calibrated control inputs, without incident.
The reason is that from the first time they got behind the wheel, they were dealing with power steering and brakes, and they learned how much force was required, and that's the force that they used.
When was the last time you loosened a stubborn screw without stripping the head? You know that you cannot just apply 100% of your strength, you meter out what's needed, and get the job done.
When was the last time you ripped your dick off treating it like a screwdriver being used to loosen a stubborn screw? I'm guessing never, and that's because, again, you learned what level of force was appropriate, and used it.
For further reference, we have a Sabre 190 as the 'small' student/rental canopy. It's in the rig with the little harness, and only used for the leightweights. Just this weekend, I was helping a newbie with 15 jumps pack his new (to him) Sabre 190 in his first rig. He's about 130 lbs, so it's lightly loaded and a good choice for a first canopy.
Many years ago, my first 'small' canopy was a Sabre 107 that I loaded at about 1.7 to 1, and I put about 500 jumps on it. I learned to swoop and fly a small canopy with that wing, and it was fast and liked to fall out of the sky. The point is that the same canopy, but in a 190, is suitable for lighter students and newbies, while I used a highly loaded one to learn to swoop.
The way some people jump them, the Sabre2 can be a HP canopy. The way newbies should jump them, the Sabre2 is not high performance.
(This post was edited by davelepka on Nov 29, 2011, 6:26 PM)
Nov 29, 2011, 7:02 PM
Post #125 of 456
(826 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skyjumpenfool] HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
You are absolutely right. Back in the 70's, the culture was the same. The difference is, we didn't have any 79 foot Velo's. Believe me, "weda jumped em if weda had em". And, isn't that the real point of this thread? Can we all agree that this "Culture" needs to change?
We get so wound up with the "Who's better, the old farts or the gun sharps?" that we forget about the common ground we all share. Can we all please agree that this "Culture" needs to change? Assigning a "who's to blame" for the problem is not helping.
Again, back in the day (30 years ago) I trained people on how to jump their canopies in my club. If you weren't trained by someone accepted by the CSO (Club Safety Officer) and didn't pass an EXAM administered by the CSO you didn't jump that hot Strato Star or Strato Cloud or (Gasp) Strato Flyer. You also had to have built up you experience on non wing type canopies before anyone would even look at you.
The Pegasus: I didn't buy it because it was fast but because of the type of jumping I did. It was a very good all rounder. It was good for CRW, Accuracy, Demos and General Rel.
We didn't show the size of our dicks by the size of the canopy we jumped but by the fact that we jumped.
It was an incredible time of change in the sport and we DID KILL people because we didn't know what we didn't know.
We learnt from these fatalities and tried not to make the same mistakes.
I must have been moderately good because I'm still here.
That's more than you can say for the 50% of fatalities that died under fully functioning, fully open canopies in the last 15 odd years.
You guys really HAVE to back to the training regimes of the old days. If you haven't had the training (And I mean TRAINING not a 10 minute brief on what to expect) well, then you don't jump that canopy whatever wingloading it is. (And that training should also include PLF's)
Saying the training is available and you just have to seek it out doesn't cut it as demonstrated by the Incident Thread.
Nov 30, 2011, 3:41 AM
Post #129 of 456
(1020 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Marisan / Trae] HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Quote:
If you weren't trained by someone accepted by the CSO (Club Safety Officer) and didn't pass an EXAM administered by the CSO you didn't jump that hot Strato Star or Strato Cloud or (Gasp) Strato Flyer. You also had to have built up you experience on non wing type canopies before anyone would even look at you. ... If you haven't had the training (And I mean TRAINING not a 10 minute brief on what to expect) well, then you don't jump that canopy whatever wingloading it is.
Quote:
our industry will pull its finger out eventually and mandate canopy type/ experience levels
Now you've both said what others have been posting. It's not the canopy, it's the pilot.
Don't waste your time trying to convince anyone that you could ban a canopy. Train the pilot.
Hopefully, the sport can develop and deliver better canopy training to all those who need it.
I suggest that you learn how to do one. Who the hell taught you to skydive without covering PLFs? That's borderline negligent IMO.
Not know how to do a PLF is not a "badge of honour". It is a technique that could quite possibly save you from serious injury. The article you quote does NOT negate the need for PLFs, it merely argues that there are times when it may not be the best option.
VB.... 33 years ago, I rode a streamer in from 500' (CRW gone bad). I’m alive today and perfectly healthy because, in great part, I was well trained at PLF's. I learned this technique in cliff diving, competitive gymnastics, and skydiving. I practiced it often!! I still do and I'm twice your age (probably more).
The thread you site offers reasons why PLF's don't work well with today’s canopies. But, how about when the s#!+ hits the fan???? Learn a good PLF, practice them often, live to do one again. That is all!
Nov 30, 2011, 1:21 PM
Post #133 of 456
(964 views)
Shortcut
Re: [virgin-burner] HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
i've done martial arts for a long time, and especially in judo, we were "PLFing" for hours on end..
not saying i dont know how to do it, just saying it wasnt part of the curriculum. that's all!
uh, I'm a newbie skydiver, but I've done my share of Judo, too, and I never learned a PLF in the dojo. I learned how to fall/roll without hurting myself from being thrown, too, but the PLF is different - you'll be coming in a lot hotter if the fit hits the shan here, still connected to a harness. The very few times I've been thrown back on my feet, with someone holding onto my shoulder, I wasn't going all that fast, so I don't think that experience is relevant to skydiving...
i merely suggested that article and stated we were not trained how to do one.
i've done martial arts for a long time, and especially in judo, we were "PLFing" for hours on end..
not saying i dont know how to do it, just saying it wasnt part of the curriculum. that's all!
I can't believe that PLF's aren't taught.
It's a basic survival skill.
What other survival skills aren't taught?
I have a good friend that went through a whole AFF program on the left coast without ever being in a hanging harness or having the entirety of the cut-away procedures explained to him.
Never were any type of EP drills recommended or practiced beyone the 1st jump 'pull this then pull that'
...Not until his A license and going to a different DZ did he realize the poor quality of his instruction.
>Do you think any canopy under 168-170 is a high performance canopy? If so why?
No.
Let's take discussions of the definition of HP canopies to G+R and leave this thread for discussions of the incident itself.
OK Bill Von here it is!
Any Canopy that, when it opens in line twists, spins up to a speed that makes cutaways problematic is by definition lethal.
Any canopy, that has to be regularly opened at 4500' to give time to deal with high speed malfunctions is by definition lethal.
Any canopy that can kill by a mere 90 degree wind change is by definition lethal.
Any canopy that turns and dives so fast as to make any attempt to clear airspace impossible is by definition lethal.
Any canopy that can be totally collapsed by turbulence is by definition lethal.
Any canopy that can be docked on by a wingsuit is by definition lethal.
Any canopy that can exceed the parameters of an AAD is by definition lethal.
Any canopy that can cause a cutaway from a brake fire is by definition lethal.
Any canopy that with the slightest lapse of currency or attention can cause injury is by definition lethal.
Any canopy that (even on a test jump) that can cause GLOC (Google it) is by definition lethal.
I'm sure you can think of more and I'm certainly sure the guys with Mad Skillz will flame away.
Flame as much as you like because it's only luck keeping you out of the incident forum!
For the benefit of those that didn't read the first post here it is again. I challenge you to find one of my 10 points that hasn't caused a fatality. Oops, should have exempted the Wingsuit docking on a Canopy.
One thing that this thread has shown is that the training given on HP Canopies is so inadequate as to be almost criminal.
When the Royal Australian Air Force was flying Mirage fighters one of the final exercises was low level night navigation. The students were told during their briefing that " If you stuff this up you WILL die"
And they had 6 months of training on the Mirage prior to getting to this point.
(This post was edited by Marisan on Nov 30, 2011, 4:34 PM)
Nov 30, 2011, 5:45 PM
Post #139 of 456
(915 views)
Shortcut
Re: [virgin-burner] HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
i merely suggested that article and stated we were not trained how to do one.
i've done martial arts for a long time, and especially in judo, we were "PLFing" for hours on end..
not saying i dont know how to do it, just saying it wasnt part of the curriculum. that's all!
OK. So you say you know how to do PLF's. When was the last time you spent any time practicing them? Not doing martial arts, but practicing skydiving PLF's? I'll go even farther.... When was the last time you practiced them off a 3-4 foot platform? Good Lord! Jumpers don't practice PLF's or EP's anymore? How can we possibly expect anyone to get canopy training? Not trying to pick on VB, but, it does exemplify my point.
Nov 30, 2011, 8:08 PM
Post #141 of 456
(896 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skyjumpenfool] HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
I think it all depends on the DZ and general attitude of the jumpers for EPs and canopy progression. I know at my DZ, EPs and PLFs are regularly practiced for students. As for canopies? I think it's the individual mindset that is the big problem and with some people WL enforcement is necessary. I'm currently jumping a triathlon loaded at 1.0 WL. I'm looking into getting a 9 cell either Safire 2 or Pilot and maybe downsize to a 1.1 WL. After speaking with one of the instructors at my DZ he suggested I demo the 9 cell at the same WL as my tri first. He said he had no doubt I could handle the 1.1 but better to be safe. You know what? I will follow his advice! Why? Because I respect his experience and I do not want to get hurt. I know the risks with our sport and I RESPECT it! I "grew up" in the sport with the canopy issue on the rise and knew in order to be safe and continue was not to be stupid. I took a canopy control course on my own accord not because I was forced to but because I wanted to become a safer pilot. I don't think the HP canopies are the issue. I'm not for banning anything. It's the so called hot shots that are either too cocky or too stupid to seek out the training and/or advice of the respected experienced jumpers. Just my opinion.
in reply to "Here's where your disconenct from reality is showing through. The Sabre2 and the Spectre are most certainly NOT HP canopipes. "
and later on "It just depends on the WL. If people loaded them the same way they loaded a Pegasus, the Sabre2 is not high performance. " .........................................
Thanks for clarifying that, its getting much easier to totally agree with you.
I'm thinking that an ideal newbie learning canopy, say up to 100 jumps , would be better off having reltively heavy control input required. Not so heavy that you can't operate it, but heavy enough so a newbie can really feel what they're doing.
Perhaps the lighter toggle/riser pressure is part of the disconnect that gets them / us into trouble...making the canopies just that much easier to over-control when people get too excited or surprised by something...even if they are used to it when things are more normal.
The attachment is from TIME Dec5 2011 mag , a Nobel-winning psychologist and economist Daniel Kahneman.
In his world , people would have to consciously opt out of decent canopy training rather than into it.
So the consensus on this thread is that the high rate of injury and death is caused by untrained pilots flying high performance canopies. Can we agree on that? Given that, there are two ways to go about solving the problem.
Remove the canopies (And I've said before that, realistically, that's not going to happen unless you carry a really big stick like the FEDS do) or remove the untrained pilots (Either by stopping them jumping or training them to a more than adequate standard.)
Adequate training is going to cost lots of money so who's going to pay?
Well who benefits from this mad craze to downsize?
The manufacturers, that's who!
So, since they make the big bucks, make THEM responsible for the training. ie: They come up with a "Pilots Operational Handbook" like the fixed wing manufacturers do. (And that's not just a packing guide but a description of everything they found on their REGULATED test jumps and how to avoid the nasties that were found) They PAY to train qualified instructors on their latest little canopy and the prospective jumpers pay to get that training BEFORE they jump those canopies (And that includes mentoring after the first jump)
If the manufacturers won't do this then their canopies don't get a TSO and NOBODY jumps them. (That also means NOBODY buys them)
If you guys can't do this it means that you've lost control of YOUR sport to money and egos.
If you're going to flame me please do me the courtesy of reading this post and digesting it first.
billvon (D 16479)
Moderator
Dec 1, 2011, 9:20 PM
Post #144 of 456
(832 views)
Shortcut
In this thread about 60% of respondents say the problem is a lack of training. 30% say the canopies are the problem and the remainder are flamers.
Two friends of mine go in on landings in the last year , both are not only expert skydivers but respected instructors with many thousands of jumps. Both impressively current and well within their skill range on the canopy they were flying.
It's not the fault of the canopy, or the fault of training. Someone pulled a pillar too close and they died. What did you expect to happen? that's what you get when you turn too low. These guys were the EXPERTLY trained F16 pilots that some ancient poundmeintheass round jumper made a metaphor about earlier.
In reply to:
At least I've come up with an idea (however flawed that idea may be) to address the training problem.
I expect those of you still in the sport to either suggest something different or refine my idea.
If you can't do this well, you have truly lost control of your sport.
I do not deny there is a training issue overall, and that newer pilots need to be given 100x the attention they normally get in the way of canopy flying instruction. I am seeing it every time I go to my local drop zone, more jumps with a canopy coach. and tons of canopy course posters. I think it is a great start.
The only loss of control I see is -YOUR- loss of reality. Skydiving changed old man, for better or worse it changed and left your giant slow parachutes behind. This happens in every action sport out there. Someone finds a way to make it safer, faster, stronger, longer, and more fun. Though not always in that order. It seems the people that can make it better are trying. It's getting better every day. New requirements at dropzones and more BS in the BSR.
The people that can make the difference are out there making the difference. The first person to notice the change is the one too far removed from it to have any part in making the change BETTER.
>If the manufacturers won't do this then their canopies don't get a TSO and NOBODY jumps them.
Main canopies don't need TSO's.
Well maybe they SHOULD have a TSO given their potential to kill jumpers.
If it's all too hard just accept the carnage and what's coming down the road.
In this thread about 60% of respondents say the problem is a lack of training. 30% say the canopies are the problem and the remainder are flamers.
At least I've come up with an idea (however flawed that idea may be) to address the training problem.
I expect those of you still in the sport to either suggest something different or refine my idea.
If you can't do this well, you have truly lost control of your sport.
Wow, you know how to ruin threads about canopies with your trolling, don't you?
Hey Aggie Dave, This is a thread I started. If you think I'm trolling don't respond. I note you've responded several times however!
Dude,
You can't un-invent the atom bomb. Modern semi-elliptical and elliptical canopies exist in the sport, people enjoy flying them, and this is extremely likely to continue until someone invents something newer/better to replace them. If you were willing to accept the reality of their existence and high likelihood of their continued use, then you might be part of a constructive discussion, regardless of who started the thread. Rail against them if you will, but you might as well advocate for a constitutional monarchy in China for all the progress you'll make doing so.
I don't think the problem in the training discussion is a lack of ideas. As a newbie in the sport, there are a bewildering number of ideas and opinions where it comes to training and safety in canopy piloting. Most of the ideas I've read seem to involve a lot of work in uniform curriculum design, training, and certification that would require an enormous amount of buy-in from DZOs, S&TAa, and instructors around the US. In addition, it will cost money to students entering the sport to meet more requirements. Personally, I think it would be worth it, but what really matters to get it done is the buy-in of the people who will have to make a large investment of time/money in developing/training/testing these ideas.
Oddly enough, though, I haven't seen much discussion of the canopy piloting cards that the USPA is now requiring for the B license. The new requirement has the look and feel of a tentative trial of a requirement that could easily be expanded, but I imagine it will depend strongly on its reception from S&TAs, who have to sign off on these themselves, in the absence of a canopy coaching rating. I'm far too new to have an opinion, but what do you up-number jumpers think. What does everyone think of the new requirement? Close to the mark, way off?
Oddly enough, though, I haven't seen much discussion of the canopy piloting cards that the USPA is now requiring for the B license. The new requirement has the look and feel of a tentative trial of a requirement that could easily be expanded, but I imagine it will depend strongly on its reception from S&TAs, who have to sign off on these themselves, in the absence of a canopy coaching rating. I'm far too new to have an opinion, but what do you up-number jumpers think. What does everyone think of the new requirement? Close to the mark, way off?
I expect those of you still in the sport to either suggest something different or >refine my idea.
We leave the TSO system like it is and increase HP canopy training opportunities.
I'd agree. TSO'd mains will only drive the price of canopies up dramatically and, probably not change anything. Training, on the other hand, has an outside chance of affecting change.
in reply to "The only loss of control I see is -YOUR- loss of reality. Skydiving changed old man, for better or worse it changed and left your giant slow parachutes behind. This happens in every action sport out there. Someone finds a way to make it safer, faster, stronger, longer, and more fun. Though not always in that order. It seems the people that can make it better are trying. It's getting better every day. New requirements at dropzones and more BS in the BSR.
.........................................
Another reality spinner What Marisan is suggesting doesn't sound like a loss of reality to me , quite the opposite. It sounds like good old common sense. And like you say its happening anyway...but very slowly...dumb speed.
It might be different in other parts of the world , but here we listen to the old guys , the survivors are smart as @#$%. and they usually have our best interests at heart.
Most of it sounds like ......"Just wait a minute, have a think. Not yet. OK MOVE !." How many of you young guys can do that? ie take command. Old guys do it naturally if you work with them and they'll train you without you knowing it.
If YOU said "Just wait a minute ... etc" I'd tell you to piss off. If an old guy says it ..I listen.
I reckon you'd tell the old guy to piss off too. Thats your disconnect from reality right there.
Say what you want. Call me an old man living in the past. Call me a boring old fart. Call me someone that wants to drag you back to my past. I DON'T CARE!
I DO CARE about jumpers dying needlessly.
You HAVE to change your training because the training you are offering now ISN'T WORKING!
Before you say it is consider the fatality rate. If you say the training on offer is adequate, well, why are so many people dying.
I can only see one reason:
The canopies being jumped far out perform any training on offer.
If jumpers with thousands of jumps are dying what makes you think you are immune?
Every single one of you jumping HP Canopies for enough jumps has had an " Oh Shit" moment. If you say you haven't, well, I don't believe you. I've had two " Oh Shit" moments where I didn't think I might die. I knew I was dead! One was gear related and the other was a 2 man clusterfuck! Neither were canopy related. But I've been there knocking on the Grim Reaper's door.
You guys have to change the training. You have to make it compulsory, not just available.
Otherwise, there are plenty of Old Farts (I wear that badge with pride) who will say " I Told You So"
billvon (D 16479)
Moderator
Dec 2, 2011, 10:32 PM
Post #155 of 456
(914 views)
Shortcut
>So what you are saying is let Dawinian Selection be the exam and the Grim Reaper be >the examiner?
Nope. I am saying let YOU be the examiner. Your the one who wants change - so make the change.
Or, if you can't be bothered, then don't do it. And the next time you start a rant about how no one is doing anything to accomplish your goals, you'll be able to look in the mirror to find the person to blame.
If YOU said "Just wait a minute ... etc" I'd tell you to piss off. If an old guy says it ..I listen.
You may have misunderstood what my point was.
I watched this thread from the beginning and read every post pretty much as they were posted. I listened, read the other threads, and waited a long time to reply in this thread to make sure I understood what he was trying to say. Even after I read all his posts on the subject I came to the conclusion that he has a "disconnect" from what is going on here. What I see is an older more experienced skydiver with an illusion of STOPPING canopy landing fatalities. The bottom line is skydiving, especially student skydiving training, NEED more training. Marisan, and maybe i'm wrong here, thinks that some governing body should effectively "ban" high performance canopies to stop this.
Seeing the extremely experienced canopy pilots with thousands of HP landings die is just what backs my point. The "HP canopy" cutoff line is so fuzzy it cannot be drawn. Around ~70% of fatalities in the last 10 years were caused by things OTHER than landings. Maybe another 10 percent can be attributed to high-performance canopy use and flight.
No one in their right mind would ignore experienced jumpers, or allow darwinism to be an argument against Marisan, so please do not confuse anything I say with that or a chronic disrespect for older or elderly skydiving veterans.
Quote:
Most of it(Marisan's posts?) sounds like ......"Just wait a minute, have a think. Not yet. OK MOVE !." How many of you young guys can do that? ie take command. Old guys do it naturally if you work with them and they'll train you without you knowing it. If YOU said "Just wait a minute ... etc" I'd tell you to piss off. If an old guy says it ..I listen.
And I would not expect you to listen to me, nor do I claim to have the knowledge to teach high performance parachute landings.
Quote:
It might be different in other parts of the world , but here we listen to the old guys , the survivors are smart as @#$%. and they usually have our best interests at heart.
100% agree, but I do not think that someone who lacks a significant history of "high performance" canopy flight, after an entire industry becomes based on it, should have any credibility to ban it. I understand that the "banning" part of it is mostly for dramatic impact. But anything more than implementing a moderately weighted (though, more than there is now) canopy flight education and regulation regiment is not possible or desirable.
(This post was edited by Calvin19 on Dec 3, 2011, 3:11 PM)
>So what you are saying is let Dawinian Selection be the exam and the Grim Reaper be >the examiner?
Nope. I am saying let YOU be the examiner. Your the one who wants change - so make the change.
Or, if you can't be bothered, then don't do it. And the next time you start a rant about how no one is doing anything to accomplish your goals, you'll be able to look in the mirror to find the person to blame.
Hi Billvon,
I don't jump anymore and I have no intention to jump again. So, therefore, I have no credibility to train anyone in a discipline I don't understand. I am, however, pointing out a problem that I can see. That is people dying under HP Canopies that are fully open and functioning as per their design.
Back in my day, people died because: 1/ they forgot where they were and what they were doing (ie nothing out) 2/ Reserve entanglement with Capewells or other gear malfunctions. 3/ Pushing the limits and not understanding the dangers. (ie my flatmate/room mate nearly died in the early days of CRW)
So, what did we do to stop this carnage?
In the case of number 1, AAD's came into mainstream use instead of just being for students.
In the case of number two: Gear evolved especially with Bill Booth's invention of the three ring system.
In the case of number three: Well not much can be done about this. Shit does happen but we learnt from this and tried to stop the shit from happening. (I know this is what you guys are doing now to try and stop HP Canopy deaths)
The problem is that the fatality rate from HP Canopies is increasing year by year.
So what you guys are doing about the major cause of death isn't working. Does anyone disagree with that?
I suggested that the major beneficiaries of the downsizing craze (The Manufacturers )should help to pay for the training necessary to ensure that the people jumping their canopies are as safe as they can be.
The closest I have seen to this idea on this thread is that training should be available. Well It IS available but it doesn't seem to be doing anything to lower the rate of deaths and injuries.
So if the training was COMPULSORY and paid for by the people that benefit most wouldn't that be a step ahead?
Lots of posters on this thread have commented on my wish to have these canopies banned. I have said several times that, realistically, that is not going to happen within the skydiving world. I feel that they are causing so much damage to the sport that they should not have been allowed in the first place. But that's just my opinion and opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one.
Just remember that, to the regulators, Skydiving is just a pimple on the arse of a flea. Annoy them enough and they will do something to get rid of the annoyance.
So, the ball is back in your court. You guys, that can actually do something, need to look in the mirror and ask yourselves " What can I do to stop this problem" (unless you don't see it as a problem and accept the deaths and injuries as mere collateral damage to your enjoyment)
Flaming an Old Fart like me who is merely pointing out the problem is doing nothing to stop the carnage.
I suggested that the major beneficiaries of the downsizing craze (The Manufacturers )should help to pay for the training necessary to ensure that the people jumping their canopies are as safe as they can be. if the training was COMPULSORY and paid for by the people that benefit most wouldn't that be a step ahead?
Nobody blames the motorcycle companies for the people killed riding. Maybe now and then Ducati sponsors a safety camp, but I don't think that happens much.
Quote:
Just remember that, to the regulators, Skydiving is just a pimple on the arse of a flea. Annoy them enough and they will do something to get rid of the annoyance.
You know, there IS something to be said about that. If the feds are annoyed enough by bad press they get from skydiving, they -can- intervene. You mentioned in another thread that people should "buy big soft canopies" because the feds were going to regulate your parachute choice. I find that very, very far fetched.
Marisan, you seem to have a vendetta against anything that can flare. While I AGREE that things need to be done to decrease the landing fatalities, I do not think that you spamming the board with what borders on hateful intolerance will do anything but annoy people like me who spend too much time online.
As has beens said a couple times, if you do not like the way things are going (mind you, in something you no longer have any stock in, save nostalgia) then by all means start a canopy clinic organization. Talk to the USPA, build a canopy pilot rating system. But dramatic complaining online is not helping anything.
I suggested that the major beneficiaries of the downsizing craze (The Manufacturers )should help to pay for the training necessary to ensure that the people jumping their canopies are as safe as they can be.
In reply to:
That would be a logistical nightmare and probably be ineffective because of that.
It's the buyers responsibility to make sure they are qualified on the equipment in the way they will use it...
If you have a few hrs of 172 time and hit the lotto, you can go buy a Pitts.
Obviously it isn't the manufacturer that pays for your aerobatic training....YOU DO, because you want to play in the hi-performance playground-you do what it takes to survive there.
That's common sense and a pretty basic element of 'safety culture'.
~THAT's what 'we' are missing...
Compulsory training and set standards for operator performance will probably be what eventually happens... That would be a great step one, leave a step two in the drawer until success or failures figures show a change in the trend.
My opinion is, the technology of our sport moves so fast that the 'generally accepted guidelines' can't keep up... No doubt there are numerous factors that come into play regarding why our 'safety culture' is what it is.
But we're gonna have to figure it out and address it if we want to stay relatively unregulated by the federal grumpy guys.
in reply to "100% agree, but I do not think that someone who lacks a significant history of "high performance" canopy flight, after an entire industry becomes based on it, should have any credibility to ban it. "........................"But dramatic complaining online is not helping anything. " ................................................
In a strange way its is helping us . Your more respectful replies have made it easier to listen to you and hear YOUR wisdom.
I'm thinking , what Marisan is showing us, is the very real possibility that a group of whuffo's could make an attempt to ban things in our sport.
We're supposed to be self-policing. Marisan's a policeman from way back. he was a member of a skydiving community that was truly self policing.
WE're not doing a very good job of it with the HP canopies/newbie/training slow burn cluster@#$%.
I happen to know more than a few people, who would love to blow our sport out of the sky. The reason being, that they have lost loved ones that went skydiving and didn't come back alive. Some of them have to wipe their kids arse for the rest of their life. Some of them are skydivers that were mislead by go-too-fast fools.
When these people went to the DZ , much later, after their grieving process allowed them to face the place, what they saw disgusted them. I was embarrassed to be a skydiver in their presence.
They hate us with a vengence we might not understand. How many more innocent civilians are going to be killed by being allowed to fly canopies they are not ready for and have not been trained for ?
Most of these dead kids have parents, siblings, cousins , a mass of relatives, plus friends, that love them beyond life. They can't ever forget what happened to them.
Marisan is just warning us , those people I mentioned don't bother with the warning. WE can duck and weave all we like , but we are collectively to blame unless we do something to stop this . Some people are personally to blame.
Have you killed or injured an innocent kid today, through your negligence, at your DZ?
If you have a few hrs of 172 time and hit the lotto, you can go buy a Pitts.
Obviously it isn't the manufacturer that pays for your aerobatic training....YOU DO, because you want to play in the hi-performance playground-you do what it takes to survive there.
That's common sense and a pretty basic element of 'safety culture'.
~THAT's what 'we' are missing... . In the general aviation community that " Safety Culture" is what stops people buying a Pitts Special and flying it without the necessary training.
It is possible for the new Pitts owner to sneak out to the airfield and fly his new Pitts Special without the rating. 5 minutes later he is (To steal Aggie Dave's sig line) "Dead surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." What happens then? A major investigation eventuates, lessons are learned, regulations are overhauled and (maybe) sanctions are applied. This happens even with injuries.
Because Jumping is so small a facet of general aviation the FAA has allowed you to be self regulating. This means You have to conduct the major investigation ,learn the lessons, overhaul the regulations and apply sanctions if necessary. Even with injuries.
Then you have to collate the statistics to see if a new trend is occurring.
Right now you have no statistics on injuries and death. There is a major gut feel, however, that something is seriously wrong.
I know jumpers are rebels and hate rules. Hell that's one of the reasons I started jumping.
One of the things that has come very strongly from this thread is that training must be adequate and COMPULSORY!
The manufacturers MUST provide a Pilot's Operational Handbook with each canopy just as general aviation manufacturers must provide one with each aircraft they sell.
This handbook MUST tell of any potential nasties found during the test flights. They must tell of the parameters of the test flights with the warning that, if you go outside of those parameters, you are effectively being a test pilot and could quite easily be killed or injured by that which you don't know!
If you want to self regulate well you actually HAVE to self regulate.
If you don't (and I've said it numerous times before) someone Will do it for you.
Come on you guys. You CAN do it. You CAN build a safety culture in Skydiving.
Start today!
billvon (D 16479)
Moderator
Dec 4, 2011, 7:49 PM
Post #166 of 456
(747 views)
Shortcut
>It is possible for the new Pitts owner to sneak out to the airfield and fly his new Pitts >Special without the rating. 5 minutes later he is (To steal Aggie Dave's sig line) "Dead >surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." >What happens then? A major investigation eventuates, lessons are learned, >regulations are overhauled and (maybe) sanctions are applied. This happens even with >injuries.
No, it doesn't - not when the final conclusion was "he was an idiot." The Bonanza wasn't called the "doctor killer" for no good reason, and nowadays it's the Cirrus that's killing people disproportionately. It's a sexy plane that people with C152 skills can buy and quite quickly get in over their heads.
People with more money than sense regularly buy aircraft they can't handle and kill themselves. Indeed, on a fatality per-participant basis, general aviation is more dangerous than skydiving.
So if your point is "you have to self-police to get to the safety level of general aviation" - we've already done it. And if the FAA really is going to get involved with something, it's going to be general aviation, so they can bring it up to the safety level of skydiving.
(Needless to say, neither is a safe sport at the end of the day.)
(This post was edited by billvon on Dec 4, 2011, 9:13 PM)
Hi Billvon, And what is the final conclusion when someone hooks in and kills himself. That he was an idiot and deserved it so we don't have to do or learn anything?
Looking at the figures in the "Canopy with the most Fatalities" thread it seems we have our own forktailed doctor killers
billvon (D 16479)
Moderator
Dec 4, 2011, 8:38 PM
Post #168 of 456
(740 views)
Shortcut
>And what is the final conclusion when someone hooks in and kills himself.
Depends on the circumstances. Often it is someone who does a last minute avoidance maneuver. Often it is someone who wants to hook it in to get a really cool landing and screws up. Sometimes it's due to turbulence, or gear problems, or not being able to see well enough. All too often we never know which of the above it is, because there's no one to tell us what happened.
>That he was an idiot and deserved it so we don't have to do or learn anything?
Sometimes, yes. Sometimes we see it coming and no one can do anything to stop it. There are a few people on this forum like that.
>Looking at the figures in the "Canopy with the most Fatalities" thread it seems we >have our own forktailed doctor killers
Yep. If you want to kill yourself, there are several canopies that excel at that.
Come on you guys. You CAN do it. You CAN build a safety culture in Skydiving.
Start today!
If you're really that interested in doing something - then do something.
If you're not going to take action then this is just more hot air, and there's plenty of that in these forums.
FWIW I do like your idea of having to qualify to move up to a different canopy - I think it would force the hot shots to work hard to be able to fly the "trophy canopies".
Dec 5, 2011, 2:53 PM
Post #170 of 456
(686 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DaVinciflies] HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
In reply to:
Come on you guys. You CAN do it. You CAN build a safety culture in Skydiving.
Start today!
If you're really that interested in doing something - then do something.
Seems to me, He's doing something by starting this thread and taking the fight to the street (well, virtual street anyway). Sometimes the best way to affect change is to become a "squeaky gear". Marisan is under attack by those who disagree with him. ... that’s ok by me, it just adds to the conversation. He’s also been under fire in this thread by those who don't seem to want change. Those are the attacks I’m worried about.
Marisan has nothing (personally) to gain by his actions/postings here. I applaud his effort!!
Dec 5, 2011, 3:15 PM
Post #171 of 456
(678 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skyjumpenfool] HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Another point that I have been thinking for a while, How many deaths per skydive statistic is from the old times and now days.
Bryan Burke mention locals in Skydive Arizona are 1/346.667 to die in a skydive, and locals 1/67.829 Now that's a lot of skydives.
Back in the days how many skydives actually occur in a year and what would be the probability of likely to die during a skydive. Maybe we are actually a lot more safer than we where back in the day, even with this high performance canopy.
Also, I know Icarus has a lot of information on canopy training on their website, free of charge to anyone who has access to internet.
Any DZO or jumper could print them off and bring them to the DZ.
Dec 5, 2011, 6:37 PM
Post #173 of 456
(643 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DaVinciflies] HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
In reply to:
Seems to me, He's doing something by starting this thread and taking the fight to the street ....
It's all been talked about ad nauseam. He is not doing anything new. It's just a waste of time.
I'm just suggesting that he take action of some kind instead of talking about it if he really is that bothered by the status quo.
For about the 5th time! I don't jump anymore. I have no intention of jumping anymore I don't have the knowledge or authority to do something about it. I don't even live in your country. You, however DO jump. You have the knowledge and authority.
I handed off safety in this sport to you guys when I gave up.
And what the fuck have you guys done with the responsibility that I and all of the other old farts passed down to you?
I'll tell you what you've done. Sweet Fuck All!
You either: 1/ Deny there is a problem. 2/ Say it doesn't apply to me. 3/ Say you can't do anything about it.
Well there is a problem, it does apply to you and you fucking well CAN do something about it. There has been thread after thread on this subject and I'm sure there will be many more. It will continue until YOU guys man up and sort out the problem. Only YOU can do it!
Now go and talk to that guy with the " Mad Skillz" and tell him that he actually isn't that skilled. (Refer him to the incident thread if he doubts you) Point out what the body of someone that bounces looks like and that you REALLY REALLY DON'T want to see that again!
If that doesn't work talk to the DZ Safety people. (Point out the amount of paperwork that they, and the DZO, will have to do when the inevitable happens.)
As a last resort, refuse to jump with the fuckwit. See how long he likes paying for a turbine to altitude all by himself.
The solution is in YOUR hands. So do something about it unless you consider the Incident Thread as Bounce Porn.
billvon (D 16479)
Moderator
Dec 5, 2011, 7:30 PM
Post #174 of 456
(631 views)
Shortcut
>The more relevant question billvon is: what are YOU doing?
About 16 years ago I got my instructor rating and started teaching. During that time I was doing a lot of water trainings and I used that to teach a half hour "graduate course" - a course that covered all the stuff you don't learn from osmosis. How to safely land a HP canopy (which at the time meant a Sabre 1.) How to exit from different aircraft. What to watch out for on an 8-way.
Then about 14 years ago I started pressing for a more formal USPA graduate program, one that bridged the gap between AFF and the A license. Got a few petitions signed and wrote an article for PARACHUTIST, called "the training gap," that outlined a potential program. A few years later the ISP was introduced as a bridge between AFF and the A license.
Around the same time I was chief instructor at Brown Field and got a HP student canopy (a Triathalon, which believe it or not was considered high performance at the time) into a student rig. We used as a HP transition canopy. I taught people what I knew about HP canopy flight, which at the time wasn't much.
When fatalities under open canopies started climbing me and three other moderators from here collaborated on outlining a change to the licensing structure that would require more coaching, as well as the creation of a "canopy coach" rating from USPA. Posted it here and again sent it into PARACHUTIST, who published it. USPA ended up implementing what we think of as the standard coach rating, which wasn't really what we were after. So that one didn't work out that well.
After Danny Page killed Bob Holler I started another petition drive. This time we (six of us, including Molly, his girlfriend) also went to a USPA meeting and lobbied for a change to the BSR. We compromised with them and added a requirement to the group pledge that mandates separate HP and standard landing areas.
Today I teach AFF and give people as much as I think they can hold both during the FJC and during their later levels (where they are more able to absorb canopy information.) I moderate the incidents forum to try to get as much good information on canopy incidents out there as possible, and I do what I can here to keep people off canopies that will likely kill them. As a result I get abuse from people like VirginBurner, who thinks I'm a clueless dick for sticking my nose where it doesn't belong, and abuse from people like you, who don't think I'm doing enough.
>The more relevant question billvon is: what are YOU doing?
About 16 years ago I got my instructor rating and started teaching. During that time I was doing a lot of water trainings and I used that to teach a half hour "graduate course" - a course that covered all the stuff you don't learn from osmosis. How to safely land a HP canopy (which at the time meant a Sabre 1.) How to exit from different aircraft. What to watch out for on an 8-way.
Then about 14 years ago I started pressing for a more formal USPA graduate program, one that bridged the gap between AFF and the A license. Got a few petitions signed and wrote an article for PARACHUTIST, called "the training gap," that outlined a potential program. A few years later the ISP was introduced as a bridge between AFF and the A license.
Around the same time I was chief instructor at Brown Field and got a HP student canopy (a Triathalon, which believe it or not was considered high performance at the time) into a student rig. We used as a HP transition canopy. I taught people what I knew about HP canopy flight, which at the time wasn't much.
When fatalities under open canopies started climbing me and three other moderators from here collaborated on outlining a change to the licensing structure that would require more coaching, as well as the creation of a "canopy coach" rating from USPA. Posted it here and again sent it into PARACHUTIST, who published it. USPA ended up implementing what we think of as the standard coach rating, which wasn't really what we were after. So that one didn't work out that well.
After Danny Page killed Bob Holler I started another petition drive. This time we (six of us, including Molly, his girlfriend) also went to a USPA meeting and lobbied for a change to the BSR. We compromised with them and added a requirement to the group pledge that mandates separate HP and standard landing areas.
Today I teach AFF and give people as much as I think they can hold both during the FJC and during their later levels (where they are more able to absorb canopy information.) I moderate the incidents forum to try to get as much good information on canopy incidents out there as possible, and I do what I can here to keep people off canopies that will likely kill them. As a result I get abuse from people like VirginBurner, who thinks I'm a clueless dick for sticking my nose where it doesn't belong, and abuse from people like you, who don't think I'm doing enough.
uhm, what abuse are you getting from me exactly, bill!?
just because you guys dont seem to get your shit together doesnt mean the rest of the world does too.
the stupidity in this forum alone is staggering, you'd be better off raising your license-requirements. i've seen people denied their AFF1 because they were too fucking stupid. if those standards were to be applied in YOUR country, you could close half your dropzones down..
and as for abuse, you SOOO love to mention me on every 2nd thread you seem to reply to, how is that for abuse? you're kindly invited to come here for a jump or two, so you can PEROSNALLY observe me, THEN you can voice your opinion and stalk me all you want, until then - STOP ABUSING ME.
So...you believe that article, eh? The guys shoots himself in the foot repeatedly throughout the article when he talks about PLF.
Here's just one example: "At touch down the jumper should try to absorb as much as possible of the downward impact with their feet but lean back in the harness. .....The jumper wants to stay on their feet as long as possible, tending to sitting down."
Great. Resist the impact. Take all that energy into your legs. Good luck with that. Great. Try to sit down. Expose your tailbone to injury. Good luck with that.
I hope youngsters don't see that article. They might believe it, too.
The only loss of control I see is -YOUR- loss of reality. Skydiving changed old man, for better or worse it changed and left your giant slow parachutes behind. This happens in every action sport out there. Someone finds a way to make it safer, faster, stronger, longer, and more fun.
Since you choose to be condescending, I wouldn't be surprised to see him respond with "young punk" or something like that. I'll elect to not go there.
First - Two words: Booth's Law It was created just for your mindset.
Second - You equate speed to fun. Have at it. Many others think differently.
In reply to:
It seems the people that can make it better are trying. It's getting better every day. New requirements at dropzones and more BS in the BSR.
Define "better"
BS in the BSR's? There's the indicator of your mindset. Thanks for the info.
In reply to:
The first person to notice the change is the one too far removed from it to have any part in making the change BETTER.
And the first one to get themselves crunched is the one who fails to understand the change and adapt to it...read: train for it.
I'm far too new to have an opinion, but what do you up-number jumpers think. What does everyone think of the new requirement? Close to the mark, way off?
You answered your own question with: "The new requirement has the look and feel of a tentative trial of a requirement that could easily be expanded..."
It's a start. I sincerely hope that S&TA's across the board support the effort and make the additional effort to improve this first attempt. Kinda like beta testers, eh?
Marisan, you seem to have a vendetta against anything that can flare.
Nope. If you must call it "vendetta", then he, like me has a vendetta against people needlessly hurting themselves. He is simply making a call for action to those of us still in the sport.
We have developed a first-draft plan of action and it goes into affect Jan 1, 2012.
He is making a call for more than that...and that's a good thing.
"anything that can flare"?????? Surely you are not saying only HP canopies can flare.
In reply to:
But dramatic complaining online is not helping anything.
It got this good discussion started, didn't it? THAT'S a good thing, too. As long as we "discuss", as opposed to falling into the "flaming trap", we're good to go.
From skyjumpenfool: "Marisan has nothing (personally) to gain by his actions/postings here. I applaud his effort!! " Count me in on that...whole-heartedly.
(This post was edited by popsjumper on Dec 6, 2011, 5:27 AM)
>The more relevant question billvon is: what are YOU doing?
About 16 years ago I got my instructor rating and started teaching. During that time I was doing a lot of water trainings and I used that to teach a half hour "graduate course" - a course that covered all the stuff you don't learn from osmosis. How to safely land a HP canopy (which at the time meant a Sabre 1.) How to exit from different aircraft. What to watch out for on an 8-way.
Then about 14 years ago I started pressing for a more formal USPA graduate program, one that bridged the gap between AFF and the A license. Got a few petitions signed and wrote an article for PARACHUTIST, called "the training gap," that outlined a potential program. A few years later the ISP was introduced as a bridge between AFF and the A license.
Around the same time I was chief instructor at Brown Field and got a HP student canopy (a Triathalon, which believe it or not was considered high performance at the time) into a student rig. We used as a HP transition canopy. I taught people what I knew about HP canopy flight, which at the time wasn't much.
When fatalities under open canopies started climbing me and three other moderators from here collaborated on outlining a change to the licensing structure that would require more coaching, as well as the creation of a "canopy coach" rating from USPA. Posted it here and again sent it into PARACHUTIST, who published it. USPA ended up implementing what we think of as the standard coach rating, which wasn't really what we were after. So that one didn't work out that well.
After Danny Page killed Bob Holler I started another petition drive. This time we (six of us, including Molly, his girlfriend) also went to a USPA meeting and lobbied for a change to the BSR. We compromised with them and added a requirement to the group pledge that mandates separate HP and standard landing areas.
Today I teach AFF and give people as much as I think they can hold both during the FJC and during their later levels (where they are more able to absorb canopy information.) I moderate the incidents forum to try to get as much good information on canopy incidents out there as possible, and I do what I can here to keep people off canopies that will likely kill them. As a result I get abuse from people like VirginBurner, who thinks I'm a clueless dick for sticking my nose where it doesn't belong, and abuse from people like you, who don't think I'm doing enough.
So again - what did _you_ do?
Thank you for all you have done and tried to do, Bill.
This is list of actions taken would shame most people in the sport - including myself.
>what abuse are you getting from me exactly, bill!? . . .
"THEN you can voice your opinion and stalk me all you want,"
if you do quote me, please quote the whole fucking thing that's relevant. or do you suffer from selective reading like most of the posters here too? i was under the impression you were able to absorb and process more information that is contained in two lines.
so yea, you're kindly invited to make your own picture. cheers!
Dec 6, 2011, 9:00 AM
Post #187 of 456
(779 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
He is making a call for more than that...
Yeah, originally it was banning HP canopies, that by his definition is anything that can flare. Have you read all the threads he has started and attempted to hijack with this opinion?
In reply to:
"anything that can flare"?????? Surely you are not saying only HP canopies can flare.
Again, did you read any of his other posts? I won't quote it here because it is pretty long. In short he defines anything that has any ability to "fly" and cause problems for anyone is an HP canopy. He has since agreed that this is not possible and has moved on to pushing harder regulations and training self imposed by the skydivers instead of just throwing all these parachutes in a fire. I have PMd Marisan a few times in an effort to understand his POV better. I have come to believe our (his and most skydivers) motivations and intention are the same, but maybe his communication tactics and ideas are a little drastic.
Dec 6, 2011, 9:28 AM
Post #188 of 456
(776 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Pablo.Moreno] HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
Another point that I have been thinking for a while, How many deaths per skydive statistic is from the old times and now days.
Although I understand your question, I think that anyone trying to argue there's not a problem because "statistically" we're not losing enough friends, is not seeing the big picture.
billvon (D 16479)
Moderator
Dec 6, 2011, 9:46 AM
Post #189 of 456
(766 views)
Shortcut
Re: [virgin-burner] HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
>or do you suffer from selective reading like most of the posters here too?
Dude, I don't care if you hate me, or think I'm clueless, or whatever. I do hope you survive your early career in skydiving, and that it doesn't take an incident like Sangi's to teach you what he has learned.
Any Canopy that, when it opens in line twists, spins up to a speed that makes cutaways problematic is by definition lethal.
No, it is more prone to malfunction. Lethal is if you fail to react properly to the problem. A Pitts Special is an aerobatic plane, it is not for a beginner and requires more MX. Same with a HP canopy.
Quote:
Any canopy, that has to be regularly opened at 4500' to give time to deal with high speed malfunctions is by definition lethal.
Nonsense, there is no magical number for an opening altitude.
Quote:
Any canopy that can kill by a mere 90 degree wind change is by definition lethal.
More nonsense. I can fly my HP canopy into, DW and cross wind just fine.
Quote:
Any canopy that turns and dives so fast as to make any attempt to clear airspace impossible is by definition lethal.
It is not impossible. YOU just can't do it. Same thing as the Pitts... Not everyone should fly one, but that does not mean NO ONE should fly one.
Quote:
Any canopy that can be totally collapsed by turbulence is by definition lethal.
Hey, you may actually have one here.
Quote:
Any canopy that can be docked on by a wingsuit is by definition lethal.
This one is total crap. The proof is that those that have docked with a WS are not dead.
Quote:
Any canopy that can exceed the parameters of an AAD is by definition lethal.
Well, I knew a bunch of students that set off Sentinels with RAVENS... So, I guess RAVENS are "lethal"??? A more logical thought is that the AAD's had an issue in that they were being used in a manor not considered during the design... Again, an AAD issue, not a canopy issue.
Quote:
Any canopy that can cause a cutaway from a brake fire is by definition lethal.
More crap. I have seen Ravens cutaway due to a brake fire. And it is not lethal unless the pilot performs incorrectly.
Quote:
Any canopy that with the slightest lapse of currency or attention can cause injury is by definition lethal.
No, just like the Pitts they should not be flown by just anyone. But that does not make them "lethal"
Quote:
Any canopy that (even on a test jump) that can cause GLOC (Google it) is by definition lethal.
Maybe.
Quote:
Flame as much as you like because it's only luck keeping you out of the incident forum!
Dec 6, 2011, 10:23 AM
Post #192 of 456
(753 views)
Shortcut
Re: [virgin-burner] HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Quote:
raising pull-altitudes probably would BY FAR have a greater effect on fatalities than any restrictions on canopies would have, since it appears there's a relatively large amount of entanglements
Raising pull altitudes will not change the entanglement issues.
Quote:
or reserves not being deployed in time to inflate..
And most of those are people that lost track of altitude.... So it *might* help, but what WOULD help is making them more altitude aware
>or do you suffer from selective reading like most of the posters here too?
Dude, I don't care if you hate me, or think I'm clueless, or whatever. I do hope you survive your early career in skydiving, and that it doesn't take an incident like Sangi's to teach you what he has learned.
dude, i dont hate you; i hate your constant bickering on me. and since i brought it up, it seems you also dont like it much.
and thanks; i believe i'll be just fine!
billvon (D 16479)
Moderator
Dec 6, 2011, 11:22 AM
Post #196 of 456
(730 views)
Shortcut
Re: [virgin-burner] HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
raising pull-altitudes probably would BY FAR have a greater effect on fatalities than any restrictions on canopies would have, since it appears there's a relatively large amount of entanglements
Raising pull altitudes will not change the entanglement issues.
Quote:
or reserves not being deployed in time to inflate..
And most of those are people that lost track of altitude.... So it *might* help, but what WOULD help is making them more altitude aware
why not? i've only had one reserve ride as of yet, and believe me, it was NO fun helicoptering around at a gazillion miles an hour. being able to get free of your main and at least TRYING to get back into a stable position. it didnt work for me, but i also knew i've had plenty of altitude before i would hit dirt.
also, if you havent specifically lost altitude awareness (there's not much that can help you there except if your rig is equipped with a cypres), if you DO have a problem with your reserve it's not at an altitude where whatever you try, it's certain death. at least you can TRY to save your sorry butt.
a couple of extra seconds of freefall is NOT worth it. 2500ft is STUPID low, IMHO.
sangi's alo the one that cranked the big turns that made you cringe on every video you saw of him. and that is what got him in the end.
to keep it in your style, even a big idiot on a small wing like me could see where this was going. his video made the rounds even in my country, and when i remarked i knew the guy and made him go back from the katana, i got a pat on the back and the line "well done!!". perfect opportunity for every concerned fellow to say "uhm, so why you keep jumping what you are?". and i got none of that from my friends. now you can go and twist and turn that statement to bend it to your liking. it wont change the fact that that hasnt happened. sorry mate, but i'd rather trust their and my judgement than ANY posters on here.
billvon (D 16479)
Moderator
Dec 6, 2011, 12:43 PM
Post #199 of 456
(714 views)
Shortcut
Re: [virgin-burner] HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
>sorry mate, but i'd rather trust their and my judgement than ANY posters on here.
Yep. And again, Sangi used almost exactly those words. How'd that work out for him?
Dec 6, 2011, 12:44 PM
Post #200 of 456
(714 views)
Shortcut
Re: [virgin-burner] HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Quote:
why not? i've only had one reserve ride as of yet, and believe me, it was NO fun helicoptering around at a gazillion miles an hour. being able to get free of your main and at least TRYING to get back into a stable position
There were two parts.
1. Raising pull altitudes will do nothing for entanglements since it was not a deployment problem, it was a pattern problem.
2. It will not save people from bouncing since... As you claimed "but i also knew i've had plenty of altitude before i would hit dirt"
You don't think each and every person who pounded in under nothing or a deploying reserve had that EXACT same thought? If they HAD known where they were, they would have deployed a reserve faster.
The insidious thing about losing altitude awareness means you THINK you have enough time. And that can happen no mater how much time you ACTUALLY have.
Quote:
2500ft is STUPID low, IMHO.
That is an opinion.... I have more exits below that than you have jumps.
Are you trying to say that you know more than someone with 10X your experience?
The point is that you have provided nothing to back up your claim that: A. Higher will prevent people who have lost track of altitude from bouncing.
1.) i meant "entanglement" of main/reserve, main/jumper or reserve/jumper, not entanglement in terms of canopy-collision. check the fatality-list on here, the number is surprisingly high!
2.) well, in that case it was for a hit and rock and i was assigned to pull at 6k, so that's like almost 3x of your "normal" pull-altitude.
as for A and B, as i said, if you dont loose altitude awareness pulling higher means more time to work stuff. especially with modern canopies as they seem to snivel forever. your BSR's were probably written in a time where you all jumped rounds that open within 100ft or so. a modern canopy takes ten times as long.
Any canopy that can be docked on by a wingsuit is by definition lethal.
In reply to:
This one is total crap. The proof is that those that have docked with a WS are not dead.
In fairness, he said "can be docked" not "have docked"?
Quote:
Any canopy that can exceed the parameters of an AAD is by definition lethal.
In reply to:
A more logical thought is that the AAD's had an issue in that they were being used in a manor not considered during the design... Again, an AAD issue, not a canopy issue.
Even more logical is those instances where the pilot out-flew the AAD's parameters on landing.
Quote:
Any canopy that can cause a cutaway from a brake fire is by definition lethal.
In reply to:
More crap. I have seen Ravens cutaway due to a brake fire. And it is not lethal unless the pilot performs incorrectly.
You shot yourself in the foot. You know as well as I do that he is talking about HP canopies spinning you on your back from a premature brake release.
Dec 6, 2011, 1:18 PM
Post #207 of 456
(899 views)
Shortcut
Re: [virgin-burner] HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
1.) i meant "entanglement" of .... main/jumper or reserve/jumper, not entanglement in terms of canopy-collision. check the fatality-list on here, the number is surprisingly high!
Oh...you meant Horseshoe. You guys call that situation an entanglement? What to you CReW guys call an entanglement then? What do you call the collision instance? Just curious.
In reply to:
... if you dont loose altitude awareness pulling higher means more time to work stuff.
Your dependence on "time" just may bite you in the ass on of these days....it's happened to waaaaaay too many people
In reply to:
especially with modern canopies as they seem to snivel forever. your BSR's were probably written in a time where you all jumped rounds that open within 100ft or so. a modern canopy takes ten times as long.
Dec 6, 2011, 1:20 PM
Post #208 of 456
(897 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Quote:
In fairness, he said "can be docked" not "have docked"?
Well if it HAS, then it CAN BE.
Quote:
Even more logical is those instances where the pilot out-flew the AAD's parameters on landing.
Maybe, but the same landing techniques were used under 120 Sabres without issue. The point being that even if I grant you your point, it is STILL not the canopies fault.
Quote:
You shot yourself in the foot. You know as well as I do that he is talking about HP canopies spinning you on your back from a premature brake release.
No I didn't. He said that "Any canopy that can cause a cutaway from a brake fire is by definition lethal." And I have seen a Raven "cause a cutaway".
I have had brake fires on 107 Stiletto's, 96 Velo's, and 88 FX's.... None required a cutaway, most brake fires don't.
He was trying to blame canopies for the faults of the PILOTS.... It is clear he had an agenda and frankly I found most of it to be crap without any basis in reality.
Dec 6, 2011, 1:27 PM
Post #209 of 456
(896 views)
Shortcut
Re: [virgin-burner] HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Quote:
1.) i meant "entanglement" of main/reserve, main/jumper or reserve/jumper, not entanglement in terms of canopy-collision.
That is due to not cutting away, not running out of altitude.
Quote:
2.) well, in that case it was for a hit and rock and i was assigned to pull at 6k, so that's like almost 3x of your "normal" pull-altitude.
And again..... Loss of altitude awareness does not really matter what altitude you are AT... It only matters that you THINK you have enough time.
Quote:
as for A and B, as i said, if you dont loose altitude awareness pulling higher means more time to work stuff.
And if you don't lose altitude awareness it really does not matter. I have chopped from 750-800 feet before, AAD's fire the reserve at 750 feet.
Quote:
especially with modern canopies as they seem to snivel forever.....a modern canopy takes ten times as long.
Again, I have more jumps on 'Modern canopies' than you have jumps. Fact is I most likely have more jumps on old canopies than you have jumps.... you still have not proven your points.
Quote:
no, i said you it doesnt seem to be a problem as it is for you internet-skydivers.. which is fine with me!
yea-yea, if you like sangi so much, why dont you guys get a room together!?
you can repeat it all you want, it doesnt make it more true. people at his dz voiced their concerns as well.
and pounding on your experience vs. mine only seems to imply that you have nothing else to support YOUR authorative (is that even a word!?) claims than just that.
look, i'm tired of this stupid arguments, i'll happily do the way i was taught. you can jump rsl's, skyhooks all day since you probably will need it, i'm happy with audibles and a what i reckon to be safer pull-altitude.
Dec 6, 2011, 1:53 PM
Post #213 of 456
(881 views)
Shortcut
Re: [virgin-burner] HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Quote:
yea-yea, if you like sangi so much, why dont you guys get a room together!?
Can't say I know the guy.... I only know that he and you sure act the same based on your posts. And if you can't take a man at his word... Well...?
Quote:
and pounding on your experience vs. mine only seems to imply that you have nothing else to support YOUR authorative (is that even a word!?) claims than just that.
Well, it goes to show that I have 10+ times the experience that you claim to have.
And I have brought valid arguments that you have not answered.
Quote:
look, i'm tired of this stupid arguments
Then maybe you should avoid them?
Quote:
you can jump rsl's, skyhooks all day since you probably will need it,
1. A lame attempt at a personal attack. 2. you clearly have no idea of my position on RSL's 3. I have PROVEN I don't need RSL's by having 7 times the number of malfunctions without one than you have.
Quote:
i'm happy with audibles and a what i reckon to be safer pull-altitude
And it is OK to have an opinion. But you seem to think your opinion is more valid than a guy with 10 times your experience. And that somehow your opinion is right and everyone else is wrong.
I'll put any of your canopy skills up against mine ANY day.
And I'll put my experience up against yours any day. The wise would bet on me.
(This post was edited by Ron on Dec 6, 2011, 1:54 PM)
my opinion on this matter is by having spent almost a day digging through the fatality-list on here. and seeing that your chances are highest when you're either a student or have 1000+ jumps. and a high rate of fatalities in the last class seems to be by gear-problems of sorts.
in a case where a reserve doesnt have enough time to inflate properly and the result is a high-speed impact with the planet underneath you, the assumption that such a fatality could most likely have been prevented - by simply pulling higher and having more time to get a working parachute above your head - is a valid one. you havent proved or disproved that point. and it doesnt take a gazillion jumps to make that assumption. even a guy with zero jumps can come up with that conclusion. your experience doesnt always help, but ignorance is clearly of no help at all.
And http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=869327#869327
So I track all the accidents (not just fatalities) and have for 18 years.... I just don't care to report them anymore.
Quote:
in a case where a reserve doesnt have enough time to inflate properly and the result is a high-speed impact with the planet underneath you, the assumption that such a fatality could most likely have been prevented - by simply pulling higher and having more time to get a working parachute above your head - is a valid one
Not when you are low due to losing track of altitude..... Like I have said, I have CUTAWAY at 750-800 feet.
Quote:
your experience doesnt always help
It is a much better bet than a guy with 10 times LESS experience.
In fairness, he said "can be docked" not "have docked"?
Well if it HAS, then it CAN BE.
Quote:
Even more logical is those instances where the pilot out-flew the AAD's parameters on landing.
Maybe, but the same landing techniques were used under 120 Sabres without issue. The point being that even if I grant you your point, it is STILL not the canopies fault.
Quote:
You shot yourself in the foot. You know as well as I do that he is talking about HP canopies spinning you on your back from a premature brake release.
No I didn't. He said that "Any canopy that can cause a cutaway from a brake fire is by definition lethal." And I have seen a Raven "cause a cutaway".
I have had brake fires on 107 Stiletto's, 96 Velo's, and 88 FX's.... None required a cutaway, most brake fires don't.
He was trying to blame canopies for the faults of the PILOTS.... It is clear he had an agenda and frankly I found most of it to be crap without any basis in reality.
OK. I agree on all counts. I read between the lines on the part about the spinning cutaways .
The only way is that you were actually checking your altimeter.
Wrong, you can also look at the ground.
OK...you got me in the big scheme of things. However, the response was to him, not you. He's yet to give us any indication of it so I don't think he has trained his eyes as yet. Hence, the point to the altimeter.
(This post was edited by popsjumper on Dec 6, 2011, 3:44 PM)
Dec 6, 2011, 3:53 PM
Post #220 of 456
(843 views)
Shortcut
Re: [virgin-burner] HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
if you cutaway your main and say it get's hung up on your helmet; that's not exactly a horseshoe, is it!?
In reply to:
Yes it is. Our worst nightmare.
In reply to:
i've never jumped a round and dont feel any need to do so..
Can't blame you for that. It would be good to get some idea of what the old folks are talking about, though. I do NOT recommend T-10s.
In reply to:
and nope, i didnt check my altimeter; i was very busy with other stuff at the time. but as i pointed out in a later post, KNOWING i pulled at 6k..
And that is the reason I asked. Jumpers often think they have more "time" than they actually do have? It has cause more than one crash. Time distortion is a killer. Time is relative, altitude is absolute.
I strongly suggest that you use the altimeter at crunch time.
Dec 6, 2011, 4:20 PM
Post #221 of 456
(829 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Quote:
OK...you got me in the big scheme of things. However, the response was to him, not you. He's yet to give us any indication of it so I don't think he has trained his eyes as yet. Hence, the point to the altimeter.
And you are 100% correct that the Alti is a much better answer.
He was trying to blame canopies for the faults of the PILOTS.... It is clear he had an agenda and frankly I found most of it to be crap without any basis in reality. So, Ron, what is your solution to the problem of jumpers that can't keep up with their canopy killing or injuring themselves? That's my reality.
I can only see two ways: Remove the inexperienced pilots (By Training them) or remove their access to HP Canopies until they have that training.
If there is a third way I'd be very happy to hear it.
Either way is going to take an element of compulsion.
Having canopy courses available doesn't work unless people HAVE to take them. (Witness Virgin Burner et al)
I applaud Bill Von for the difference he's making in his corner of the world but we need a world full of Bill Vons that have the authority to make their words mandatory.
And, for the record I don't have any agenda other than reducing the carnage.
(This post was edited by Marisan on Dec 6, 2011, 8:41 PM)
For all those people that have sent me their ideas by PM. There are some really good ones. Can I ask you to post them on this thread so we can get some discussion going.
I won't post them without your permission.
Don't worry, the flaming doesn't hurt " that " much.
For all those people that have sent me their ideas by PM. There are some really good ones. Can I ask you to post them on this thread so we can get some discussion going.
A simple canopy progression license, required independent of skydiving licenses, but cannot progress to a higher loading until these are demonstrated. They can have the A/B/C/D scale as long as that does not get too confusing. (Canopy Pilot A,B,C, or D[unlimited])
A- up to 1/1 loading: demonstrate full stalls on risers and brakes, full control input porpoising, coordinated wingovers, spirals to recover to a heading, patterns to a spot landing. 100' square must be able to show good judgement in landing patterns and traffic. flight and patterns and landings on rears, etc.
B- up to 1.5/1 loading: All the above (not rear landings) redone at 1.5/1 plus intro to accelerated landings,
C-up to 2/1 loading: All the above at 2/1 loading plus advanced canopy course AND swooping course if wanted. (can't swoop without)
D-2.5/1 to unlimited All above at 2.5/1 loading plus advanced swooping course.
uhm, are you sayin i should have to take a canopy class? i've done two so far, both out of my own free will.. just sayin'. planning to go for my 3rd next season. considering this will be my 5th year in the sport, i think that's a pretty good rate.
If you have any questions about my thoughts after reading all or even just a few of those... Feel free to ask for clarification.
My issue is your post was full of blame for the CANOPY and not the pilot. With the exception of the G-Lock example EVERY one of your other examples was the failure of the PILOT, not the equipment.
If you have any questions about my thoughts after reading all or even just a few of those... Feel free to ask for clarification.
My issue is your post was full of blame for the CANOPY and not the pilot. With the exception of the G-Lock example EVERY one of your other examples was the failure of the PILOT, not the equipment.
Failure of the pilot, or the system that is allowing these pilots to fly these canopies??
Dec 7, 2011, 2:03 PM
Post #229 of 456
(1085 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skyjumpenfool] HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Quote:
Failure of the pilot, or the system that is allowing these pilots to fly these canopies??
Both.
1. It is a failure of the pilot when they get a canopy that requires more skill and experience than he/she can handle reliably, constantly.
We have to remember that when we fly a HP wing that we must be "on" 100% of the time. It only takes one small error in judgement for us to get in over our heads. We must select a canopy that we can safely land 100% of the time and learn to fly that canopy to its maximum before we get another one.
2. It is ALL of our faults for letting this person jump that canopy.
We have tried to lecture, teach, coerce, beg, arm twist and even yell at these people..... They don't listen.
So it has LONG been past the time that we as an organization should have had a WL BSR that prevents those that only think they have the "mad skills" to handle the wing from getting in over their heads while at the same time having provisions for people that are actually that advanced to be able to advance at a rate that they can safely handle.
I see the failure of the USPA to do anything about this as one of the largest failures of that organization.
I am not saying I have *THE* answer.... .But it is clear that doing nothing is not actually helping and if done correctly the right solution will not hurt anything.
The canopy portion of the ISP was well intended, but poorly executed. The "B" license checkoff is a decent start.
How about:
1. Put five hop n pops in the program BEFORE the "A"? Instead we focused on freefall skills that are not life saving (Sit flying/center point turns).
2. Mandatory canopy classes for the "B".
3. A WL BSR with a stepped progression that can be tested out of with DEMONSTRATED competence.
So Ron, What do you think of Calvin 19's ideas below? And of course anyone else that's interested.
In Reply To For all those people that have sent me their ideas by PM. There are some really good ones. Can I ask you to post them on this thread so we can get some discussion going. A simple canopy progression license, required independent of skydiving licenses, but cannot progress to a higher loading until these are demonstrated. They can have the A/B/C/D scale as long as that does not get too confusing. (Canopy Pilot A,B,C, or D[unlimited])
A- up to 1/1 loading: demonstrate full stalls on risers and brakes, full control input porpoising, coordinated wingovers, spirals to recover to a heading, patterns to a spot landing. 100' square must be able to show good judgement in landing patterns and traffic. flight and patterns and landings on rears, etc.
B- up to 1.5/1 loading: All the above (not rear landings) redone at 1.5/1 plus intro to accelerated landings,
C-up to 2/1 loading: All the above at 2/1 loading plus advanced canopy course AND swooping course if wanted. (can't swoop without)
D-2.5/1 to unlimited All above at 2.5/1 loading plus advanced swooping course.
Failure of the pilot, or the system that is allowing these pilots to fly these canopies??
Both.
1. It is a failure of the pilot when they get a canopy that requires more skill and experience than he/she can handle reliably, constantly.
We have to remember that when we fly a HP wing that we must be "on" 100% of the time. It only takes one small error in judgement for us to get in over our heads. We must select a canopy that we can safely land 100% of the time and learn to fly that canopy to its maximum before we get another one.
2. It is ALL of our faults for letting this person jump that canopy.
We have tried to lecture, teach, coerce, beg, arm twist and even yell at these people..... They don't listen.
So it has LONG been past the time that we as an organization should have had a WL BSR that prevents those that only think they have the "mad skills" to handle the wing from getting in over their heads while at the same time having provisions for people that are actually that advanced to be able to advance at a rate that they can safely handle.
I see the failure of the USPA to do anything about this as one of the largest failures of that organization.
I am not saying I have *THE* answer.... .But it is clear that doing nothing is not actually helping and if done correctly the right solution will not hurt anything.
The canopy portion of the ISP was well intended, but poorly executed. The "B" license checkoff is a decent start.
How about:
1. Put five hop n pops in the program BEFORE the "A"? Instead we focused on freefall skills that are not life saving (Sit flying/center point turns).
2. Mandatory canopy classes for the "B".
3. A WL BSR with a stepped progression that can be tested out of with DEMONSTRATED competence.
So Ron, what you are saying here is that anyone with an A License can buy an HP Canopy and have, effectively, no problems in finding a DZ that will let them jump it. That seemed to be the case in the last fatality here in Australia. If that's not true literally what level canopy could (Could not should) they get away with jumping? When did the experienced jumpers give away their authority (or have it taken away) to stop newbies making unfortunate choices.
More importantly, how do the experienced jumpers get that authority back?
The canopy portion of the ISP was well intended, but poorly executed. The "B" license checkoff is a decent start.
In reply to:
First, I haven't done any Instructing of new students in over ten years so I really don't know what all is incorporated into the syllabus these days...
That being said, it seems to me 'one' way to approach curbing the trend would be to somewhat indoctrinate the newcomers with a thorough understanding of the pitfalls & consequences regarding downsizing too early/fast.
Again...I'm not up on what is currently taught, but wouldn't at least setting the stage early and in greater detail be a beneficial beginning?
That being said, it seems to me 'one' way to approach curbing the trend would be to somewhat indoctrinate the newcomers with a thorough understanding of the pitfalls & consequences regarding downsizing too early/fast.
Again...I'm not up on what is currently taught, but wouldn't at least setting the stage early and in greater detail be a beneficial beginning?
Yes. Speaking for myself, it's one of my goals; I try to instill a sense of skydiving safety, including canopy sizing, into my students.
They listen, they learn and they are good to go...until the experienced "regular" jumpers get them and start feeding them that "you need a smaller canopy" and "smaller is more fun" bullshit.
99 times out of 100 it's the swoopers and free-flyers that are doing it to them.....you know, the "cool kids".
cases in point: -dude talks his GF into doing and intentional cutaway to get video of it...on a sport rig. Packs her up with multiple line twists.
-dude takes 15-jump newbie on a 8-way hybrid with 3 "hangers" who have never done it before.
-dude talks 80-jump wonder who had been flying a 200+ sizes into buying a 150.
Dec 8, 2011, 8:53 AM
Post #234 of 456
(999 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
dude talks 80-jump wonder who had been flying a 200+ sizes into buying a 150.
Like this? Jump wonder: I wanna buy a rig. Dude: What you have in mind? Jump wonder: Something smaller, with more flare. Not that boat of 190 that I`m jumping now. Dude: You could get 170? Jump wonder: But what if I want to downsize later? Dude: Oh, I think you`ll be ok on 150 then. Jump wonder: Really? Dude: Yeah. Sure. Just land it straight in. Canopy Nazi: Hey, Jump Wonder can`t land for sh*t. How many times in a row, intentionaly you landed anywhere near gravel pit? Dude: What are you talking about? Our landing area is huge. Jump Wonder will be ok. No need for accuracy. Canopy Nazi: What about landing out? Dude: Nah it`ll be all right. Canopy Nazi: Last time Jump Wonders were spotting the load by themselves they almost did not make it to the LZ... Dude: Jump Wonder is just going to be real cerful. Right, Jump Wonder? Jump wonder: Right. Dude: Anyway, why do you worry so much Canopy Nazi? It`ll be ok. Jump Wonder: So I guess it`s 150 then.
dude talks 80-jump wonder who had been flying a 200+ sizes into buying a 150.
Like this? Jump wonder: I wanna buy a rig. Dude: What you have in mind? Jump wonder: Something smaller, with more flare. Not that boat of 190 that I`m jumping now. Dude: You could get 170? Jump wonder: But what if I want to downsize later? Dude: Oh, I think you`ll be ok on 150 then. Jump wonder: Really? Dude: Yeah. Sure. Just land it straight in. Canopy Nazi: Hey, Jump Wonder can`t land for sh*t. How many times in a row, intentionaly you landed anywhere near gravel pit? Dude: What are you talking about? Our landing area is huge. Jump Wonder will be ok. No need for accuracy. Canopy Nazi: What about landing out? Dude: Nah it`ll be all right. Canopy Nazi: Last time Jump Wonders were spotting the load by themselves they almost did not make it to the LZ... Dude: Jump Wonder is just going to be real cerful. Right, Jump Wonder? Jump wonder: Right. Dude: Anyway, why do you worry so much Canopy Nazi? It`ll be ok. Jump Wonder: So I guess it`s 150 then. Canopy Nazi: Damn, now I'm going to have to take another day off work to attend another funeral!
Not true, many do listen. Many do make good decisions because of people making an effort to tell them their opions, both here and at the DZ. Just because some don't do things exactly the way that you or I think they should, does not discount the many incidents that don't happen because of good advice given at the right time. I've learned a lot from others, even a few things from dzdotcom. We all have, I'll bet. So take a moment to appreciate those that do listen, and I'll take one for those that give good advice.
Many do make good decisions because of people making an effort to tell them their opions, both here and at the DZ.
And thank God for that.
In reply to:
Just because some don't do things exactly the way that you or I think they should, does not discount the many incidents that don't happen because of good advice given at the right time.
Can you document that? Do you have a cite?
Just kidding.
In reply to:
So take a moment to appreciate those that do listen
Believe me, I do. I also get discouraged when they later go on to listen to the bullshit.
(This post was edited by popsjumper on Dec 8, 2011, 5:51 PM)
Dec 8, 2011, 7:13 PM
Post #241 of 456
(920 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
In reply to:
Maybe we should start thread titled: "Why bother? Don`t waste your breath, no one is listening anyway..."
Well, I'm ashamed to admit that the thought has crossed my mind but I just can't give up. I just can't.
We need help. We need help all across the country. we need help NOW.
Some of the personal attacks I have received in this thread and via PM's have astounded me.
So the question is: Who benefits from all this?
It's the bloody manufacturers. Without the downsizing mania they'd be out of business. Look at it. Downsize from 200 to 150, New container as well, my bigger reserve makes the container look different so I may as well downsize my reserve as well. (The reserve that is my LAST chance) And all for what? I can jump the latest trophy canopy and every thing else matches so I can look fashionable.
What else are they doing for fashion. Mini 3 rings that look good but increase the pull force necessary to cut away especially with the high speed spins that these HP canopies regularly come up with when they mal. Articulated harnesses that you can fall out of. What do you do about falling out? You put a stupid piece of bungy cord over your arse to keep the leg straps up. Any other industry would have redesigned the harness. You have a national body that doesn't appear to care about the carnage rate. They won't even recommend training let alone mandate it (Make it COMPULSORY). They merely say it should be available.
So you're left with people like Bill Von and many many others fighting the good fight in their corner of the world whilst being flamed by all the kids that think it can't possibly happen to them.
And all the while the manufacturers are raking the money in.
I haven't seen any manufacturer (or the USPA for that matter) weigh in on this thread (and others) to say what their suggestions are to reduce the carnage. I doubt that I will either. (Excluding Bill Booth who came up with the concept of fashion re mini 3 rings)
If that Petra Canopy in the swooping thread ever hits the market well God Help You All
Jumpers have lost control of the sport and given it to the money men.
Someone WILL take that control back.
If you guys think Randy Babbit wrote that letter to the USPA just because he flew jumpers 40 years ago you are deluded. The FAA is concerned about the carnage and let you know about that concern in no uncertain terms. If you think that concern has gone away just because Randy Babbit is no longer head of the FAA you are even more deluded.
One more gross negligence Tandem Fatality (Think students falling out of misadjusted harnesses) or one mad skills swooper taking out members of the public because his skills weren't as good as he thought they were and it's OVER.
So listen to the voices in the wilderness and CLEAN UP YOUR ACT before someone else does it for you.
billvon (D 16479)
Moderator
Dec 8, 2011, 10:05 PM
Post #242 of 456
(908 views)
Shortcut
We do. Parachutes are better than they ever have been. They are more reliable, they last longer, they do more with less fabric, they open softer, they pack smaller, they're lighter and they get you back from bad spots. Given a combination of a bad spot, funky moderately strong winds and a tight-ish landing area, I'd actually take my Crossfire2 109 over my first canopy, a Pursuit 215. It gives me higher odds of landing without injury.
But with all that performance comes a new ability to hurt yourself. It is now much easier to get yourself under a parachute that flies a lot faster than your brain can. And while the percentage of people getting killed in this sport has been going steadily down, the percentage of people who have gotten killed under parachutes is going up. As about 90% of the people on the board have mentioned at one time or another, this is indeed an issue.
However the problem is us, it's not a manufacturer or society or USPA that's causing it. We're the problem and we'll be the solution (if we want one.)
>I haven't seen any manufacturer (or the USPA for that matter) weigh in on this thread >(and others) to say what their suggestions are to reduce the carnage.
For years PD tried to restrict sales of their Stilettos to people with over X jumps (I think it was 500.) They gave up because it was too easy to get around the requirement. Square 1 tries to do the same thing and has more luck than PD did (mainly because they actually see people landing their current canopies) but people at Perris still end up with canopies they shouldn't be under. And again it's not because Square 1 isn't trying, it's because people want what they want and will do whatever it takes to get it.
When I sell canopies I try to make sure that the person buying it can handle it - and it's fucking hard. People lie. They make up jump numbers, lie about the canopy they're jumping now and give vague answers when I ask for a reference (i.e. someone we both know who has seen the guy land.) 75% of the time I end up selling it to someone local or someone I meet on my travels because I can actually talk to them and/or watch them jump - but manufacturers can't do that.
And when you are successful at keeping those canopies out of the hands of people who aren't ready for them? You're a canopy nazi.
So any system you come up with that involves trying to keep people from doing what they want is going to be inherently very hard.
>And all the while the manufacturers are raking the money in.
Most manufacturers make their money on military sales. The sport market is an afterthought, a useful testing ground for the real moneymakers.
>Jumpers have lost control of the sport and given it to the money men.
WE are the money men. The money (at least for sport gear) comes from us. We control what canopies the manufacturers make. And people don't want big Silhouettes (which is a great canopy BTW) - they want tiny Velos. We're not victims of an out-of-control manufacturing conspiracy; we are getting exactly what we ask for. We're in control, no one else.
>One more gross negligence Tandem Fatality (Think students falling out of >misadjusted harnesses) or one mad skills swooper taking out members of the >public because his skills weren't as good as he thought they were and it's OVER.
I heard that way before the first passenger fell out of a harness. Way before a wingsuiter flew into a bridge cable and splattered body parts all over John Q. Public. Way before a demo jumper put a woman in a hospital during a demo gone bad. Skydiving is still around.
For better or for worse the FAA just doesn't care about us that much. Many skydivers have this image that the FAA noses through records, determines safety standards for gear manufacturing, sets up training programs etc but it doesn't work that way. When you dig deep enough you discover that the people who wrote the FAA procedures for gear testing (for example) are people like Sandy Reid and Bill Booth. They are perfectly willing to let us kill ourselves, provided we don't take too many other people with us (and historically we don't.)
Who benefits from all this? It's the bloody manufacturers. Without the downsizing mania they'd be out of business. Jumpers have lost control of the sport and given it to the money men.
Simply not true. Where do you go to come to this conclusion?
In reply to:
Mini 3 rings that look good but increase the pull force necessary to cut away especially with the high speed spins that these HP canopies regularly come up with when they mal. Articulated harnesses that you can fall out of. What do you do about falling out? You put a stupid piece of bungy cord over your arse to keep the leg straps up. Any other industry would have redesigned the harness. You have a national body that doesn't appear to care about the carnage rate. They won't even recommend training let alone mandate it (Make it COMPULSORY). They merely say it should be available.
yeah... I don't think of any of those as being huge problems of todays gear. Anyone falling out of a harness is a matter of complacency, not harness design. Mini 3 rings work great, increased pull force and all.
In reply to:
If that Petra Canopy in the swooping thread ever hits the market well God Help You All
Here is a good example of how I think Marisan may be a little detached. If/when the Petra is released it will be treated just like any other competition swooping canopy. People flying these canopies are adults, they know and accept the risks they are taking. Flying the canopy became more fun than falling like a rag doll and then guiding a parachute to a square. For better or worse, skydiving changed from thrill seekers falling through the sky to thrill seekers falling from the sky then flying a canopy. Compromises were made, safety was considered and no less than it ever was. Fatalities per jump have decreased and will continue to decrease. The disproportional amount of landing fatalities is being addressed, there exists a USPA canopy proficiency card. This may not be enough and many of the drop zones may ignore it. I tossed out an idea, and we are open to MORE information being MORE available to students. Canopy education will increase. The balance will return. What I think Marisan has not realized is the fulcrum has shifted for the better since his time, though he may not see it that way.
In reply to:
The FAA is concerned about the carnage and let you know about that concern in no uncertain terms. Someone WILL take that control back.
I'll say again, It is highly unlikely that the Feds will impose significant further regulation on individual skydivers. The letter from the FAA was dealing mostly if not totally with the rash of canopy collisions and deaths in CA.
Dec 9, 2011, 2:34 AM
Post #244 of 456
(883 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
Speaking for myself, it's one of my goals; I try to instill a sense of skydiving safety, including canopy sizing, into my students.
They listen, they learn and they are good to go...until the experienced "regular" jumpers get them and start feeding them that "you need a smaller canopy" and "smaller is more fun" bullshit.
99 times out of 100 it's the swoopers and free-flyers that are doing it to them.....you know, the "cool kids".
cases in point: -dude talks his GF into doing and intentional cutaway to get video of it...on a sport rig. Packs her up with multiple line twists.
-dude takes 15-jump newbie on a 8-way hybrid with 3 "hangers" who have never done it before.
-dude talks 80-jump wonder who had been flying a 200+ sizes into buying a 150.
I don't know, but I'm guessing that all three of your 'cases in point' have something to do with the 'Dude' getting into the pants of the newbie...
As for the last one, that will start me off on a rant of my own. I keep hearing the argument that tiny wee girls should fly tiny wee canopies (150, 135, 120) asap, because they are "underloading the big student canopies" and "aren't in control/have no say in where they're going" and "cannot flare such boats".
I don't buy it. Even with my exit weight of 220 I have a WL of .8 under a Manta. A couple of hundreds of jumps ago, you'd hear experienced jumpers talk about Manta's as "they flare like a baglock". I don't know, but I have seen students make perfect tippety toe landings under lightly loaded Mantas...and indeed did so myself when I re-enacted my first jump for the occasion of making my 300th jump. Point is, Manta's (and other student canopies) just don't flare the way experienced jumpers are used to, but they DO flare just fine - if you know how to do it.
So why not put "tiny wee girls" under a 210 or 190 at the smallest for their first couple of hundreds of jumps? Can't penetrate into the winds then either sit it out, or learn to spot.
As to the flaring issues, I'm guessing that an 80-pound girl simply lacks the arm strength to flare *any* canopy. Perhaps she should work out?
in reply to The disproportional amount of landing fatalities is being addressed, there exists a USPA canopy proficiency card. This may not be enough and many of the drop zones may ignore it. I tossed out an idea, and we are open to MORE information being MORE available to students. Canopy education will increase. The balance will return. What I think Marisan has not realized is the fulcrum has shifted for the better since his time, though he may not see it that way. " ................................................
Yep those old guys did a lot for us. They tested a whole range of equipment that hadn't been proven like our modern gear. They found the edge . Our reserves still reflect a direct influence with canopies from 30years ago. Our reserves are like old mains.
They gave some of us a balanced risk minimisation /fun factor mindset They gave us so much it wouldn't fit in a very large collection of books. (what's a book? )
Little kids are taught to tell the difference between opinion and fact not long after they can run without banging into things all the time. We as adults still have to use these skills learnt in the playground.
If HP newbies was a group in the playground , who would want to go anywhere near them? psycho kid?. Can't you see the bodies scattered all around them? They're learning, but THEY"RE stupid.
The smart kids are playing with slower more long term toys , they skin their knee instead of losing it.
in reply to "Some of the personal attacks I have received in this thread and via PM's have astounded me. " ......................................................
Hi Marisan, thanks for caring about us. I noticed an increase in abusive behaviour after 'Point Break ' brought a heap of bozo surfers into skydiving world.
These territorial surfy misfits brought their behaviour patterns from that sport into our sport. They didn't and don't care what it was like before they arrived. In their minds they know better than anyone else and have very little respect for mature authority. These "too cool for old schools" are actually allowed to teach people. Its all about freeflying , angles and stuff , VERY little discipline, no real form to the skydives so no-one makes mistakes , a phuck up just looks like fun and they will laugh at it rather than recognise it as a dangerous warning sign.
I've watched them die like flies ..... and not just under HP canopies.
We're all getting to see their learning process as they wander around trying to work out what you Marisan and your mates , already knew and still know . eg skydiving is dangerous. Skydiving with fools makes it MORE dangerous.
Last surfie dude leading the skydiving pack I saw was a freeflyer a couple of weeks ago, his van was covered in surfy stickers with a couple of skydiving ones scatterred about. well he was a hero, when he turned up and guess what? apart from my goil, his chicky babe attachment , was the ONLY female on the DZ ..... go figure.
I've got a new conclusion HP is scaring the girls away. .....then its just everyman for himself.
>I keep hearing the argument that tiny wee girls should fly tiny wee canopies (150, 135, > 120) asap, because they are "underloading the big student canopies" and "aren't in >control/have no say in where they're going" and "cannot flare such boats".
I definitely agree that small women should not be put on "tiny wee canopies" but they also should not be put on seriously underloaded canopies. We used to keep a few smaller canopies (190, 170) for smaller women, both to have a smaller rig/harness and to give them a canopy that flew better at more reasonable loadings.
>I keep hearing the argument that tiny wee girls should fly tiny wee canopies (150, 135, > 120) asap, because they are "underloading the big student canopies" and "aren't in >control/have no say in where they're going" and "cannot flare such boats".
I definitely agree that small women should not be put on "tiny wee canopies" but they also should not be put on seriously underloaded canopies. We used to keep a few smaller canopies (190, 170) for smaller women, both to have a smaller rig/harness and to give them a canopy that flew better at more reasonable loadings.
Question for you Bill. How have STUDENT Canopies changed over the last 20 years. ie: how does a modern student canopy copare to a Comet for example?
>I keep hearing the argument that tiny wee girls should fly tiny wee canopies (150, 135, > 120) asap, because they are "underloading the big student canopies" and "aren't in >control/have no say in where they're going" and "cannot flare such boats".
I definitely agree that small women should not be put on "tiny wee canopies" but they also should not be put on seriously underloaded canopies. We used to keep a few smaller canopies (190, 170) for smaller women, both to have a smaller rig/harness and to give them a canopy that flew better at more reasonable loadings.
190 and 170(for the very light people) are fine, but such canopies are referred to as 'boats' by some people. Fortunately they are a very small minority.
>I keep hearing the argument that tiny wee girls should fly tiny wee canopies (150, 135, > 120) asap, because they are "underloading the big student canopies" and "aren't in >control/have no say in where they're going" and "cannot flare such boats".
I definitely agree that small women should not be put on "tiny wee canopies" but they also should not be put on seriously underloaded canopies. We used to keep a few smaller canopies (190, 170) for smaller women, both to have a smaller rig/harness and to give them a canopy that flew better at more reasonable loadings.
Back in "The Day" when we first bought in squares for first jump students they were a 370 square foot ex military canopy (It was light blue, someone else should be able to come up with the model number)
I can't remember anyone that couldn't flare that boat (Probably should call it an " Ocean Liner")
However, they were still treated as dangerous and a large amount of the first jump course was spent on how to safely fly them.
To all those guys that are the lonely voices in the wilderness trying to stop the young ones getting in over their head, I salute you. To all those trying to train the young ones to prevent them killing themselves I salute you. To all those guys that can swoop safely I admire your skills.
To all those people selling canopies to people that can't handle them, you stand condemned by your actions. To all those in authority that allow this carnage to continue, you stand condemned by your actions. To all those making canopies that push and push and push the limits , you stand condemned by your actions.
To all the people that have supported me in this thread, I thank you all.
I'll leave this now until the next injury or fatality caused either by an inexperienced jumper on an HP Canopy or an experienced jumper that is unknowingly in over their head.
I'll leave this now until the next injury or fatality caused either by an inexperienced jumper on an HP Canopy or an experienced jumper that is unknowingly in over their head.
Then I'll say " I told you so"
You may as well get 'er done now. You know it's coming. Probably sooner rather than later. Call me a cynic if you like.
Dec 18, 2011, 10:12 PM
Post #253 of 456
(1040 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
In reply to:
I'll leave this now until the next injury or fatality caused either by an inexperienced jumper on an HP Canopy or an experienced jumper that is unknowingly in over their head.
Then I'll say " I told you so"
You may as well get 'er done now. You know it's coming. Probably sooner rather than later. Call me a cynic if you like.
No, I call you a realist. Something that is sadly lacking in what I once called a sport.
Dec 19, 2011, 4:44 PM
Post #257 of 456
(971 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skyjumpenfool] HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
In reply to:
You may as well get 'er done now. You know it's coming. Probably sooner rather than later. Call me a cynic if you like.
"Cynic"!!!
I stand accused and convicted.
billvon (D 16479)
Moderator
Dec 19, 2011, 5:44 PM
Post #258 of 456
(957 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
>IMO, sure it does. "Safely" being the operative word.
Agreed. But the reason people can safely swoop canopies is that other people pushed the limits.
Right after I started the DZO bought a very expensive new swooping canopy - a Monarch 190. No one else was allowed to jump it. It was that dangerous.
Then some people pushed the limits (and got hurt) and kept doing that until they learned how to land the things. Nowadays newly minted A license jumpers buy Monarch 190's. Has the canopy changed? No. But people have - and people actually have more canopy skills earlier nowadays both due to necessity and improvements in education. Those improvements came at a price, though.
Dec 19, 2011, 7:36 PM
Post #259 of 456
(934 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Why do the people pushing the limits of canopy design have to be evil and unsafe but the hot-shot you see at the pond is a saint?
Someday I would like to meet this HP parachute manufacturing money tycoon you old guys are so convinced exists. I want to have a conversation with the evil distributors who push small parachutes on students like a heroin dealer giving a free sample to teenagers to get them hooked.
It's like you look at skydiving as a partially enlightened whuffo who still thinks the perfect answer to safety is out there somewhere. For as long as it will exist, people will be retarded and turn too low. It is our job as instructors to help prevent that from happening. But it still is going to happen, more than you or anyone else wants. I am a strong believer in canopy courses and canopy flight safety education. I have been teaching paragliding and mostly speed flying for years now. My glider size recommendations for beginners and even advanced students are from an industry average very large. I believe canopy safety education is the most important thing in human flight, but I don't find vestigial perspectives based on decade-old notions of perfect safety very helpful.
IMO, sure it does. "Safely" being the operative word. Sucks to give/sell someone a tool they can't operate safely.
OTOH, how in the hell is a manufacturer to know who can operate those tools safely? I dunno.
But to reply to your overstatements:
"Someday I would like to meet this HP parachute manufacturing money tycoon you old guys are so convinced exists. I want to have a conversation with the evil distributors who push small parachutes on students like a heroin dealer giving a free sample to teenagers to get them hooked. "
Read the ads. Compare how many are related to moderately-sized canopies and how many are related to the hot rods?
Do some ask about experience before the sale? Yes. Do they have the time and the resources to follow up on that? No.
If YOU sold that hot rod to the 50-jump wonder, go look in the mirror...it would be YOU that is that "money tycoon".
Since you went to such an extreme, I'll ask...how many heroin dealers advertise that they have any other than the "best".
Thanks for the reference to "you old guys". You obviously have no clue as to who all is pushing for moderation in downsizing progression.
If you'd read and attempt to digest what's being said, you may find that there's some logical reasoning behind it.
(This post was edited by popsjumper on Dec 20, 2011, 4:31 AM)
IMO, sure it does. "Safely" being the operative word.
Agreed. But the reason people can safely swoop canopies is that other people pushed the limits. You say that like those who pushed the limits did it UNsafely and safely swooping canopies only came about after the fact. In the big scheme of things, I would somewhat disagree. "Somewhat" because there were, and are, many who indeed do it without a lot of thought about safety.
I'll leave this now until the next injury or fatality ... Then I'll say " I told you so"
That is the take away from the OP. They post passionate rhetoric about an issue but take no action themselves. They are aware of the problem and know that it exists at their nearby DZ's, but do nothing to help other than condemn people on an internet forum.
The OP appears to be stuck on the first part of... "Think globally, act locally".
Dec 20, 2011, 11:04 AM
Post #264 of 456
(855 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
Waaaaay off base there, guy.
Read my post again...
I was more replying to the OP, not just your post.
In reply to:
Read the ads. Compare how many are related to moderately-sized canopies and how many are related to the hot rods?
Since you went to such an extreme, I'll ask...how many heroin dealers advertise that they have any other than the "best".
OF COURSE the manufactures use their competition-winning canopies as a flagship and claim to be the "best". What "action sports" company does not?
A Ford car commercial does not show the base model Taurus drifting around corners and setting records on the track, they show the highest-end Mustang with all options and a professional driver driving like only a handful of drivers in the world can drive. They are not selling mostly $80,000 Convertibles, they are selling their BRAND.
Dec 20, 2011, 2:45 PM
Post #267 of 456
(836 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
But to reply to your overstatements:
"Someday I would like to meet this HP parachute manufacturing money tycoon you old guys are so convinced exists. I want to have a conversation with the evil distributors who push small parachutes on students like a heroin dealer giving a free sample to teenagers to get them hooked. "
Read the ads. Compare how many are related to moderately-sized canopies and how many are related to the hot rods?
I just flicked through the last copy of Parachutist looking at the ads and PDs shows their whole range and Aerodyne's is focused on their Pilot.
Other than that there is one for the Firebolt328 and that's about it for canopy specific ads so I don't think it's fair to blame the manufacturers or the dealers.
billvon (D 16479)
Moderator
Dec 20, 2011, 3:30 PM
Post #268 of 456
(826 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
>You say that like those who pushed the limits did it UNsafely and safely swooping >canopies only came about after the fact.
Those pioneers did it both safely and unsafely. The first person to do a front riser 720 was trying something new, and was taking risks that no one else had ever taken. We learned about how to swoop both by people who did it right - and by people who did it wrong. We learned not to toggle hook mainly because so many people got hurt doing it, not because John LeBlanc proved mathematically that it was a bad idea.
>"Somewhat" because there were, and are, many who indeed do it without a lot of >thought about safety.
Agreed. And there are those who did it as safely as they could. Both those groups got us to where we are today.
Agreed. And there are those who did it as safely as they could. Both those groups got us to where we are today.
And with all the people plowing themselves in, swooping or not, skilled or not, I'd say where we are today is not really where we want to be.
The thread is about, if I'm not mistaken, about the tools of the trade, how we are using them and how certain entities are glorifying the "faster is better" mindset.
We all have been aware of the speed-related injuries for quite some time....years. Some are saying, -high-speed tools are the culprit -flying high-speed tools without proper skills is the culprit -"faster is better" mindset entices people to exceed their limits
...and then there are those trying to justify away the reality of all those issues.
Keep doing the same things, you'll be getting the same results. Pretty simple concept.
Dec 21, 2011, 6:14 AM
Post #271 of 456
(783 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
In reply to:
Quote:
Compare how many are related to moderately-sized canopies and how many are related to the hot rods?
and how many of those are flown by 50-jump-wonders? Way too many.
In reply to:
and how many with guys with thousands of jumps!?
I dunno. It would be a good research project for you.
well, i did some research on the list on here. and surprisingly, you're either killing yourself as a student, or as a veteran with 1000+ jumps. not many inbetween.
Dec 21, 2011, 7:16 AM
Post #273 of 456
(770 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DaVinciflies] HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
In reply to:
I just looked through Cosmo and didn't see ANY ads. Therefore, skydiving doesn't exist at all.
Now you make a flippant remark? Should we assume then, that your initial "instruction" was flippant, too, and was intended to be ignored?
Give him a break - he may have missed the canopy ads since he was looking for some panties. All his others are in a wad.
billvon (D 16479)
Moderator
Dec 21, 2011, 9:45 AM
Post #274 of 456
(753 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
>I'd say where we are today is not really where we want to be.
It's definitely not ideal - but we're a lot further ahead (in terms of canopy skills overall) than we were 20 years ago. Technology has advanced even faster, which is why we are seeing all these canopy deaths.
But still a conservative canopy pilot is a lot better off than he was 20 years ago. 20 years ago that guy would have been jumping a Cruislite and dealing with cruddy flares and poor get-back-abilility. Today he'd be jumping a Pilot 188 and getting better glide ratios, softer openings, better flares, and a more reliable and longer lasting canopy. Overall he'd be better off even with that faster canopy.
At the same time a foolish pilot has been given more tools to hurt himself, which happens all too frequently. And even though we can nowadays identify the people who are foolish, most are immune to being told that. (Witness the comments in this very thread.)
Thanks for you post. It shows that you have no clue as to what's being discussed. Either that or you're choosing to turn blind ears to it. I dunno which.
Dec 21, 2011, 1:41 PM
Post #278 of 456
(826 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
In reply to:
Now you make a flippant remark?
Flippant? OK Sarcastic? Yes. Not a lot of people put much credence in a sample of one.
You're certainly right that my n=1 is not statistically significant. It is however better than a sample of 0. I also looked through Blue Skies and found the same PD ad showing the entire range. And that was it for canopy ads.
My point is that I don't think the assertion that the manufacturers or dealers are pushing the very HP canopies because they're sexy is correct. My, admittedly minimal, research backs that up.
The point is that if people want to fly HP canopies without the training, they WILL get hold of them one way or another - I don't believe that step can be controlled.
I believe that we should be doing is trying to ensure that unsafe pilots do not get to FLY their canopies and, longer term, to change the culture to a point where how well a person flies is more important than what they fly.
Dec 21, 2011, 6:09 PM
Post #279 of 456
(805 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DaVinciflies] HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
The point is that if people want to fly HP canopies without the training, they WILL get hold of them one way or another - I don't believe that step can be controlled.
You're right about that, agreed. I don't think "control" is the issue here. I think that's a little to harsh. I think instilling a sense of safety in our youngsters coupled with some honest self-evaluation and common sense in the more experienced would go a long way without that nasty "control" word.
Unfortunately, honest self-evaluation and common sense is not in vogue at this time amongst the younger people.*
That goes along with your.... "...change the culture to a point where how well a "person flies is more important than what they fly." ...and that's good stuff, too if you can figure some way to quantify "well". Does that mean you fly and don't die for X number of jumps or years? You hit a target every time? You swoop successfully X number of times? I dunno.
Therein lies the answer...changing the general mindset. But nobody yet knows how to do it accomplish that. What ever happens, it's not going to be short and sweet. It's going to take time and a lot of it.
In the meantime, we, individually could help by instilling a sense of safety and self-preservation in the youngsters and hopefully some of it will stick after the bozos fill their heads with Mad Skillz glory.
Ignore the bit about manufacturers if you like. In the big scheme of things, you are right, there are more relevant issues at hand. It was used as an example on just one part, not the entire part, of the madness of the "fly the fastest, most radical and be a hero" mindset.....
The OP raised the point that not building and selling the hot rods would accomplish that. One can't deny that, right? Is it the right thing to do? Can it even work out that way? Not likely but it is a solution...just not an acceptable one...particularly to those who already fly the hot rods, those who want to fly hot rods and those who build and sell the hot rods.
As for your comments about that, a simple "I don't see that" would have sufficed as opposed to your coming across as, in paraphrase, "you're wrong because I looked at one book" approach.
From Marison: For all those people that have sent me their ideas by PM. There are some really good ones. Can I ask you to post them on this thread so we can get some discussion going.
In reply to:
From Calvin19 (Post# 225): A simple canopy progression license, required independent of skydiving licenses, but cannot progress to a higher loading until these are demonstrated. They can have the A/B/C/D scale as long as that does not get too confusing. (Canopy Pilot A,B,C, or D[unlimited])
A few have objected to having canopy progression rules and the reasoning for it, generally, has been "freedom to do what I want", or words to that affect.
Some have objected to the issue by saying, "name one sport that doesn't encourage high performance" or words to that affect.
I'll throw out for you consideration and discussion.... (snide remarks need not apply)
Yes, many sports involving high performance do exactly that. However, many of those sports do it in a controlled manner. They have rules for progressing through the ranks. We, on the other hand, have no rules for progression. The best we have at present is a dependence on the members to police that progression to high performance.
I'll use racing as an example of the differences,,'
Every sanctioning body has rules on what you can use at any given level. You want to race in Class X, you must abide by the rules for that class and those rules include.. Body type Frame type Engine size and/or horsepower ...to name a couple.
Even the big boys have limits in racing. Take note of restrictor plates at some tracks.
Some sanctioning bodies require a license to race that class and those licenses are only issued after the driver has proved himself by some level of success at lower levels of racing.
Little Rich-Kid Johnny can go out and buy himself a Winston Cup car, yes. He won't get on the track with the big boys until he goes through the licensing requirements....and that includes some experience at lower levels of racing.
We, on the other hand, are different. Little Rich-Kid Johnny can go out and buy himself a Velo 99 without even having a license yet and some DZ somewhere will let him jump it. Unbelievable but true. Granted, that is a worst-case scenario but the point is that it's possible. Unfortunately, similar scenarios happen all too often that people buy into that "Winston Cup car" of a canopy without the needed skill sets and wind up getting hurt.
So, IMO, Calvin's suggestion (Post 225) is worthy of serious consideration and the B-License canopy checklist is a step in the right direction.
Even better is a step forward by all of us in being more diligent in guiding Little Johnny to a more conservative approach to high performance. It can be done without rules. The sad part is that it won't happen without rules.
Dec 22, 2011, 8:57 AM
Post #282 of 456
(767 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
Unfortunately, honest self-evaluation and common sense is not in vogue at this time amongst the younger people.
Yep - totally agree.
In reply to:
Does that mean you fly and don't die for X number of jumps or years? You hit a target every time? You swoop successfully X number of times? I dunno.
I think that in most cases there are warning signs before someone hooks in or takes out another jumper. Take Sangi for example - there was plenty of time for people to see that something was not right without any need for "tests". What it does take is:
a. someone to actively monitor people under canopy b. someone to take action where it is warranted
To my knowledge these are the steps that have been taken at some of the most prestigious DZs in the US, such as Skydive Arizona and Perris where Bryan Burke and Dan BC are really trying to do their bit.
In reply to:
Therein lies the answer...changing the general mindset. But nobody yet knows how to do it accomplish that. What ever happens, it's not going to be short and sweet. It's going to take time and a lot of it.
In the meantime, we, individually could help by instilling a sense of safety and self-preservation in the youngsters and hopefully some of it will stick after the bozos fill their heads with Mad Skillz glory.
Again - totally agree.
In reply to:
As for your comments about that, a simple "I don't see that" would have sufficed as opposed to your coming across as, in paraphrase, "you're wrong because I looked at one book" approach.
If that's how it came across I am not surprised you took issue with it! Sorry about that.
Dec 22, 2011, 9:25 AM
Post #283 of 456
(757 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
So, IMO, Calvin's suggestion (Post 225) is worthy of serious consideration and the B-License canopy checklist is a step in the right direction.
Here was what I wrote: A simple canopy progression license, required independent of skydiving licenses, but cannot progress to a higher loading until these are demonstrated. They can have the A/B/C/D scale as long as that does not get too confusing. (Canopy Pilot A,B,C, or D[unlimited])
A- up to 1/1 loading: demonstrate full stalls on risers and brakes, full control input porpoising, coordinated wingovers, spirals to recover to a heading, patterns to a spot landing. 100' square must be able to show good judgement in landing patterns and traffic. flight and patterns and landings on rears, etc.
B- up to 1.5/1 loading: All the above (not rear landings) redone at 1.5/1 plus intro to accelerated landings,
C-up to 2/1 loading: All the above at 2/1 loading plus advanced canopy course AND swooping course if wanted. (can't swoop without)
D-2.5/1 to unlimited: All above at 2.5/1 loading plus advanced swooping course.
Know there are a lot of problems with this progression as well as implementing it.
Also, I do not agree with implementing a mandatory canopy progression. Besides, you will never be able to do it outside the USPA. Like you said, people will just go to another non-uspa dropzone.
Encouraging the FAA to get involved in any way is the worst idea in skydiving. It would be like letting the rattle snake play in your pants while you take a jog. And they are not going to get involved for a reason that causes less than 31% of fatalities. Skydiving is dangerous, and they let us have fun anyway.
billvon (D 16479)
Moderator
Dec 22, 2011, 9:47 AM
Post #284 of 456
(742 views)
Shortcut
Re: [virgin-burner] HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
>>At the same time a foolish pilot has been given more tools to hurt himself, which >>happens all too frequently. And even though we can nowadays identify the people >>who are foolish, most are immune to being told that. (Witness the comments in this >>very thread.)
>still trolling bill!? i'd love to have them mad skillz . . .
Dec 22, 2011, 3:41 PM
Post #289 of 456
(681 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DaVinciflies] HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
What it does take is:
a. someone to actively monitor people under canopy b. someone to take action where it is warranted
To my knowledge these are the steps that have been taken at some of the most prestigious DZs in the US,
IMO, that's what the S&TA is for. Unfortunately, not all of them see it the same way and some of the ones who do often get an override from the DZO...especially when it comes to the "cool kids" and even more often when it involves the DZ workhorses.
Dec 22, 2011, 4:31 PM
Post #290 of 456
(671 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
In reply to:
What it does take is:
a. someone to actively monitor people under canopy b. someone to take action where it is warranted
To my knowledge these are the steps that have been taken at some of the most prestigious DZs in the US,
IMO, that's what the S&TA is for. Unfortunately, not all of them see it the same way and some of the ones who do often get an override from the DZO...especially when it comes to the "cool kids" and even more often when it involves the DZ workhorses.
Seems like, after a rocky start, we're on the same page, Pops!
Dec 22, 2011, 7:37 PM
Post #294 of 456
(633 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Therein lies the answer...changing the general mindset. But nobody yet knows how to do it accomplish that. What ever happens, it's not going to be short and sweet. It's going to take time and a lot of it.
In reply to:
MY flipant comment is, no it wont take a real long time...we just havent reached a high enough death toll yet.
I remember Capewells, the Green Star Express, the blast handle, the twisted belly band...when each caused enough carnage they were addressed...life is just cheaper now than i was back then I guess.
Dec 23, 2011, 6:52 AM
Post #295 of 456
(609 views)
Shortcut
Re: [virgin-burner] HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Hi VB, correct me if i,m wrong, but you seem to be taking Bills posts as a personal attack on yourself and your gear choices which they are most definately not. You're jumping a very high performance canopy which many believe including myself and i'm almost certain many of your fellow skydivers at your home DZ is beyond your current skill set given your time in the sport and your jump numbers par-se. I also believe you were jealous of Sangi when he started jumping the 107 hence the outting in the S & T forum, dispite him reverting back to the 129 Safire (ironically the same model/size as the canopy you currently jump) he still biffed in and now with the benefit of hindsight has seen the light. Bill amongst others is simply trying to help you see the same light and avoid another possible but senseless injury/death due to these things happen to others not me mindset.
Since the Sangi thread which you started you've shown yourself up to be nothing but a hypocrite hence my suppostion of the green eyed monster thinly diguished as concern in that said thread. Your posts since, though sometimes amusing don't add anything constructive to the dicussions in hand and it would be grownup to show just a little respect for those you don't know as well as those that you do.
You're formally invited to call me a Cee yoU Next Tuesday or whatever publically on these forums or via PM or if you like to my face (address can be supplied), i can assure you verbal attacks cause me no pain impacting with solid objects does and you should have it in your own interests to minimise the likelyhood of the latter.
Dec 23, 2011, 7:48 AM
Post #296 of 456
(594 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Quote:
Even better is a step forward by all of us in being more diligent in guiding Little Johnny to a more conservative approach to high performance. It can be done without rules. The sad part is that it won't happen without rules.
Different people have different perspectives on what constitutes a 'conservative approach'. Some of them may be instructors with different levels of CC skill themselves.
As mentioned by another poster who beat his chest with bravado about the glorious past and how wonderful things are at his DZ(s), it is no longer his responsibility...
Quote:
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.
So, you have instructors with different skills and interpretations of 'conservative or safe' and some experienced jumpers who no longer care.
How can it be done without rules?
It's not sad that other HP sports (e.g. your motor-sports example) have implemented rules, so why would it be sad if there were rules regarding the acquisition and / or use of HP canopies? Or requiring the demonstration of specific CC skills before advancing to higher USPA licenses?
I don't think it's sad that the rules might be needed ... it's sad that it has taken so long for enough people to recognize and accept it. It's sad that too many experienced jumpers -- including instructors -- don't participate in CC training.
in reply to "So, you have instructors with different skills and interpretations of 'conservative or safe' and some experienced jumpers who no longer care.
.....................................
Not being directly responsible is different from not caring.
Who's responsibility is it to effectively guide newbies through to a level where they are safe to make their own choices? ....I wonder? ....perhaps the people taking money for services and goods ??
of course most experienced people will help, they just might not force their help on you. Got rules for that stuff havn't we?.
DZ's I like to get to lately are very well run . I'm impressed . If a person turns into a skydiver at one of these DZ's they're getting old school wisdom along the way...and lots of it.
And my response...
Quote:
And their CC program is what, exactly? What are the requirements for CC training? What do they do to ensure that jumpers get the training they need?
My questions to you still stand.
It sounds like your DZ's have their shit together. What are they doing differently besides imparting 'old school wisdom'? If they can be a model for others, why not share their secret to success?
in reply to "So, you have instructors with different skills and interpretations of 'conservative or safe' and some experienced jumpers who no longer care.
.....................................
Not being directly responsible is different from not caring.
Who's responsibility is it to effectively guide newbies through to a level where they are safe to make their own choices? ....I wonder? ....perhaps the people taking money for services and goods ??
of course most experienced people will help, they just might not force their help on you. Got rules for that stuff havn't we?.
IMO, whoever is willing to take on that responsibility. So few are willing. I thought it was one of the S&TAs responsibilities but it doesn't seem as though very many here agree with that.
Dec 24, 2011, 10:51 AM
Post #300 of 456
(496 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
IMO, whoever is willing to take on that responsibility. So few are willing. I thought it was one of the S&TAs responsibilities but it doesn't seem as though very many here agree with that.
I don't know why there is resistance to S&TAs being responsible for the Safety and Training of young jumpers!
It seems to me that it might be rather a good job for that role!
Why are you asking me for a solution? There's obviously a failure to comminicate.
Now you all have the internet, and the USA is no longer the center of the universe or the skydiving world. The low turn problem is a international problem.Shocked
Use your connections and put together a think tank of the best swoopers and jumpers world wide and see if the international world of skydiving can come up with a solution to this "unsolvable problem. "
Remember Tonto the mod from South Africa We were all shocked when he died. some of the young ones may not have heard the joke that was going around in the 80's.
"Who says jumpers are stupid we invented a whole new way to kill ourselves" Hook turnsUnsure
I've got a T shirt from Z-hills called Hook Turn Horrors. that I got before you even started jumping.Frown And 30 yrs later the blood bath continues.Crazy
The swooping pro's like Aggie Dave got their act together but for some reason the information isn't filtering down to the wanna be's.Frown
Some of them have to learn the stupid way. If their lucky they won't kill themselves and they will be able to find a desK job. If their brain still works.
The subject of this thread lucked out and busted his ass at Snore and they were able to keep him alive until the chopper got there.
Read the first couple of posts in this thread Oh well just another low turnUnsure to bad nothing new to learn here lets move on.
I'm ashamed to admit that back in the 80's I sat at a picnic table at a DZ in Fl and ate my lunch about 50 yds watching a dude get CPR. But the CPR was taking to long when the ambulance finally got there the DZ staff stopped the CPR and the Ambulance weren't in a hurry to load the guy up and left the DZ without light and sirens.
I just witnessed a human being that I had been jumping with for a week die. He had a family.Frown Of course we got on the next load.
Now people jump with AAD's, buzz box's, and altii's are opening at 4-5K because they have a slow opening canopy or prefer to have the extra time just in case they have a mal.Crazy
The people that feel the need for speed and want to swoop like the pro's some of them don't have that safety margin.
And DZ.com isn't hearing about all the injuries just the DOA's and the DZ's that that report the injuries.
Read the link in the first post of this threadShocked Thats reality and the best the international skydiving community can do is brians book and some mentoring. Frown
Well it's not working. If the industry wants to hide behind their waiver and brians book and ignor the facts thats fucked up.
Have a merry Xmas with your friends and family the wife of the subject of this thread is going to spend Xmas in hell.
It sounds like your DZ's have their shit together. What are they doing differently besides imparting 'old school wisdom'? If they can be a model for others, why not share their secret to success" ......................................
No big secret , they're just well led by people that know what they're doing. The dominant feature of these DZ's is a very clear and definite chain of command. Leader out front . A couple of them , learnt the hard way, with a trail of fatalities and injuries. REAL fatalities and REAL incidents that shook em up a bit and knocked some sense into them as well.
as far as their specific canopy requirements. They apply normal licence requirements ,seems to work OK if STRICTLY adhered to . No short cuts. These requirements were originally designed with slowish canopies in mind but still apply to the type of canopies newbies should be flying. Proven consistent accuracy on a canopy is still a fair indication of basic canopy control skills . People can try to cheat a bit but it shows up when they can't land properly. Under the watchful eye of the CI , instructor and the rest of the DZ, all is revealed.
If the time honored respect for measured progression is instilled in a student then they seem to have less trouble working their way steadily through the steps required to make them a proficient canopy pilot. Some DZ's just seem to handle this more naturally without undue haste . Feels safer there.
He was an experienced swooper, doing a dedicated swoop. He did, in fact, understand the risk and take it. He risked no one else.
We do the same thing every time we jump; different risks, but then I don't BASE either, or race cars, either on or off the track. A swoop competition is kind of like on-track racing; much more dangerous than I choose, but a choice I'd like to continue to be available for those who do choose it.
Swooping at the end of a crowded skydive is kind of like street racing sometimes, particularly when the swooper expects to get the front-and-center position, and everyone else gets to land out.
>Any Canopy that, when it opens in line twists, spins up to a speed that >makes cutaways problematic is by definition lethal. (etc)
Agreed.
To condense all your arguments - any canopy that can kill you is, by definition, lethal. And all canopies can kill you if you're dumb enough.
Thank you Bill. I am late to the party.
So, in answer to that, was the latest fatality "Dumb Enough" or did he push the limits just a fraction too far?
By the way, you can't push limits, you can only find them.
Bold Pilot, a shame none the less.
I refuse to argue with myopic people who ignore valid points from respected professionals while looking down their own truly uninformed opinionated noses.
Feb 21, 2012, 4:31 PM
Post #316 of 456
(887 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dharma1976] HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
>Any Canopy that, when it opens in line twists, spins up to a speed that >makes cutaways problematic is by definition lethal. (etc)
Agreed.
To condense all your arguments - any canopy that can kill you is, by definition, lethal. And all canopies can kill you if you're dumb enough.
Thank you Bill. I am late to the party.
So, in answer to that, was the latest fatality "Dumb Enough" or did he push the limits just a fraction too far?
By the way, you can't push limits, you can only find them.
Bold Pilot, a shame none the less.
I refuse to argue with myopic people who ignore valid points from respected professionals while looking down their own truly uninformed opinionated noses.
First , let's not argue. Let's discuss.
Well, let's not talk about "myopic" and "ignore valid points". Especially when you missed Marisan's point.
I'm looking at Bill's statement about "dumb enough" and it raises the question: "Regardless of canopy size, are all those deaths caused by being "dumb enough"?
Feb 22, 2012, 7:37 AM
Post #317 of 456
(847 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
I responded to his question. That's what the two word statement "Bold Pilot" was.
I agree that there is a problem. A lot of the people who respond here work their butts off to try to keep people off canopies they aren't ready for. Trick is, its a free country, stupid is as stupid does. If your gonna be dumb, you gotta be tough. etc etc. But I refuse to argue with someone who DOESN'T OFFER ANY REAL SOLUTIONS. And then chides and baits people who do more jumps in 2 years than he has in 30 years in the sport. On top of it he MOCKS THE DEAD, disrespectful. For shame.
Feb 22, 2012, 12:48 PM
Post #318 of 456
(814 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dharma1976] HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
Bold Pilot, a shame none the less.
I refuse to argue with myopic people who ignore valid points from respected professionals while looking down their own truly uninformed opinionated noses.
D
Ok. but here's something to consider... Deep down, we all know that the point Marisan is making is very scary and contrary to what we want to believe about our sport. If one continues to push the limits, one will die or splatter oneselve all over the ground.
So, are you refusing to argue with myopic people or are you refusing to admit this could be the reality in which case you/us need to slow down and reconsider safety? I guess my point is, are we looking at the big picture?
That is correct Dave. I did 'hook' turn a PC way too low to do a 180 into the wind, severe case of rectalouculitis. But, the PC did not kill me (nor did I kill myself). Round canopies were much more forgiving-to stupidness-than squares. I goofed and got 12 weeks of wearing a plaster jump boot. I learned my lesson.
Feb 29, 2012, 8:01 AM
Post #328 of 456
(802 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skyjumpenfool] HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
So, are you refusing to argue with myopic people or are you refusing to admit this could be the reality in which case you/us need to slow down and reconsider safety? I guess my point is, are we looking at the big picture?
Seeing as how I am moving away from sub 100 sq ft cross-braced canopies for a variety of reasons, most of them involving safety of me and others (I do other things and am not at the drop zone as much anymore), I would say that I am in actuality just refusing to argue with myopic people who reminds me of the Badger in the movie The Gods Must Be Crazy.
The eternal questions. We know WHAT is going to happen. Someone is going to die!
We know HOW. Someone screwed up under a perfectly open canopy!
We know WHEN. Sometime in the next month (Two months if we are lucky) someone WILL die under a fully functioning canopy!
We don't know WHERE. Could be any DZ on the planet. No where is safe!
We don't know WHO. Could it be YOU? Could it be your SIGNIFICANT OTHER? Could it be a FIRST JUMP STUDENT?
Could it be a 100 JUMP WONDER who doesn't know what he doesn't know?
Could it be a 1000 JUMP WONDER who thinks he knows what he doesn't know?
Could it be a TEN THOUSAND JUMP SKYGOD that just stuffed it up a little bit on the wrong day?
The truth is that we don't know who it will be!
We just know that someone, who is walking around today will probably be dead by the end of April (Certainly by the end of May) under a canopy that is doing exactly what it was designed to do.
from ASM issue57.JPG
not me, my old 7cell no worries deep brake , slow motion. With my Katana , no thank you.