Forums: Skydiving: General Skydiving Discussions:
New rules for canopy-downsizing in Norway. We need comments!

 

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 Next page Last page  View All

becka  (D 30967)

Mar 4, 2012, 7:26 PM
Post #76 of 125 (1252 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] New rules for canopy-downsizing in Norway. We need comments! [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
I really appreciate you responding to the OPs comments and I know you are trying to make the point of erring on the side of caution, but I believe you being a bit disingenuous. (I really enjoy reading your comments and believe you make good points for some situations, but you are not addressing the particular issue that was brought up in this thread.) The "softness" of the landing is not the reason that smaller jumpers should have somewhat lower wing-loading at the same experience/skill level as a larger jumper. It is the responsiveness when flying it.
Thanks for your comments. I'll admit to maybe not fully understanding what you guys meant by "softness". It is an ambiguous term and I was assuming that it was meaning setting down with little forward and little vertical speed....easier accomplished with low wingloadings.


In reply to:
There are many places where it would take 20 years for a very active small jumper to get her A license and the rest of the 500 jumps recommended by the SIM or required by these new rules if she were to sit every time her .8 wing-loaded canopy would fly backwards.
OK...here you are saying, "Regardless of the safety factors involved, I'm going to jump even if I have to land backwards".
If that is what you are saying, then I have to question your decision-making abilities. Yes, and that questioning comes from my stance of erring on the side of safety.

You do realize that that attitude is what is causing many of today's problems. That attitude very distinctly defines the Mad Skillz group..."Regardless of the recommendations, I'm going to fly that hot rod without having the necessary skills to do so safely because I want to do it now, not later."

But that's not really what I'm saying, so I am sorry if it came across that way. I am saying that currently many recommendations/rules will seriously restrict many smaller jumpers and there is no evidence being shown to us that once you get to a certain square footage it doesn't matter if you have a 100 lb exit weight or a 160 lb exit weight. That doesn't seem right.

I certainly am not saying that because of that, the small jumper with the windy conditions should put themselves in a bad situation. Elevator or backwards landings are even more likely to slow progress as is stupid fast downsizing.

What I AM saying is that this particular problem with over restriction of smaller jumpers also creates bad situations. It would be nice if someone considered this in terms of recommendations for students and novices.


In reply to:
In reply to:
If there is a way for this same jumper to fly safely on a smaller (but still relatively docile canopy), why should her progression be so limited?
No it should not be limited on sizing alone but that is all we really have to go on right now because we can't quantify the other factors. Yes it should definitely be limited based on skill set. The good news is that yes, there is a way. It's the slow and sure downsizing method of learning canopy skills on more forgiving canopies and then practicing them until you are fully conversant with it. THEN move down one size and do it all over again before you go one size smaller. It's simple really.

The question, and the debate, stems from differences of opinion on determining whether the jumper's skill sets are adequate for the next lower size. Some advisors will say yes, some will say no. Unfortunately, those wanting to downsize rapidly will ALWAYS listen to the one that tells them yes and will ALWAYS argue with the one that tells them no. And those differences of opinion and all comes from the fact that those "other" factors cannot be quantified.

I am fine with needing some quantification. I just think that some consideration should be given to how the smaller end of the scale is calculated. And I absolutely agree with you on the downsizing process. Short-cuts are not the solution.

In reply to:
In reply to:
Finally, if it is so dangerous for this small jumper to be at 1.3 or 1.4 wing-loading before 1200 jumps, how on earth is it okay for the guy weighing 117 kg to be at that wing-loading with 201 jumps? Shouldn't he be required/recommended to have "slower and softer" landings too?

That bit has already been questioned and I don't know why they come up with that and I haven't seen a valid explanation of that. It does appear to more severely restrict smaller jumpers. On the face of it, I'm sitting here thinking, like you, "WTH is THAT all about?"
I can only assume that what we've seen is a first-draft serving as a basis for further discussion and development.

That is exactly the issue for me. And it is also applicable to the SIM.

Thanks again for all the responses. And I apologize for any lack of clarity on my part that may have indicated that I thought poorly thought out policies should be countered with stupid decisions.


linnths  (C 92128)

Mar 5, 2012, 12:14 AM
Post #77 of 125 (1240 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] New rules for canopy-downsizing in Norway. We need comments! [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
We are talking about rapid downsizing from conservative to radical loadings. We are discussing potential rules to enforce a more conservative downloading progression.
Okay, obviously we were not discussing the same thing here. My bad. I had general downsizing in mind, and Becka was far better at expressing what I felt as I really wanted to hear about the lighter wingloads with smaller canopies. I'll lean to hers more reflected points :)

In reply to:
It is less forgiving, yes, but still, it's not a death machine when treated conservatively.
In reply to:
Conservatively. This idea of more strict rules for downsizing all came about because people are NOT treating them conservatively. It's come about because people fail to realize that not every landing is going to conservative. I don't know of many people who fly hot rods because they want to be conservative with the performance capabilities.
You are correct, and I agree. Again I failed to express myself clearly. Using conservativeness as an argument is ridiculous, seeing that so many fail in this...

In reply to:
You can kill yourself in a navigator 260 as well, and in a 135, and in a 78. Flying a 135 does not mean that one is pushing it, automatically. In my case, It's not like I'm doing 240 hook-turns just because I downsized.
In reply to:
You may not realize how often that comment is used to justify rapid downsizing. We hear it all the time.
I agree. Again, see Becka's point. Here my frustration was showing: I had the question of downsizing with tiny humans in my mind. And I agree, using landings as an argument is futile.

In reply to:
...personally found it easier to land when I had a bit more wing load. Am I the only one? I'd like to hear others thoughts on this, that have experienced similar things...

In reply to:
Please define "easier". It's an ambiguous term.
Does your definition also include being able to set it down in a small area...say, somebody's backyard with trees and fences and power lines around it?
Thank you for asking, it's a valid question. Yes it does. I have practiced accuracy landings a lot, and it has been extremely helpful. The tradition of "innhopps" (planned out-landings in new areas) have also given me the opportunity to get out of the comfort zone, adapt to changes and put down my canopy wherever I want it to. I'm not saying I'm an expert, but I have practiced as many scenarios as possible, and it has given me great input. Do I find it easier with more wingloading (and again, let's remember that the one I had before, is within what the SIM advice for students), yes I do, as I have more "power" in the canopy. I'm afraid my english skills is imperfect to explain what I mean.. let me try: As I commented earlier, the slightly higher wingload gives me more to go on with the flare. I find it easier to fly on slower speeds with it, flat turns and so on, if I have to, because it does not "die" on me so easily. So when I needed to put it down in a tight area, this felt more controlled, versus before. Obviously this has to do with the amount of training I've put in in canopy skills as well :)


In reply to:
...can't I fly a canopy with a bit more wing load when I do straight-approach landings?
In reply to:

In reply to:
Yes, of course you can. And that's always been part of the justification for the rapid downsizing..."I just do straight-in landings." Unfortunately, they are not addressing the need to be able to do other types of landings as well...under a canopy that's going to respond more quickly having less room for error. You will, one of these days, be in a situation where that straight-in landing is not going to work out well.
Absolutely. Again it's my lack of communication skills that is hindering me in expressing myself clearly. Thank you for addressing this very important factor. One should not downsize if one it not able to put down the canopy at any type of landings and weather conditions. That should be rule one, regardless of number of jumps and wingloading.


In reply to:
Skilled instructors is a separate issue.
I contend, and I stand by my comment, that we, as a sport are severely lacking in quality instruction. Having a rating means almost literally nothing these days by way of instructing skills. Being dependent on an instructor could be hazardous to your health. Ask yourself a question; why does one instructor give conservative answers and this other one gives radical answers?

If you assume that the old fart instructor giving conservative answers is behind the times and an old fuddy-duddy....you may be a candidate for the Mad Skillz group. If you think the one saying you'll be just fine under that 135 after flying the 210...you may be a candidate for the incidents forum. Please don't get off on the old-fart vs young whippersnapper insanity. It's about the advice...not the age of the advisor.
I could not agree more :) If I experience a radical versus a conservative answer, I'd go with the most experienced with the conservative respond (They usually are the most experienced ones).

In reply to:
One should be able to question wing loading-issues without being identified as a crazy soon-to-be-statistic.
In reply to:
Without a doubt. Hell, if that was the case, all those swoopers flying sub-100 canopies all should have their coffins already made and waiting.
I get the impression that you are getting somewhat defensive when nobody is saying that you are a "crazy soon-to-be-statistic".
Hehe.. yup. as you said yourself; my frustration is showing. You have given me lots to think about, and I thank you for that. I was frustrated when we obviously were not on the entire same page. Now we are, to some extent at least.

In reply to:
Also, I believe there are more factors to be considered than the number itself, e.g. amount of focus piloting has been given, coaching, skills, attitudes and so on.
In reply to:
Agreed. Now, can you quantify those factors? No.
We can, however, quantify jump numbers. And yes, jump numbers are a good generalization for skill level. Is that saying it applies across the board? No. It's simply a generalization; it's a recommendation at this time, if you will. Making those recommendations into rules could very well for slowing down the Mad Skillz people, IMHO. It allows for more time and learning opportunities under conservative canopies before progressing to more radical ones. That's a good thing for the sport. YMMV.
No, probably we can't. Again, I'll let Becka do the talking here, as she is far better to address my concerns.

In reply to:
...except for the comments regarding myself. (As does every self-obsessed skydiver).
In reply to:
"Self-obsessed skydiver". Yep, those are the ones being addressed and those are the ones that are damaging our sport unnecessarily. If you are not one of those, then any comments made towards that group don't apply to you so why the defensiveness? Just askin'.
Was meant as an ironic comment on my defensiveness...

In reply to:
I'd like to hear some comments regarding lighter wing load versus heavier,
In reply to:
What you seem to be looking for is:
-Yes. Injuries and fatalities happen under low wing loadings.
-Yes. Lower wing loadings may not penetrate brisk winds as well as higher ones.
-With respect to landings, No. Lower wing loadings, flying slower and approaching the ground slower are "safer".
-Setting a low wing loading down in a small area is easier than doing it under a high wing loading.
Suggestion:
If you think that is not true, try it sometime.
(Before you do this, please be fully aware and fully skilled at avoiding or handling stalls on your canopy.)
Set out a circle in the landing area and put your canopy down in it...while visualizing trees, fences and power lines surrounding it. Find out how big that circle has to be for you to be able to sink it in safely over those obstacles.

I promise you, you will be more likely to accomplish that in a smaller circle with a lower wing loading as opposed to that hot rod needing more speed to fly without stalling. It's why accuracy competitors don't fly high wing loadings.

Thanks for your comments, eh?
Thank you for the tip, it's a great learning exercise, which I have done multiple times. I try every single landing to decide up front exactly where to land. It's helpful in learning to get to know the limits of yourself, the canopy and control in general. It also proves to be an excellent exercise when finding out what you need to work on.

Regarding you last comment, I see what your point is. I have not had a higher wingloading than what I am at now, so I can't really comment on that. Again, Becka seems to be better in expressing what I had in mind. I agree lighter wingloads are easier to handle safely in general, but several tiny people do express that they feel more in control when they have wingloading, so to speak. That's what I had in mind... :)

Thanks for the input, eh? :)


virgin-burner

Mar 5, 2012, 4:29 AM
Post #78 of 125 (1218 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] New rules for canopy-downsizing in Norway. We need comments! [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Why should flying a parachute be any different? Case in point, countries that currently have WL limitations and tiered canopy licenses in place have lower incident rates (I think it's the Swiss that have the best system).

once you have your license, you're pretty much free to jump whatever you want around here..


Ron

Mar 5, 2012, 7:59 AM
Post #79 of 125 (1195 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pchapman] New rules for canopy-downsizing in Norway. We need comments! [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Nobody stops a doctor from getting his instrument rating, buying a Mooney or Cirrus, and going out and getting himself killed in hard IFR over the mountains at night.

Not really a good comparison. In addition to a private license the guy above went through an additional 40 hours of structured learning, got a High Performance signoff, and depending on the plane a Complex sign off as well.

Then, like you mentioned, there are the insurance requirements. Look at a Pitts Special, I'd have to have 10 hours in a Pitts with an instructor to even get insurance. For a Cirrus most company's want 3-5 hours of instruction.

So it is just not the same. But I tell you what..... Make a high performance signoff and a "complex" signoff for parachutes and then I'll agree you are making progress.... Cause right now all we have is the Dr that has 100 jumps being able to buy a Velo.


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Mar 5, 2012, 9:30 AM
Post #80 of 125 (1179 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] New rules for canopy-downsizing in Norway. We need comments! [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
But I tell you what..... Make a high performance signoff and a "complex" signoff for parachutes and then I'll agree you are making progress.... Cause right now all we have is the Dr that has 100 jumps being able to buy a Velo.
This warms my heart, Ron.


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Mar 5, 2012, 9:38 AM
Post #81 of 125 (1177 views)
Shortcut
Re: [linnths] New rules for canopy-downsizing in Norway. We need comments! [In reply to] Can't Post

Sounds like to me now that you and Becka are on a good track. SOunds like you guys have valid oncerns. I particularly like the part about you guys taking things with a conservative approach.
SmileSmile

As you can tell, I'm one of the conservative old fuddy-duddys. I'm probably well-known for always giving the uber-conservative answers.
LaughLaugh

So, since we haven't heard back from the OP in a few days, we can't tell if there has been any further discussion at home on modifying their tables to be more reasonable for all concerned.

Let's see how they are going to address your concerns and resolve that already-highlighted issue of wingloadings for light vs heavy jumpers.

I'm interested on how the discussion is going and what the results are going to be.

Peace,
Andy


linnths  (C 92128)

Mar 5, 2012, 11:12 AM
Post #82 of 125 (1153 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] New rules for canopy-downsizing in Norway. We need comments! [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Sounds like to me now that you and Becka are on a good track. SOunds like you guys have valid oncerns. I particularly like the part about you guys taking things with a conservative approach.
SmileSmile

As you can tell, I'm one of the conservative old fuddy-duddys. I'm probably well-known for always giving the uber-conservative answers.
LaughLaugh

So, since we haven't heard back from the OP in a few days, we can't tell if there has been any further discussion at home on modifying their tables to be more reasonable for all concerned.

Let's see how they are going to address your concerns and resolve that already-highlighted issue of wingloadings for light vs heavy jumpers.

I'm interested on how the discussion is going and what the results are going to be.

Peace,
Andy

Dear fuddy-duddy, the OP (me), can inform that the final edition of the rules will be made public tomorrow. The rumor says they have inserted a column for jumpers from 60-70 kilos as well, which should help, if that is correct Wink Let's hope they've changed the upper end of the scale too so a 51-jump-skygod don't get to fly a 1,4 wingload ;) That could prove to be very interesting.

But, please, continue the debate! Always good to argue some ;)

Aaanyways, I will of course inform you about the new and final rules asap.


robinheid  (D 5533)

Mar 5, 2012, 2:00 PM
Post #83 of 125 (1129 views)
Shortcut
Re: [linnths] New rules for canopy-downsizing in Norway. We need comments! [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I'm just saying, and I know people will give me crap for this, that us having fun in the sky, is not a "right we have". It's a privilege that can be taken away. The more people that kill themselves and others in this sport, the harder it gets to argue that it's a good thing. That's how society's become. Risk is seen as unnecessary...

You won't get any crap from me about this. Yes, we have to share the sky, and the more socialistic the government under which jumpers must live, the more at risk they are for having their activity restricted or prohibited "for the greater good."

So of course parachuting must be regulated so that it can peacefully and unobtrusively co-exist with other airspace users and with the larger society in which it exists.


The continuing problem, however, is that people confuse "regulation" with "rules" and they are not the same thing.

Here's the definition of regulate:

regulate
verb (used with object), -lated, -lating.

1. to control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.: to regulate household expenses.

2. to adjust to some standard or requirement, as amount, degree, etc.: to regulate the temperature.

3. to adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation: to regulate a watch.

4. to put in good order: to regulate the digestion.

Notice that only one definition even includes the word "rule" and then only as one option among several.

That is key to my remarks on this subject: Instead of regulating by making more rules that essentially become bandaids on a severed artery, we should instead look more to principles and methods and less to rules to accomplish the necessary regulation.

Such a course takes more and better thinking than to just impose more rules, but it will yield better results.

It's kinda like the old saying:

Catch a man a fish and you feed him for a day.
Teach a man how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

Telling jumpers what canopy they can or cannot fly and when they can or cannot fly it may keep them safe while they fall within the proposed rules, but if you teach them how to fly you will help them stay safe for their entire career.

44
Cool


p.s. good on ya for starting this discussion. hopefully some of this input will find its way to the Norwegian powers that be and help them come up with the best possible solution.


(This post was edited by robinheid on Mar 5, 2012, 2:05 PM)


virgin-burner

Mar 5, 2012, 3:35 PM
Post #84 of 125 (1103 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robinheid] New rules for canopy-downsizing in Norway. We need comments! [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
...

Such a course takes more and better thinking than to just impose more rules, but it will yield better results.

...

i came up with this before and i throw it out again; how about making a canopy-course mandatory within a year of getting your A!?

how about a mandatory canopy-course annually for being able to renew your license!?

more rules, for the greater good, and yes, maybe there would be less incidents.


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Mar 5, 2012, 6:49 PM
Post #85 of 125 (1071 views)
Shortcut
Re: [linnths] New rules for canopy-downsizing in Norway. We need comments! [In reply to] Can't Post

To go along with Robin's points, I want to ask:
What training does Norway do to help young jumpers acquire canopy flight skills?

Here, we have:
- an A-license progression card that requires students to do only one showing each of only a minimal number of canopy flight skills.
- an requirement at each license level for a minimum number of accuracy landings
- Canopy courses that are optional and, like the A-license requirements, only ask students to do one round each of a minimal number of canopy flight skills.

Everything else that they may learn comes from other jumpers who may, or may not, be giving relevant and accurate advice.


linnths  (C 92128)

Mar 5, 2012, 11:55 PM
Post #86 of 125 (1046 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] New rules for canopy-downsizing in Norway. We need comments! [In reply to] Can't Post

To go along with Robin's points, I want to ask:
What training does Norway do to help young jumpers acquire canopy flight skills?

Here, we have:
- an A-license progression card that requires students to do only one showing each of only a minimal number of canopy flight skills.
In reply to:

Pretty much the same stuff, really. In order to earn your b-license, you need to do a total of 7 canopy-jumps (pull higher), and do stuff like collapse, stall, different kind of input, precision-landings and so on. However, in practice, these jumps are often compressed into two or three jumps. In other words; not really working. However, as part of the new regulations that are coming now, they are developing a canopy course in addition to the required jumps, which is obligatory.
- an requirement at each license level for a minimum number of accuracy landings
In reply to:

Actually, after you've earned your b-license, there's not really any more requirements you need to do, canopy-wise, to continue to C-license. However, they are now suggestion to implement a canopy course obligatory for those who wish to downsize/go for high-performance landings in the future/touch any form of risers or do turns in the landings. They are suggesting that you have a minimum of 200 jumps before you attend the course. In other words: an advanced canopy course.
- Canopy courses that are optional and, like the A-license requirements, only ask students to do one round each of a minimal number of canopy flight skills.
In reply to:

Well, the canopy-exercises you need to do, have to be filmed/witness by your instructor, and thorough feedback is required. The student can be asked to do the jumps all over again if the instructor does not feel they have understood the implications of the different exercises....
Everything else that they may learn comes from other jumpers who may, or may not, be giving relevant and accurate advice.
In reply to:

Same here... as in the states, there are many canopy courses one can attend. Be that as it is, I've always found it weird how much attention the free-fall is given the entire period of your student status and a-license compared to actual survival-skills... When 80 percent of our fatalities occurs under good canopy, it seems backwards to focus only on the 20% that involves tumbling in the sky..

Nevertheless, a good thing we have a lot of here in this (freezing!) country, is the so-called "innhopps". Entire loads are flown off the dropzone, usually to amazing and beautiful places like steep valleys, mountains, tiny islands and such, and when the off-landing area is big enough, they allow a-licensed jumpers to attend. The only information that is given before the jump, is stuff you need to know in order to be safe, other than that it is always a brand new place, new circumstances and conditions - it is incredible what I've learned from those jumps.

Also, there's a lot of famous innhopps like the one's they do in Voss, where the requirements are higher. Those also functions as a "carrot" for the rookies; by training hard they get to experience more advanced innhopps, and this truly is motivating when practicing canopy-skills.

(For those of you who haven't done an innhopp, I'm attaching a couple of files of a jump I did this fall. I still get excited remembering the truly magnificent and sublime experience it was to have mountains on both sides of you, far above you, at 5000 ft.Cool )

I believe this i a good thing; the jumper gets to step out of the comfort zone of landing in the same and familiar dropzone every time, but within a controlled environment. The briefing is always thorough, and the jumps have almost always been done by experienced jumpers before they allow rookies.

E.g. one innhopp I attended (had around 100 jumps) we landed at a field only 130 feet long and 65 feet wide. It was a real challenge to have to put down the canopy in that area. The river around it made any options undesirable ;) Before I was allowed to participate in the jump, instructors required that I did precision-landings at the dropzone. Even though I managed that easily, it was a big difference when one came down to land, and realized that you had to do it correctly.

I, personally, believe these kinds of jumps are an incredible tool for inexperienced jumpers. As mentioned, there's something that happens with you when you realize that the skills you're practicing at the dropzone actually is practiced for a reason. If one has jumped only at huuuge dropzones like e.g. Elsinore, you have like a million feet of landing field in front of you either direction. It makes it easier to just don't give a fuck where you put down the canopy IMO. :)
Attachments: 323823_10150817086125302_756160301_20901468_1286884571_o.jpg (78.4 KB)
  290325_10150817088250302_756160301_20901479_1201991565_o.jpg (93.1 KB)
  334884_10150817087300302_756160301_20901474_1169407122_o-1.jpg (74.8 KB)


piisfish

Mar 6, 2012, 12:24 AM
Post #87 of 125 (1034 views)
Shortcut
Re: [linnths] New rules for canopy-downsizing in Norway. We need comments! [In reply to] Can't Post

Lynn, get the excess of your steering lines fingetrapped. As it is it doesn't look sexy Tongue

Besides that, thanks for raising the discussion, and thanks for them nice pictures Smile


BrianSGermain  (D 11154)

Mar 6, 2012, 12:48 AM
Post #88 of 125 (1032 views)
Shortcut
Re: [linnths] New rules for canopy-downsizing in Norway. We need comments! [In reply to] Can't Post

Hej Linn,

I have spent a great deal of time working on this subject, and I must break it to you, this is much to simplified. I understand the desire to make things simple, however the issue is not simple.

Here is a link to my downsizing chart. The concept is based on the Swedish chart, however the numbers are not as conservative, and there is a great deal of supplementary text that help explain how to use the chart.

http://bigairsportz.com/pdf/bas-sizingchart.pdf

Please feel free to contact me to discuss this in detail. We are discussing the possibility of a trip to Norway this July. Perhaps we can meet up!

Sincerely,
Brian Germain


linnths  (C 92128)

Mar 6, 2012, 12:51 AM
Post #89 of 125 (1031 views)
Shortcut
Re: [piisfish] New rules for canopy-downsizing in Norway. We need comments! [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Lynn, get the excess of your steering lines fingetrapped. As it is it doesn't look sexy Tongue

Besides that, thanks for raising the discussion, and thanks for them nice pictures Smile

HAHA!!! That was what you noticed with that scenery?! It's like noticing the shoes on a drop-dead gorgeous lady going **** on you. Hahaha... Awesome.

FYI: I got them fixed last summer ;)


linnths  (C 92128)

Mar 6, 2012, 12:55 AM
Post #90 of 125 (1028 views)
Shortcut
Re: [BrianSGermain] New rules for canopy-downsizing in Norway. We need comments! [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Hej Linn,

I have spent a great deal of time working on this subject, and I must break it to you, this is much to simplified. I understand the desire to make things simple, however the issue is not simple.

Here is a link to my downsizing chart. The concept is based on the Swedish chart, however the numbers are not as conservative, and there is a great deal of supplementary text that help explain how to use the chart.

http://bigairsportz.com/pdf/bas-sizingchart.pdf

Please feel free to contact me to discuss this in detail. We are discussing the possibility of a trip to Norway this July. Perhaps we can meet up!

Sincerely,
Brian Germain

Dear Brian :)

I could not agree more! As mentioned, these charts are not of my making. It's the norwegian federation that made them... And they are way too simplified!

I actually attended one of your courses when you visited us at Oppdal in Norway, do you remeber? I was still a student at that time :)

Would love to meet you if you come back. I hope you'll announce when and where so we'll get the chance to attend your fabulous courses (if you're doing them while here).

IMO; your chart is way better, and I hope our federation will look to your chart instead of inventing their own (and worse) chart.

Sincerely, Linn :)


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Mar 6, 2012, 5:25 AM
Post #91 of 125 (995 views)
Shortcut
Re: [linnths] New rules for canopy-downsizing in Norway. We need comments! [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
HAHA!!! That was what you noticed with that scenery?! It's like noticing the shoes on a drop-dead gorgeous lady going **** on you. Hahaha... Awesome.

FYI: I got them fixed last summer ;)
Leave it ti him to keep a sharp eye out.
LaughLaughLaugh
....and untwist the brake lines.
LaughLaughTongue


piisfish

Mar 6, 2012, 5:43 AM
Post #92 of 125 (986 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] New rules for canopy-downsizing in Norway. We need comments! [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
HAHA!!! That was what you noticed with that scenery?! It's like noticing the shoes on a drop-dead gorgeous lady going **** on you. Hahaha... Awesome.

FYI: I got them fixed last summer ;)
Leave it ti him to keep a sharp eye out.
LaughLaughLaugh
....and untwist the brake lines.
LaughLaughTongue
there was no boobages available... so went for something else....
Mountains + water, I have plenty hereAngelic Wonderful scenery, should try and find time to do the Norway trip Smile
yeah untwist them lines, you will have an extra couple of cm of toggle stroke


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Mar 6, 2012, 7:05 AM
Post #93 of 125 (964 views)
Shortcut
Re: [piisfish] New rules for canopy-downsizing in Norway. We need comments! [In reply to] Can't Post

"Wonderful scenery"

That reminds me of my all-time favorite pic...I believe it was Swissland

A canopy as seen from above and to the pilot's left with mountains and a castle of some sort in the background.
I wish I had a copy of that pic.


piisfish

Mar 6, 2012, 7:29 AM
Post #94 of 125 (957 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] New rules for canopy-downsizing in Norway. We need comments! [In reply to] Can't Post

is it similar to this one, but with a parachute ? A photo by Michel Pissotte. Still trying to find it

http://www.aerodrome-gruyere.ch/...s/index.php?m=200608

found it , bottom left here, but don't have it in big size
http://www.aerodrome-gruyere.ch/parachutisme.htm


virgin-burner

Mar 6, 2012, 7:45 AM
Post #95 of 125 (954 views)
Shortcut
Re: [piisfish] New rules for canopy-downsizing in Norway. We need comments! [In reply to] Can't Post

that pic has been posted here somewhere..


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Mar 6, 2012, 4:09 PM
Post #96 of 125 (914 views)
Shortcut
Re: [piisfish] New rules for canopy-downsizing in Norway. We need comments! [In reply to] Can't Post

The second one...yes. that's it.
And yes, it's been posted here. That's where I saw it before...somewhere on here.


linnths  (C 92128)

Mar 6, 2012, 11:14 PM
Post #97 of 125 (876 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] New rules for canopy-downsizing in Norway. We need comments! [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
The second one...yes. that's it.
And yes, it's been posted here. That's where I saw it before...somewhere on here.

Yes, it has. I bragged about it earlier when my friends and I were asking for your votes in a competition. I believe I spammed the forum for weeeeeks. ;) Didn't win it, though.


d100965  (D 100965)

Mar 15, 2012, 8:06 AM
Post #98 of 125 (786 views)
Shortcut
Re: [linnths] New rules for canopy-downsizing in Norway. We need comments! [In reply to] Can't Post

Bump....

What was the outcome please?
What rules/guidelines did Norway adopt?


Bip  (D 573)

Mar 15, 2012, 11:37 PM
Post #99 of 125 (741 views)
Shortcut
Re: [d100965] New rules for canopy-downsizing in Norway. We need comments! [In reply to] Can't Post

I think yesterday was the last day to comment the new proposal. I imagine the new rules will be published soon.


daleskydive  (E License)

Mar 17, 2012, 4:08 AM
Post #100 of 125 (670 views)
Shortcut
Re: [virgin-burner] New rules for canopy-downsizing in Norway. We need comments! [In reply to] Can't Post

I dont know about a madatory canopy course for renewing you licence.It seems a bit over the top. I you have a couple of mandatory canopy control courses ,then once done and achieved you already have the knowledge and skills. Im not a fan of more and more rules. Wouldnt it be better to try and make an attitude at the DZ that doing a canopy control or swooping course a cool thing to do.


First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Skydiving : General Skydiving Discussions

 


Search for (options)