Forums: Skydiving: Safety and Training:
Proposal for wing loading limits

 

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page Last page  View All

robinheid  (D 5533)

Mar 18, 2012, 9:22 AM
Post #101 of 166 (1110 views)
Shortcut
Re: [faulknerwn] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I know of multiple 1000 plus jump number people who never learned to do all the basic aerodynamics stuff they should have learned when they jumped more docile canopies.

If we start requiring the next generation to go slower and take the time and really learn basic aerodynamics as they learn to fly their canopies, I truly believe the next generation of fast pilots will be a million times safer


There are a lot of people who have thousands of jumps on tiny canopies who never learned the basics basic aerodynamics. Requiring proof that they mastered the basics basic aerodynamics on each canopy before they downsize will make the nex generation of canopy pilots the best that have ever existed. Far too many of our current generation never learned the basics basic aerodynamics - and if you never mastered them on a 190 or the 170 or the 150 - it's hard to learn on the 99.

Edited for clarity. Wink

44
Cool


ozzy13  (D 29344)

Mar 18, 2012, 12:49 PM
Post #102 of 166 (1082 views)
Shortcut
Re: [faulknerwn] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

I agree with some of what you are saying. It is why I keep saying how is these charts going to help these guys from turning themselves into the ground. Everyone of them had 2000+ jumps.
I think a few years from now this will happen less. None of the guys had to do anything once they got their A. Now you do. This will help with this stat. Again just my thoughts.

I have 2500 jump. The last 2000 or so were swoop type of landing. I have landed off where i had to come straight in. I also couple jumps back came straight in cause of too much traffic. Again I have taken a few canopy courses. Im the type that wants to learn about everything that im doing. So I looked for the education. But I see with people all the time.They go threw the FJC get their A and jump and keep jumping. They don't care about anything but jumping. Is there anything wrong with that. I dont know. I think now everyone having to take a basic canopy course after all the pressure of just getting your A. There will be better canopy pilots out there. Restricting one from doing something is just not a direction I would like our sport to go.


(This post was edited by ozzy13 on Mar 18, 2012, 12:50 PM)


ctrph8  (D License)

Mar 19, 2012, 3:00 AM
Post #103 of 166 (1027 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

This whole thing sticks in my craw. Jumping at a high wind drop zone, these requirements would be prohibitive and particularly so for the lighter jumpers. I don't have the numbers to back this up, but the wing loading here is higher than the proposed limitations and this generally works well for us.

What I would suggest would be a way to test out of the requirements... or at least into a higher bracket. If someone has the skills and has done the work, let them prove it and move into a more appropriate canopy as they see it. The arbitrary jump numbers as indicators of ability could be a base line but if someone can test out early, let that be an option.

When I first bought a Saber in 1992 I was the only person at our drop zone with a zero P canopy. These discussions were rampant except instead of wing loading, it was canopy material.... That I was a 100 jump wonder and was jumping a Wonderhog was entirely beside the point. Wink


kallend  (D 23151)

Mar 19, 2012, 6:59 AM
Post #104 of 166 (1008 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ozzy13] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I agree with some of what you are saying. It is why I keep saying how is these charts going to help these guys from turning themselves into the ground. Everyone of them had 2000+ jumps.
.

WELL, in post #2 of this thread I asked:

"Do you have any data on how many accidents (fatalities, since that's what we know about) occurred in each of these experience levels in the past, say, 3 years, and what % or those involved jumpers violating the proposed limits? "

No answer received.

Before imposing any rules on the community, the proposers need to make a very clear analysis of the scope of the problem and the likely impact of the proposed "solution". That has not been done.


davelepka  (D 21448)

Mar 19, 2012, 8:50 AM
Post #105 of 166 (993 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ctrph8] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
What I would suggest would be a way to test out of the requirements... or at least into a higher bracket. If someone has the skills and has done the work, let them prove it and move into a more appropriate canopy as they see it

How is that different than we have now? Currently, jumpers have to pass the opinion of the 'powers that be', be that the S&TA, the DZO, or head instructor. The end result is that someone is in charge of what is inappropriate, and that person's opinion becomes the standard.

Even if you have a test criteria, in a performance-based test where you cannot provide instruments to record the performance, again, the pass/fail all comes down to the opinion of the test administrator.

If a jumper is dedicated enough, they'll blow through the WL chart in short order, and be up to a 'sporty' WL in 300/400 jumps.

If a jumper is naturally talented, but not jumping at a fast pace, then they should be held to the WL chart because natural talent will only take you so far, you still need the experience to back it up. I took my son snowboarding for the first time, and within a few hours he was in control and linking turns. I didn't run him right up to the black diamond runs because he picked it up faster than his buddies, I just encouraged him and kept him training on the blue squares. Once he gets some time on the blues, then we'll take a trip upslope to the big stuff.

Citing high winds is not going to make your case. Much like canopies, the degree of wind you can handle goes up with experience. If you have less than 100 jumps, you simply shouldn't be jumping in winds too high for a 1.0 WL. If the winds are blowing that hard, you should be on the ground, not finding a smaller canopy to just to get you up in the air.

Following the progression allows for a greater level of freedom as you progress, just not before. If the winds are blowing too hard for the canopy you're allowed to be jumping, then they're blowing too hard for you to be up anyway.


robinheid  (D 5533)

Mar 19, 2012, 8:54 AM
Post #106 of 166 (991 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
I agree with some of what you are saying. It is why I keep saying how is these charts going to help these guys from turning themselves into the ground. Everyone of them had 2000+ jumps.
.

WELL, in post #2 of this thread I asked:

"Do you have any data on how many accidents (fatalities, since that's what we know about) occurred in each of these experience levels in the past, say, 3 years, and what % or those involved jumpers violating the proposed limits? "

No answer received.

Before imposing any rules on the community, the proposers need to make a very clear analysis of the scope of the problem and the likely impact of the proposed "solution". That has not been done.


Imposing rules without research is SOP these days, Perfesser. Please don't further confuse these peeps by asking them to apply something as quaintly archaic as scientific method to their musings.

44
Cool


ozzy13  (D 29344)

Mar 19, 2012, 10:36 AM
Post #107 of 166 (969 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
I agree with some of what you are saying. It is why I keep saying how is these charts going to help these guys from turning themselves into the ground. Everyone of them had 2000+ jumps.
.

WELL, in post #2 of this thread I asked:

"Do you have any data on how many accidents (fatalities, since that's what we know about) occurred in each of these experience levels in the past, say, 3 years, and what % or those involved jumpers violating the proposed limits? "

No answer received.

Before imposing any rules on the community, the proposers need to make a very clear analysis of the scope of the problem and the likely impact of the proposed "solution". That has not been done.
Dude i didnt answer the first time and wont answer this time. Do the work yourself if you want to know such data. I looked and 45% were low turns with jumps over 2000. There is not much more info then that. So I dont know. Im not proposing anything so dont need to do the work. I dont think we should use a chart as a restriction.


(This post was edited by ozzy13 on Mar 19, 2012, 10:39 AM)


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 19, 2012, 10:40 AM
Post #108 of 166 (966 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ctrph8] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

>Jumping at a high wind drop zone, these requirements would be prohibitive and
>particularly so for the lighter jumpers.

I have to say I am not a fan of increasing loadings to deal with wind. That helps you when everything goes well, but either:

1) results in an almost guaranteed serious injury/fatality when someone lands downwind or

2) results in people killing themselves turning low because "GOTTA LAND INTO THE WIND NO MATTER WHAT!" is drilled into them so hard.

>What I would suggest would be a way to test out of the requirements... or at
>least into a higher bracket.

That can work and a few people have asked for that.


ozzy13  (D 29344)

Mar 19, 2012, 10:46 AM
Post #109 of 166 (964 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robinheid] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
I agree with some of what you are saying. It is why I keep saying how is these charts going to help these guys from turning themselves into the ground. Everyone of them had 2000+ jumps.
.

WELL, in post #2 of this thread I asked:

"Do you have any data on how many accidents (fatalities, since that's what we know about) occurred in each of these experience levels in the past, say, 3 years, and what % or those involved jumpers violating the proposed limits? "

No answer received.

Before imposing any rules on the community, the proposers need to make a very clear analysis of the scope of the problem and the likely impact of the proposed "solution". That has not been done.


Imposing rules without research is SOP these days, Perfesser. Please don't further confuse these peeps by asking them to apply something as quaintly archaic as scientific method to their musings.

44
Cool

LOL confuse such folks lol ok high and mighty. This website is a joke. One more week and you wont see me until i get bored next winter. So flame on!!! I took your comment as a insult. I am the only one that has shown any kind of stat in all of these proposal WL threads. Again 45% on fatalities were from people with 2000 plus jumps killing themselves. So all these charts would not helped any of them There are three or four of them on this site right now. Your so smart show me different.


(This post was edited by ozzy13 on Mar 19, 2012, 10:48 AM)


ctrph8  (D License)

Mar 19, 2012, 11:12 AM
Post #110 of 166 (958 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
What I would suggest would be a way to test out of the requirements... or at least into a higher bracket. If someone has the skills and has done the work, let them prove it and move into a more appropriate canopy as they see it

How is that different than we have now? Currently, jumpers have to pass the opinion of the 'powers that be', be that the S&TA, the DZO, or head instructor. The end result is that someone is in charge of what is inappropriate, and that person's opinion becomes the standard.

If a jumper is dedicated enough, they'll blow through the WL chart in short order, and be up to a 'sporty' WL in 300/400 jumps.



I think that's kind of the point. If someone is willing to put the time and energy into really learning to fly their canopy, we should reward that with letting them fly a canopy more suited to what they perceive as the best canopy for them. There is a lot of education that goes into it. That isn't to say that they WILL need a smaller canopy, just that they could if that is what worked best for them.

Also, I like that there is a human factor in determining some of these things. I can't speak for other drop zones, but the ones I've spent the most time at have very active S&TAs. I think this is a much better idea than an arbitrary number.


becka  (D 30967)

Mar 19, 2012, 12:20 PM
Post #111 of 166 (946 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

Citing high winds is not going to make your case. Much like canopies, the degree of wind you can handle goes up with experience. If you have less than 100 jumps, you simply shouldn't be jumping in winds too high for a 1.0 WL. If the winds are blowing that hard, you should be on the ground, not finding a smaller canopy to just to get you up in the air.
One issue is that many light people will not be on 1.0 WL or anywhere close for the first 100 (or more jumps) according to this chart or most other recommendations. I was not jumping in crazy winds, but still had a few elevator rides and a bunch of extra turbulence that no one else felt. And that was on my high performance Sabre1 150 at .9 wingloading (for about 250 jumps).


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 19, 2012, 3:18 PM
Post #112 of 166 (926 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ozzy13] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

>Again 45% on fatalities were from people with 2000 plus jumps killing themselves.
>So all these charts would not helped any of them.

Nope - but the education required to progress would. Education works - and restrictions that are in place until you get that education help people get it.


ozzy13  (D 29344)

Mar 19, 2012, 5:21 PM
Post #113 of 166 (903 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>Again 45% on fatalities were from people with 2000 plus jumps killing themselves.
>So all these charts would not helped any of them.

Nope - but the education required to progress would. Education works - and restrictions that are in place until you get that education help people get it.


Actually are you sure about that? You know that all of them have not taken canopy courses. If not neither your restrictions or the new canopy courses for B would of helped them. There is no way of knowing if what we will put in place would of help the past. We cant get any real data on what is the real problem. We need to know everyone's history to do this. For someone to say this would of help them is just talking out your ass. (Im not saying you per say)Im sorry. We see a problem and everyone has there opinion on how it can be fixed. No one has showed me anything that will support their idea in fixing the problems we are having in this area of our sport.

I do see a deficiency in our progression. One big one is the only canopy education you needed was on your A card. Bare minimum if you ask me. So we are moving in the right direction at least. Will it help? Not sure. Again no numbers to go by. I do think it will eventually make it a safer sky in the future.


(This post was edited by ozzy13 on Mar 19, 2012, 5:23 PM)


virgin-burner

Mar 19, 2012, 5:42 PM
Post #114 of 166 (896 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ozzy13] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

the sky's pretty safe already, it's the ground that isnt! Tongue


kallend  (D 23151)

Mar 19, 2012, 6:04 PM
Post #115 of 166 (891 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ozzy13] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
I agree with some of what you are saying. It is why I keep saying how is these charts going to help these guys from turning themselves into the ground. Everyone of them had 2000+ jumps.
.

WELL, in post #2 of this thread I asked:

"Do you have any data on how many accidents (fatalities, since that's what we know about) occurred in each of these experience levels in the past, say, 3 years, and what % or those involved jumpers violating the proposed limits? "

No answer received.

Before imposing any rules on the community, the proposers need to make a very clear analysis of the scope of the problem and the likely impact of the proposed "solution". That has not been done.
Dude i didnt answer the first time and wont answer this time. Do the work yourself if you want to know such data. I looked and 45% were low turns with jumps over 2000. There is not much more info then that. So I dont know. Im not proposing anything so dont need to do the work. I dont think we should use a chart as a restriction.

I wasn't asking YOU to do any work - heaven forbid such a thing.

There is a burden on people who want to impose new restrictions on the rest of us to justify them. The proposers of the various WL BSRs need to do their homework. They haven't.


davelepka  (D 21448)

Mar 19, 2012, 7:15 PM
Post #116 of 166 (875 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ctrph8] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
If someone is willing to put the time and energy into really learning to fly their canopy, we should reward that with letting them fly a canopy more suited to what they perceive as the best canopy for them.

The question is, what are they basing that perception on? I can base my perception of how different canopies fly on my experience flying them, and seeing the differences. Unless you've flown 'them all', you can't really say which ones are, or aren't, good for you. You could guess, but if you guess wrong, the consequences can be dire.

So even if someone has education, their ability to handle a canopy remains unknown until they try it. So the best method to dealing with this is to ensure that jumpers start at an appropriate level, and move one step at a time while taking an appropriate level of time at each step.

Without the steps, and some sort of requirement for time on each step, you could have jumpers making 5 or 10 jumps on one size before downsizing. In my book, that hardly 'proves' their ability to handle that size, and certainly doesn't allow them sufficient time to truely acclimate to the new canopy.


ozzy13  (D 29344)

Mar 19, 2012, 7:20 PM
Post #117 of 166 (872 views)
Shortcut
Re: [virgin-burner] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

Not really. There were a few collisions last year so it's not as safe as one might think.


davelepka  (D 21448)

Mar 19, 2012, 7:23 PM
Post #118 of 166 (870 views)
Shortcut
Re: [becka] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I was not jumping in crazy winds, but still had a few elevator rides and a bunch of extra turbulence that no one else felt. And that was on my high performance Sabre1 150 at .9 wingloading (for about 250 jumps).

Just to be fair, as per B Germains WL chart, by 250 jumps you could have been on a 135 (at 1.0) or even a 120 (at 1.1).

Beyond that, you have to understand that you are far off the 'norm' in skydiving. When making rules/regulations/laws, you make them to apply to the largest segment of the population, that being the 'average', the middle of the bell curve. Even if people on the ends of that curve aren't perfectly served, you need to govern for the good of the many, not the few.

Do you really feel as if a 135 or a 120 would have been overly restrictive? The truth is, you might have had it better than bigger jumpers who might have been able to go 0.1 higher in WL, but would have still been on a 150 or larger. You might have ended up with a more responsive canopy by going with the smaller wing, even at a slightly lower WL.

Beyond that, .09 WL isn't rediculously low, and certainly isn't something that any manufacturer would consider 'unsafe' or 'under-loaded' for any of their canopies (HP models aside).


becka  (D 30967)

Mar 19, 2012, 8:04 PM
Post #119 of 166 (862 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
I was not jumping in crazy winds, but still had a few elevator rides and a bunch of extra turbulence that no one else felt. And that was on my high performance Sabre1 150 at .9 wingloading (for about 250 jumps).

Just to be fair, as per B Germains WL chart, by 250 jumps you could have been on a 135 (at 1.0) or even a 120 (at 1.1).

Yes, but according to this proposal, I couldn't have even been on the 150 until I had 100 jumps and done things including front riser maneuvers that would have been difficult or maybe impossible for me.

And according to the SIM, I shouldn't have been on that canopy until 500 jumps.

In reply to:
Beyond that, you have to understand that you are far off the 'norm' in skydiving. When making rules/regulations/laws, you make them to apply to the largest segment of the population, that being the 'average', the middle of the bell curve. Even if people on the ends of that curve aren't perfectly served, you need to govern for the good of the many, not the few.

While I am small, there are many skydivers that are smaller (to the tune of 10 - 30 lbs) than me and I think this warrants the extra column or two to the left and some consideration on the skill set required to downsize.

And it's not like it's that hard to do that. There is no damage to the larger jumpers to put the appropriate restrictions on smaller jumpers. To say the smaller jumpers are out of luck because there are more bigger jumpers is just silly.

In reply to:
Do you really feel as if a 135 or a 120 would have been overly restrictive? The truth is, you might have had it better than bigger jumpers who might have been able to go 0.1 higher in WL, but would have still been on a 150 or larger. You might have ended up with a more responsive canopy by going with the smaller wing, even at a slightly lower WL.

Beyond that, .09 WL isn't rediculously low, and certainly isn't something that any manufacturer would consider 'unsafe' or 'under-loaded' for any of their canopies (HP models aside).

You are right that a 150 usually wasn't that bad for me at .9, though the switch to the 135 and later the 119 was definitely appreciated. I do not believe at my size those two sizes are that restrictive...it's a matter of getting there and that is what concerns me about this proposal.

I would not go as far as to say that it was that more responsive than what a larger jumper would be on at a higher wingloading, it wasn't that responsive unless we are talking about detecting turbulence. I'm not complaining about a difference .1 in wingloading vs a larger jumper though. It's the much more dramatic differences in allowable wingloading (and lack of taking that into account on the skills required to download).


robinheid  (D 5533)

Mar 20, 2012, 6:42 AM
Post #120 of 166 (813 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ozzy13] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
I agree with some of what you are saying. It is why I keep saying how is these charts going to help these guys from turning themselves into the ground. Everyone of them had 2000+ jumps.
.

WELL, in post #2 of this thread I asked:

"Do you have any data on how many accidents (fatalities, since that's what we know about) occurred in each of these experience levels in the past, say, 3 years, and what % or those involved jumpers violating the proposed limits? "

No answer received.

Before imposing any rules on the community, the proposers need to make a very clear analysis of the scope of the problem and the likely impact of the proposed "solution". That has not been done.


Imposing rules without research is SOP these days, Perfesser. Please don't further confuse these peeps by asking them to apply something as quaintly archaic as scientific method to their musings.

44
Cool

LOL confuse such folks lol ok high and mighty. This website is a joke. One more week and you wont see me until i get bored next winter. So flame on!!! I took your comment as a insult. I am the only one that has shown any kind of stat in all of these proposal WL threads. Again 45% on fatalities were from people with 2000 plus jumps killing themselves. So all these charts would not helped any of them There are three or four of them on this site right now. Your so smart show me different.

No insult intended. especially since you say you do NOT support the charting process being discussed. My point is simply that there's a lot of blah-blah without any kind of research. Yours is limited only to fatalities, and in fact, I totally agree with you: This whole discussion is pretty silly because the majority of the action taking place these days happens to people who are far beyond the reach of the proposed restrictions.

That is why I keep beating the basic aerodynamics horse and the private-pilot-level ground school horse: If you don't get them dialed into the fundamentals of flight -- ANY kind of flight -- early on, then no amount of bandaids in the form of the proposed charts and restictions is going to change anything. So if I understand your last post correctly, we be on the same page, so chill, my brothuh from anothuh mothuh.

44
Cool


ozzy13  (D 29344)

Mar 20, 2012, 2:08 PM
Post #121 of 166 (768 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robinheid] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
I agree with some of what you are saying. It is why I keep saying how is these charts going to help these guys from turning themselves into the ground. Everyone of them had 2000+ jumps.
.

WELL, in post #2 of this thread I asked:

"Do you have any data on how many accidents (fatalities, since that's what we know about) occurred in each of these experience levels in the past, say, 3 years, and what % or those involved jumpers violating the proposed limits? "

No answer received.

Before imposing any rules on the community, the proposers need to make a very clear analysis of the scope of the problem and the likely impact of the proposed "solution". That has not been done.


Imposing rules without research is SOP these days, Perfesser. Please don't further confuse these peeps by asking them to apply something as quaintly archaic as scientific method to their musings.

44
Cool

LOL confuse such folks lol ok high and mighty. This website is a joke. One more week and you wont see me until i get bored next winter. So flame on!!! I took your comment as a insult. I am the only one that has shown any kind of stat in all of these proposal WL threads. Again 45% on fatalities were from people with 2000 plus jumps killing themselves. So all these charts would not helped any of them There are three or four of them on this site right now. Your so smart show me different.

No insult intended. especially since you say you do NOT support the charting process being discussed. My point is simply that there's a lot of blah-blah without any kind of research. Yours is limited only to fatalities, and in fact, I totally agree with you: This whole discussion is pretty silly because the majority of the action taking place these days happens to people who are far beyond the reach of the proposed restrictions.

That is why I keep beating the basic aerodynamics horse and the private-pilot-level ground school horse: If you don't get them dialed into the fundamentals of flight -- ANY kind of flight -- early on, then no amount of bandaids in the form of the proposed charts and restictions is going to change anything. So if I understand your last post correctly, we be on the same page, so chill, my brothuh from anothuh mothuh.

44
Cool

Trust me I find this website entertaining more so then anything else. Don't get me wrong there is some good info here but most people posting have their own agenda behind their posts. This whole typic is being discussed in three threads. Anyway I'm chill just took your comment like it was directed at me. I'm far from that. Piece.


(This post was edited by ozzy13 on Mar 20, 2012, 2:09 PM)


mjosparky  (D 5476)

Mar 20, 2012, 6:16 PM
Post #122 of 166 (733 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ozzy13] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
but most people posting have their own agenda behind their posts.

And that would include you. What is your agenda?

Sparky


ozzy13  (D 29344)

Mar 21, 2012, 1:07 PM
Post #123 of 166 (697 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mjosparky] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
but most people posting have their own agenda behind their posts.

And that would include you. What is your agenda?

Sparky

Glad you asked. I don't want added regulation placed on my sport cause someone thinks they no best. Show where any of these propose chart would of helped or changed any of the canopy incidents. Just to assume that it will help change what's going on is stupid. Give me data showing it. If that can be done I would support it. Until then I'm againest any more regulations. Now you know Wink


jayrech

Mar 21, 2012, 8:17 PM
Post #124 of 166 (659 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

Just curious and it may have been brought up earlier on in this conversation, but what are you going to do about higher altitude dz's. Is all this proposed for a dz at sea level?


ctrph8  (D License)

Mar 22, 2012, 12:13 AM
Post #125 of 166 (644 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
If someone is willing to put the time and energy into really learning to fly their canopy, we should reward that with letting them fly a canopy more suited to what they perceive as the best canopy for them.

The question is, what are they basing that perception on? I can base my perception of how different canopies fly on my experience flying them, and seeing the differences. Unless you've flown 'them all', you can't really say which ones are, or aren't, good for you. You could guess, but if you guess wrong, the consequences can be dire.

So even if someone has education, their ability to handle a canopy remains unknown until they try it. So the best method to dealing with this is to ensure that jumpers start at an appropriate level, and move one step at a time while taking an appropriate level of time at each step.

Without the steps, and some sort of requirement for time on each step, you could have jumpers making 5 or 10 jumps on one size before downsizing. In my book, that hardly 'proves' their ability to handle that size, and certainly doesn't allow them sufficient time to truely acclimate to the new canopy.


I think the key here is that they will have done the work first and then have the option to downsize. It might even be more than one size down too. If a guy my size went from a 230 down to a 190 it might (or might not) be a bit of a stretch but not unreasonable. I just think if someone is willing to go through the training and demonstrate a proficiency with the concepts AND execution of it, that should count for something towards being able to choose the canopy that is right for them.

Also, every one of us who tried a smaller/different canopy has had a time in their lives when they had not tried that canopy. The remedy for that is actually getting out there, trying things and learning. I only speak for myself here but I've tried lots of canopies and purchased many fewer.

Jump numbers alone are not the answer. Education and demonstration of that knowledge is the answer. We all know a version of "that guy" who has a ton of jumps and no clue.

I still hold that if someone can show that they have mastered the skill set, they should be rewarded for their work with the freedom to make a wider set of choices for themselves.


First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Skydiving : Safety and Training

 


Search for (options)