VX 62! Why would we want to see him under that barge. I mean jeez, thats only like 3.0 to 1. My grandmother could swoop that giant thing. Come on, what about those awesome swoops on the 55. No good video of that? No good landings on that? How dissapointing.
Bruno, please compete. Ask Lyle and Jim real nice if they will let you try out for advanced again. I mean, if you can land a 55 better than Luigi lands his 46, you would probably clean up in advanced. Really.
Yeah the video is pretty big, I should have added that it's 36.9MB. Drew, I think I had the second least amount, there was one girl (from VA I think?) who had about 200. I think I came in second at just under 500, although I hit 500 last weekend! It was a real honor to be jumping with all of the others and be a part of that. And then to get the 2-point 77 way on the very next jump, it was definitely a great experience.
Tree - Bruno told me that he doesn't have any video on his 55 yet, he sent me that vid of him on the 62 and told me that it's ok if I upload it.
I have read this whole entire thread, I have admired the swoops of our distinguished and some accomplished fellow canopy devotee's and of course your landing sequence. I respond to you personally in this open forum.
It is my feeling that this thread has been monumental in reflecting the virtues and integrity of the skydivers from our Dz.com community. (I think dz.com stands for, "dropzone community" on-line) inasmuch as we all bring to the table our own set of experiences, insights and values I believe they have been fairly and openly expressed; and without prejudice.
We've spoken extensively about our hearts chosen discipline; canopy flight. Nobody dictates what direction our hearts choose to pursue. We all just do the best we can to pursue our inspiration and aspirations. It is natural and expected to encounter the nay-sayers on our journey. Do we listen or continue blindly in pursuit of or mythic destinies?
To some extent I think it is important to identify those who would intend to undermine or sabatoge our goals and address them accordingly. However, even they who seem to seek to undermine us can bear news of forebodings. They must be heard as well; as unsavory as it may seem to be.
I observe in #3 an insecure saddle posture that seems apparent of preoccupation with the landing component of the flight. That in itself is of little concern if the objective is a conservative stand-up landing. The trailing edges are clearly deflected by the steering line inputs early in the landing sequence; but, to accomplish that apparent objective. The trailing edges alone suggest a stage 2 flare but it is only through the continued sequence of photos that it becomes more distinguished.
In #6 it appears obvious to me you have artfully brought the canopy to the equilibrium pre-stall for a stand-up no excess-speed landing. Cudos! I have no doubt you can perform this manuever as you prefer. Did you intend to land exactly on that spot?
I thank you for sharing your pics Bruno and know that you are supported and not only by me. My wish for you is for you to master this canopy as you have others and continue in your progression mindfully.
still have no picture of my new baby ... a Velocity 79. But that will come later
As I said, here is a video of me landing the Velocity 79 loaded @ 2.2 The video had to be edited on the approach and the end of the landing (I ended up like 100+ ft from where the video ends) due to file size limitations
(This post was edited by ivanrockon on Sep 19, 2003, 8:59 AM)
Steel: If for some reason you think it's your calling in life to jump a 55 @ 4.0+, then by all means do so.
With that said, judging by your pictures (and common sense) it is necessary to use a lot of toggle input to produce the life required to plane that canopy out at that loading. That amount of input, that I can only assume is necessary on every landing, is exactly the amount of input and lift that you won't have to help you out in an emergency, e.g. a low turn. You're already digging out on every landing (whether you think you are or not).... Every HP canopy pilot turns too low every so often.... What are you going to do when you turn too low?
What you are doing is dangerous, because there is very little margin for error (even less than usual). You're getting a lot of critisizm because people are concerned for your well being, myself included.
I've flown canopies at loadings of 3+ on several occasions, and I'm sure that I could land one at 4+ (and so could most any of the pro swoopers out there), but on each of those jumps I could easily perceive that the stakes were higher, and my margin for error was greatly reduced. I choose not to jump wingloadings like that because I don't think it is an intellegent thing to do on a regular basis.
Every HP canopy pilot turns too low every so often.... What are you going to do when you turn too low?
I find it interesting that you admit that every HP canopy pilot turns too low every so often. I think most PST competitors would flat out deny this fact at all costs. I think you would be surprised at how much digging out power a 3.1 wingloading (on a 70) has or even 3.4 on a 62. Above 4 on a 55 has lost almost all its digging out power. Since I am aware of this I have come up with a solution for that. I purposefully start my 270 approach so that it will come out approximately 50-75 feet to high. Then when the canopy is already in a turn I go to double fronts which at that point are easy to hang on and keep a surprisingly steep enough dive to maintain the speed I got from my turn. I hang on those double fronts those double fronts until the ground starts to feel too close for comfort and at that point start easing them up smoothly and start with the toggle inputs just as smoothly (with no stabbing ofcourse). The solution here is simple. If instead of making my turn as intended to pull out 50 feet too high, I pull out 20 feet to high then I will simply spend less time on double fronts. If I pulled out 50 feet lower than planned or just in time then I don't do the double fronts at all. If I hooked lower than that then I deserve to get fucked up and will, just like many many people have flying much, much lighter wingloadings.
>I find it interesting that you admit that every HP canopy pilot turns > too low every so often. I think most PST competitors would flat out > deny this fact at all costs.
Brett, the guy who won the slalom at last year's PST, admits that readily. He was one of the guys who never listened to anyone (including me) when we told him he was jumping canopies he wasn't ready for. Finally he busted himself up, learned, upsized, and got coaching. Now he's winning PST's with a larger canopy than he used to jump.
I think most PST competitors would flat out deny this fact at all costs.
I doubt that very much. I've seen ultra class competitors made straight in approaches or not so fast landings due to long spot or too low for a swooping setup. And their response was "Is better a long walk or a normal landing to the DZ than a short trip to the ER".
Have you ever thought of the possibility of landing somewhere else out of the landing area of your DZ (due to bad or long spot)? Do you really think with that kind of wingloading you'll be able to land unhurt (maybe alive) in somebody backyard or wherever that may be that could have an obstacle?
Don't get me wrong here, I just say this in a constructive manner...I want to clear that up.
PhreeZone (D License)
Sep 19, 2003, 12:47 PM
Post #92 of 137
I have read this entire thread and maybe I missed it. Just want to know what is your motivation for flying such a high wingloading? You mentioned earlier that you have surpassed Luigi's wing loading. Was that your goal? To beat his wing loading? BTW I am friends with and greatly admire Luigi's ability as a canopy pilot. I have asked him why he doesn't fly that 46 all the time. He gave me his reasons why he doesn't what are your reasons for pushing it like that all the time? Also in your last response you talked about setting up high for your 270. Accidents happen. What if you think you set up high and didn't? You already admitted you have nothing left to dig out with. It sounds like you have NO MARGIN for error. Why would you not want that margin for error? What happens if you set up perfectly and catch a down draft at the last second. SLAM! That what's happens! I don;t always agree with peoples opinions around here. You have the right to jump whatever wingloading you want. At the same time we have the right to question what you are doing for a number of reasons. The most important off all is that nobody wants to see and more skydivers DIE for stupid reasons. I think peole are worried about your health. Also if you do hurt yourself you will take part in giving our sport a bad name. Sorry for that but it is true. So I ask again, what is your reason for pushing the envelope so hard with that wingloading? Are you on a mission to jump the highest wingloading ever? What? I wish you the best of luck and I hope you never as much as stub a toe. But IMHO you are asking for trouble. Please don't make us have to read about you in the incidents reports. Last thing. EVERY HP PILOT HAS TURNED TO LOW AT ONE POINT OR ANOTHER! It's silly to say that never happens. No one is perfect and no one is bullet proof. Don't kid yourself! If they didn't we wouldn't see so many spectacular splashes. If the best in the world do it why wouldn't someone else? Thanks God for water.
since this is not an extremely offensive post and for the sake of accuracy I will respond. 95% of my landings involve a 270 before landing. If you are suggesting that somebody who does a 270 followed by a swoop in which at the end of his swoop kicks an 18" ball can not handle his canopy. Then I would ask what your criteria for being ready for a canopy is. BTW the wingloading is over 4 and not anywhere near 3.5
I guess all I was trying to say was that your body language in the harness shows that your not at all relaxed, but the opposite. Your legs appear to be very ridge, and pointing directly at the ground. Your hands (during the flair) are out in front of you, not in a relaxed position at all. This approach reminds me of what I see when I see someone with 100 jumps go from a 230, to a more hp canopy, until they get used to it. I've found one of the keys to skydiving, weather it be flat flying, freeflying, style and acc, swooping, or just about discipline is RELAXATION. I think tree summed it up best when he said "...and your body language says "oh god, please help me survive another one." This is not a personal attack as I have never met you, but I'm just trying to figure out the obvious.
I have surpased his wingloading and judging from the landings I have seen on his 46 I have accomplished a clearner shutdown (meaning I don't have to run like hell and end up with a stalled canopy behind me)
I'm so confused. Maybe it's just semantics but you aren't shutting anything down - you're sinking a tiny canopy in. From what I can tell you have little to no forward motion on your landing, you're practically coming straight down. How could you even run it out - there's nothing to run!
I saw the 'ball' video, too - some forward momentum but nothing close to horizontal. And no horizontal speed to speak of that would necessitate running anything out.
Some have posted that you never mentioned swooping - that speed and distance, etc. aren't your 'thing'. So why compare yourself to Luigi - who is a swooper. He's fast and graceful and can land the shit out of a tiny canopy. How can you say your skill surpasses his when you aren't doing a single thing to compare?
In fact, your original post said something about liking #6 because you slid it in without having to take any additional steps. Where was the sliding? Sliding comes from fast, horizontal movement. You could not have possibly have slid anything in the series of photos you posted.
I think the reason so many are getting agitated over this thread is because there is clearly a misrepresentation happening. That's dangerous for you and for anyone else who doesn't know better who might be reading this thread.
I guess all I was trying to say was that your body language in the harness shows that your not at all relaxed, but the opposite. Your legs appear to be very ridge, and pointing directly at the ground. Your hands (during the flair) are out in front of you, not in a relaxed position at all. --------------------------------------- Interesting you pointing out the legs. There is a reason for that actually a couple of reasons. The first one is that my canopy reacts to harness turns more than you can imagine. Even my 70 would react surprisingly to harness shifts. The same people you would consider to be the top canopy pilots of the world did double in Nov 2001, in Perris when I told them that my entire approach was done with the harness. Some initially reacted in disbelief thinking its not possible to dive your canopy that steep solely by shifting in the harness. But later looking at the video of my approaches they could see clearly that I was only using the harness. When the harness reacts this much and you just shifted to cause you canopy to turn and unshifted to stop the turn then your movements need to be pronounced. Crossing your legs for style points will probably cause an unintentional turn. When its time for touch down I usually slide it in. I used to do the cool slides with one foot in front of the other but after a couple of times getting my trailing foot caught with a high point on the ground and therefore twisting an ankle I found the cool points not to be worth it. I don't know what your talking about the hands. I have triple risers and most of my pictures show that clearly because my hands are typically flaring outwards. Personally I don't care where my hands are as long as I am not reaching for the ground, which obviously I am not. I don't believe anybody with over 1,000 loaded over 2.9 could possibly have made it that far without a broken arm if he was reaching for the ground. Re: [dgskydive] You mentioned earlier that you have surpassed Luigi's wing loading. Was that your goal? To beat his wing loading? -------------------------------------------- You know I do my best not to mention his name because everytime I do even if its just in response to a question, I get the yahoos that are looking for an excuse to launch a personal attack on me. What is the reason for this? Jealousy? God knows and possibly he cares. I on the other hand don't. I just try not to feed the trolls. However I will try to answer your questions. My goals have changed as time goes on for different reasons. When I started jumping people rarely spoke about wingloading. Most of the people on the dropzone with over 500 jumps were flying a saber 135. Some of the bold ones were jumping stilleto 120's. 97's were the smallest they made and only very small guys were jumping them. Back then my goal was a stilleto 120 never going any smaller. After getting there I thought a 96 was more like what I wanted. Never officially got it demoed a lot of other stuff inbetween and finally got a 79. I liked the way it flew and after 350 jumps on it I decided to go to a 70. I thought for a while that was the smallest I would ever go. I had a lot of fun with it. Swooped a lot of ponds with it, ran all the pro circuit courses including the accuracy course with the 5 foot windblades, set up my own courses at my home dz with cones (courses with a built in carve that was noticeably more than the carve on the pro circuit course), did intentional downwind landings with it. But after 450-500 jumps on it, I decided that I wanted to try to go smaller. I gave that a lot of thought with calculator pencil and paper and in the end I finally came up with the 62 figure and went with that. At this point I was already loading as much as Cani but that was that was definately not among my priorities. The main question in my mind was weather or not this was going to be a canopy I could fly comfortably and be able to land out with it or if in no wind I would find myself having to run like hell. Well on a couple of occasions I landed out with it and I had no problem whatsoever. Hell one time I even did a 270 with a 150 foot + surf a mile and a half away from the DZ on a certain instance in which I had to land out. I remember setting up to kick the ball once the wind blew it out of place. I could see from under canopy in motion and still I was able to alter course and kick it. I had a guy trying to capture a picture that day. Anyway since I obviously had this canopy under control downsizing was an option. I originally wanted to go smaller than a 55 I was thinking more like a 52 or a 50 but a lot of freinds (real freinds not pricks trying to feel better about themselves by bashing me) were very much against it and in the end I settled on a 55. I intended for this to be a specialty canopy one that I would only jump if the conditions were just perfect (no turbulence mainly). But as I have continued to jump with it I have gotten more comfortable with it. The question has been posed whether or not I will buy a smaller canopy. The answer is I don't know but probably not. I would definately jump a smaller canopy given the opportunity and the right conditions. But to actually lay out a couple of grand for that right now does not seem like something I wish to do. I think most likely my next canopy is going to be boat like something loaded at 2.4 so that I can do the truly dangerous stuff with it like swoop into hangers or land on top of it, land on picnic tables, kick a ball & lift up over a picnic table in the same surf.
Let me make this short and simple. You may be going out with one of the best swoopers out there but you come across like you really don't know what your talking about. You need to talk to Heath and maybe he can explain why what your saying makes no sense at all. You are describing my landings as if they were that of a round. Suggesting that my canopy comes straight in with no horizontal movement is just ridiculous. Suggesting that I or anybody for that matter can sink my canopy is ridiculous. But I won't blame you there especially if you are learning by reading this forum. Others have made the same silly suggestions. There has been a lot of unfortunate misrepresentation here but this post of yours is doing nothing to change that.
(This post was edited by Steel on Sep 19, 2003, 3:46 PM)