Forums: Skydiving Disciplines: Swooping and Canopy Control:
B. Germains WL chart

 

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

davelepka  (D 21448)

Dec 10, 2004, 10:30 AM
Post #1 of 120 (6019 views)
Shortcut
B. Germains WL chart Can't Post

 
So there is a WL never exceed chart in Brian Germains book, and many folks seem to have a problem accepting the info. It's no coincidence, however, that most of the protesters are those who are currently exceeding Brian's reccomendations.

Some of the arguments are, "Bif was at 26 to 1 with 14 jumps, and he did fine" or, "Those numbers are so conservative, it's for the 'average' canopy pilot, and I have a freind with 500 jumps who says I'll be fine".

The central theme to the argument is that there are too many factors involved for that chart to really apply to everyone ( although actual factors such as field elevation and really light people lightly-loading small canopies are considered).

Let's consider the fact that Brian is the ONLY guy who though about this enough, in enough detail to write a failry lengthy book about it. Consdier his education, as well as the fact the he designs and builds canopies, along with his recognized excellence in running canopy control courses, and this shoud be enough to take his word that his numbers are good.

BUT NO, every jackass off his chart has a reason why his numbers don't add up (or apply to them). Here's the thing, his numbers don't have to add up. His backround, experience, and reputaion do add up, and they add up to much more than the sum of the individual parts.

Anywho. here's my point: If we compare the number of incidents where a jumper deployed thier main too low to complete a reserve deployment, with the number of incidents where a fully functioning canopy was mis-handled in some way, we'll find that the main canopy incidents, far outweigh the low pull incidents.

Why, then, are these same people not protesting the 2000ft min. pack opening altitude? 2k ft is just another number somebody came up with (much like Brian's numbers) but nobody is protesting that figure. The stats support that you can dump at 1k all day long and be just fine.

I, for example, have no cutaways, and maybe a dozen or so less than ideal deployments in the last 2000 jumps. I could have been dumping a 1k all along, and been just fine; landing off alot, but fine.

2k is not just another number, it's the result of some careful consideration by some informed people. The low inciedence of jumpers running out of altitude to fix a problem supports that. Likewise,
Brian's numbers are valid, and the fact that there are protesters, and many more who aren't even aware of the chart, but are exceeding it's values, combined with the (relative to total number of incidents) high occurences of open canopy incidents supports that.


WAKE UP PEOPLE. SMART POEPLE ARE TRYING TO HELP YOU. SHUT UP AND LISTEN.

Happy holidays.

Edit: Once again, if you agree, indicate so by NOT posting. I don't want to hear it, or have it in my inbox. Those who disagree, have at it.


(This post was edited by davelepka on Dec 10, 2004, 10:31 AM)


jumperconway  (D 24335)

Dec 10, 2004, 11:12 AM
Post #2 of 120 (5939 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] B. Germains WL chart [In reply to] Can't Post

And the chart is?


davelepka  (D 21448)

Dec 10, 2004, 11:37 AM
Post #3 of 120 (5923 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jumperconway] B. Germains WL chart [In reply to] Can't Post

 
Good point.

Wingloading / Number of Jumps
1.0 / <100
1.1 / 100-199
1.2 / 200-299
1.3 / 300-399
1.4 / 400-499
1.5 / 500-599
1.6 / 600-699
1.7 / 700-799
1.8 / 800-899
1.9 / 900-999
2.0 / 1000+

Substract at least one point for every 2000feet of elevation or density altitude above mean see level
If you fly in a location that often experiences conditions of low air pressure due to high temperature and humidity, you should reduce the WNE by at least one point.
Substract two points for canopies under 150 square feet


jumperconway  (D 24335)

Dec 10, 2004, 11:48 AM
Post #4 of 120 (5915 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] B. Germains WL chart [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Good point.

Wingloading / Number of Jumps
1.0 / <100
1.1 / 100-199
1.2 / 200-299
1.3 / 300-399
1.4 / 400-499
1.5 / 500-599
1.6 / 600-699
1.7 / 700-799
1.8 / 800-899
1.9 / 900-999
2.0 / 1000+

Substract at least one point for every 2000feet of elevation or density altitude above mean see level
If you fly in a location that often experiences conditions of low air pressure due to high temperature and humidity, you should reduce the WNE by at least one point.
Substract two points for canopies under 150 square feet

So according to this 1.8+@300 jumps on a 99 Xfire at sea level less than a year in the sport would be deemed as bad? With extreme heat and humidity?
Sorry my bad!
Wink


chopchop  (D 25001)

Dec 10, 2004, 12:09 PM
Post #5 of 120 (5899 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] B. Germains WL chart [In reply to] Can't Post

I think the chart is good. I have been at or around his never to exceed numbers my whole skydiving career.. over by a point or two at times and below at times.. It is a good guideline and I believe anyone exceeding it dramatically is asking for trouble.

There is soo much to learn in canopy control that I don't believe anyone can really max out a canopy's potential much quicker than the guideline suggests so if that is true, what is the point of downsizing faster?


jerry81

Dec 10, 2004, 12:25 PM
Post #6 of 120 (5885 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] B. Germains WL chart [In reply to] Can't Post

OK, for the sake of argument; are, in your opinion, the people who survive exceeding those recommendations more talented than most or just extremely lucky?

In general, I think strict enforcement of those rules would result in
a)a percentage of people, who'd be ok at a certain (higher) wl getting there a couple hundred jumps later (not a big deal, imo)
b)a percentage of people who really shouldn't fly at higher wingloadings hurting themselves a few hundred jumps later.
c)a percentage of people who would otherwise get hurt on smaller canopies acquiring the neccessary skills on larger ones and surviving the downsizing.
So are the numbers worth enforcing because of c? (I don't really disagree and expressing agreement is, as I understand, not necessaryWink)

(To save everyone the trouble, my wl has been 1.6 for the last 200+ jumps, but I won't outright claim I'm an exception to the rule...yet. Make what you want of that.)




Hooknswoop  (D License)

Dec 10, 2004, 1:29 PM
Post #7 of 120 (5850 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jumperconway] B. Germains WL chart [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
So according to this 1.8+@300 jumps on a 99 Xfire at sea level less than a year in the sport would be deemed as bad? With extreme heat and humidity?

It might explain some of your landings.

Derek


jumperconway  (D 24335)

Dec 10, 2004, 1:35 PM
Post #8 of 120 (5844 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Hooknswoop] B. Germains WL chart [In reply to] Can't Post

ShockedThe landings on the crossfire were never a problem for the next 500 jumps, now that damned 129 omega was a different storyLaugh


DrewEckhardt  (D 28461)

Dec 10, 2004, 1:50 PM
Post #9 of 120 (5831 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jerry81] B. Germains WL chart [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
OK, for the sake of argument; are, in your opinion, the people who survive exceeding those recommendations more talented than most or just extremely lucky?

Mostly lucky. Flying at 9/10ths your ability isn't an issue when things are going well. The problem is when things go wrong and either the sensory input is too much or you need another 2/10ths to get yourself out. When you're lucky enough to avoid problems you get away with it. In hindsight this had a lot to do with my injury-free start to the sport.

The exceptions I'd make for this are

- Dropping the -.2 adjustment for canopies under 150 square feet past some experience level. A light person going from a Manta to a small canopy is likely to have problems with control sensitivity. At the other end of the spectrum, you have the muscle memory from hundreds or thousands of jumps and aren't going to over control. This is also design dependant - a small square is a lot less sensitive than a less agressive non-square design, the less-agressive design less sensitive than a more agressive one. I'd be curious what Brian has to say about this.

- Maybe people who have a lot more currency than the typical fun jumper with a few hundred a year.

I've had a 1.6-1.7 wing loading at 5000 feet MSL for the last ~800 jumps that haven't been on my birdman or BASE rigs. Although I've landed canopies at higher wing loadings up here and had no problems with stall speed this is pretty much the limit of what I want when things aren't ideal (out landings, idiots swooping in from above on final approach, down-wind landings, etc.)


(This post was edited by DrewEckhardt on Dec 10, 2004, 1:59 PM)


DrewEckhardt  (D 28461)

Dec 10, 2004, 1:57 PM
Post #10 of 120 (5826 views)
Shortcut
Re: [chopchop] B. Germains WL chart [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
There is soo much to learn in canopy control that I don't believe anyone can really max out a canopy's potential much quicker than the guideline suggests so if that is true, what is the point of downsizing faster?

Assuming you only go down one canopy at a size, the jump numbers to get where the canopy is the limit are probably 3-5X what you're allowed to do according to the chart.

The point of down-sizing is that smaller canopies are a lot more fun until you need to be too close to perfect on every landing and it starts to become work.


Premier SkymonkeyONE  (D 12501)

Dec 10, 2004, 2:05 PM
Post #11 of 120 (5818 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] B. Germains WL chart [In reply to] Can't Post

That chart was around long before Brian put it in his book, believe me. I would have to think long and hard to remember the original source, but I can promise you I have had it hanging up at Raeford since 1998.

At any rate, I totally agree with that chart.

Chuck


chopchop  (D 25001)

Dec 10, 2004, 2:18 PM
Post #12 of 120 (5808 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DrewEckhardt] B. Germains WL chart [In reply to] Can't Post

Of course, changing by one canopy every hundred jumps would be silly.. if that's what you were saying. But if you fly something at 1.1:1 for your first couple hundred jumps and then something at 1.3 for a few hundred.. and then progress to a 1.5 or 1.6 for another 400 or so, I think people can learn their canopies, stay right around Brian's recommendations, and be ready to deal with higher wingloadings... if they so desire.

And, yes, it is fun to fly faster canopies, but as you well know, most people downsize before they find out how fast their canopy can go.


Premier PhreeZone  (D License)
Moderator
Dec 10, 2004, 2:19 PM
Post #13 of 120 (5805 views)
Shortcut
Re: [SkymonkeyONE] B. Germains WL chart [In reply to] Can't Post

Yep, it was in the Big Air Sportz Parachute Manual too I think. I know its been talked about many many times before Brian published his book.

I have way more luck then skill. Thats why there are no more loading increases in my future. I'm at 1.5 at 850 jumps.


SkydiveNFlorida  (C License)

Dec 10, 2004, 2:59 PM
Post #14 of 120 (5787 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DrewEckhardt] B. Germains WL chart [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Mostly lucky. Flying at 9/10ths your ability isn't an issue when things are going well. The problem is when things go wrong and either the sensory input is too much or you need another 2/10ths to get yourself out.

That math doesn't workWinkTongue 9/10 + 2/10 = 11/10.

-A


hookitt  (D License)

Dec 10, 2004, 3:15 PM
Post #15 of 120 (5776 views)
Shortcut
Re: [SkydiveNFlorida] B. Germains WL chart [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
Mostly lucky. Flying at 9/10ths your ability isn't an issue when things are going well. The problem is when things go wrong and either the sensory input is too much or you need another 2/10ths to get yourself out.

That math doesn't workWinkTongue 9/10 + 2/10 = 11/10.
-A

Actually it does work... you need 2/10ths to get yourself out but only have 1/10th remaining


SkydiveNFlorida  (C License)

Dec 10, 2004, 3:23 PM
Post #16 of 120 (5763 views)
Shortcut
Re: [hookitt] B. Germains WL chart [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Quote:
Mostly lucky. Flying at 9/10ths your ability isn't an issue when things are going well. The problem is when things go wrong and either the sensory input is too much or you need another 2/10ths to get yourself out.

That math doesn't workWinkTongue 9/10 + 2/10 = 11/10.
-A

Actually it does work... you need 2/10ths to get yourself out but only have 1/10th remaining

Oooh... I didn't get itCrazy (I'm a little slow sometimesTongue)

-A


justdumi  (C 104884)

Dec 10, 2004, 6:12 PM
Post #17 of 120 (5722 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] B. Germains WL chart [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Wingloading / Number of Jumps
1.0 / <100
1.1 / 100-199
1.2 / 200-299
1.3 / 300-399
1.4 / 400-499
1.5 / 500-599
1.6 / 600-699
1.7 / 700-799
1.8 / 800-899
1.9 / 900-999
2.0 / 1000+

Substract at least one point for every 2000feet of elevation or density altitude above mean see level
In reply to:

Ok what i have seen here (so far) is higher jump numbers talking. Now enter the lessor numbers. The reason why lesser numbers havent commented so far is probably due to the fact that the majority have exceeded these recommendations and are just like me sitting here shaking their heads (in dispair not disagreement).

In my case my profile:

Jumps 200+
Main 150
No of jumps on it 150+
Altitude 5000f AGL (b4 coming to UK)
Wing loading 1.5

According to the list when i go back to my home dz i should be on like a 250sf canopy.Shocked

So what happens now? I speak the truth that had these limits been known when i started they would be more stomachable (if such a word exhists) but i didnt. I would also be lying if i said im keen to be going to upsize tmrw and start using student gear again.

I started using the canopy because i "thought" i could handle it. I thought i was ok. As time has gone and i have become wiser (not from my flying or what ive seen) i believed my wing loading to be on the aggressive side. Now i see this and it makes me look insane even though my actual flying hasnt changed and i still feel its ok.

So what are you saying then now that we have seen these recommendations? The people above 1000 jumps and doing the most talking so far are generally complying with these recommendations because time has allowed them to stop downsizing and the recommendations to catch up...or maybe you actually went along with the programme. I dont know.

The problems i recon in that case are lying in the jumpers with less than 500 jumps. I bet many dont comply...but look at the implications. What now? Scrap the main and upsize (obviously this causes alarm and dispondency and most could be disgruntled to do so) or just be more terrified from now onwards?


SkydiveNFlorida  (C License)

Dec 10, 2004, 6:16 PM
Post #18 of 120 (5719 views)
Shortcut
Re: [justdumi] B. Germains WL chart [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
The reason why lesser numbers havent commented so far is probably due to the fact that the majority have exceeded these recommendations and are just like me sitting here shaking their heads (in dispair not disagreement).

I think the reason those with lower #s that exceed the max are not posting is because they don't feel like starting a flame fest, which is exactly what this becomes when anyone with <1000 jumps has an opinion on w/l (unless of course that opinion agrees with the chart.)

-A


jumperconway  (D 24335)

Dec 10, 2004, 7:50 PM
Post #19 of 120 (5703 views)
Shortcut
Re: [SkydiveNFlorida] B. Germains WL chart [In reply to] Can't Post

You didn't read mineWink


mattjw916  (D License)

Dec 11, 2004, 1:33 AM
Post #20 of 120 (5677 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] B. Germains WL chart [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
...every jackass off his chart

um yeah...

I'd take the time to respond but I have to go figure out how to fit a 260sq ft canopy in my M5 sized Mirage container because the density altitude of the dropzone I am jumping at tomorrow is kinda high. Crazy

FWIW, I have Brian's book, I bought it shortly after I received my A license and since then have spent a very large percentage of my jumps working solely on "the most important part" of the skydive. I take canopy control very seriously and if any one of the numerous PST caliber jumpers I know even once said, "dude, you are out of control." Believe me, I would listen! But that is simply not the case... The chart is a great guideline IMO but hauling off and calling people who HAVE spent the time, money and sought out the proper training "jackasses" is way off-base.

From one jackass to another... happy holidays...


Premier PhreeZone  (D License)
Moderator
Dec 11, 2004, 4:33 AM
Post #21 of 120 (5657 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mattjw916] B. Germains WL chart [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I know even once said, "dude, you are out of control." Believe me, I would listen!
Have you actually made the effort to go talk to one of them about your canopy choice and skills? Have they been sitting there in the landing area looking at how you fly the complete pattern from opening to landing? Lots of people think things but never make the effort to actually address it with the person. I was thought of an an extremely stupid jumper for my first 300 jumps but I did'nt know that till about jump 275 when someone mentioned it in passing. Once I heard it I sat down with one of the more experienced swoopers and had him watch a landing. Sure enough things I thought I was doing right I was doing wrong but no one ever told me.


Bartje  (E License)

Dec 11, 2004, 5:08 AM
Post #22 of 120 (5656 views)
Shortcut
Re: [chopchop] B. Germains WL chart [In reply to] Can't Post

It is not easy to make a chart.
Once I heard that you have to keep it as simple as possible.
This is not an easy subject to make a chart.
-How many jumps you're doing in witch period?
-Whats the dz altitude?
-Whats the difference in between performance with a 2,0 wing load for somebody whose weight is 50kg and 100kg?
-How do you put individual skills into a chart?

There have to be chart as a guide but please, I do want them as simple as possible.

In France and the Netherlands they have quit strictly chart, so strict that the instructors do not have to worry any more for the funjumpers but where is the fun?
Charts are good as a guideline but I do think that as instructor you have to look as well to the person skills.

Quote:
There is soo much to learn in canopy control that I don't believe anyone can really max out a canopy's potential much quicker than the guideline suggests so if that is true, what is the point of downsizing faster?

Why getting your canopy to the performance limit, are you not bringing yourself to the danger zone? This is maybe clich but are you getting the max performance out your car? I do not think so, why pushing your canopy to the limits as you can fly an other canopy with the performance you want without bringing it to the (safety)limits. The excuse that I hear most is: what are you going to do when you have a problem under your canopy? Well, it is still the canopy pilot who makes the decision and not the canopy. If you have 100 jumps or 10000jumps, it stays the same.
The proper attitude is the most important thing and you can not put it in a chart.


davelepka  (D 21448)

Dec 11, 2004, 8:44 AM
Post #23 of 120 (5628 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jerry81] B. Germains WL chart [In reply to] Can't Post

 
Talent doesn't exist. Flying a canopy is just moving your arms up and down. The trick is getting your brain to make the right choices.

Why try to get people follow the progression? It's like my example, you COULD pull at 1k for years, and not have a problem. If you did have a problem, an extra 1000 ft would really help out. With the possibiblity of a problem out there, the BSR's tell you to get your PC out at 2k, every time.

You COULD jump whatever you think is cool, or will fit in your cool looking rig without a problem. If there is a problem, what then? The answer is to pack the proverbial extra 1000 ft in your container (as in a larger canopy).

I can't say that followig the chart will ensure ones safety, but I can say that you're better off following it. With that in mind, why the hell would anyone give away an extra dose of safety?


davelepka  (D 21448)

Dec 11, 2004, 8:54 AM
Post #24 of 120 (5622 views)
Shortcut
Re: [justdumi] B. Germains WL chart [In reply to] Can't Post

 
If you haven't hurt yourself yet, great. What do think the future holds? You admit you feel your Wl is aggresive, why not do something about it?

Upsizing is done all the time. Lots of guys upsize AFTER an injury, so tey can ease back into things. Is this really the time to upsize? How about before the injury, and preventing the injury all together?


davelepka  (D 21448)

Dec 11, 2004, 9:08 AM
Post #25 of 120 (5619 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mattjw916] B. Germains WL chart [In reply to] Can't Post

  
Well, in my defence, you are off the chart, and you do have a reason why it doesn't apply to you.

Do you think that the jumpers invlovled in open canopy incendents ever thought it COULD happen to them? Did they believe thay were on a one-way street to the ER? Or did they think that they could handle it, and that everyone who didn't was being overly cautious?

ONE MORE TIME, FOR THOSE IN THE BACK, you could dump at 1k for years without a problem. If there was a problem, however, that extra 1000ft you'd have if you followed the BSR's would really be handy. Which is why the BSR's say get it out at 2k, and this applies to EVERYONE. Me, you, and Omar (who apparently has 14,500+ jumps, wow).

You could jump whatever you want, however you want for a long time, without a problem. BUT, there is a problem, too many people are getting hurt or killed with open canopies. What is the solution? Regulate only those jumpers who aren't going to get hurt? OK, produce an accurate list, and if you're not on it, have fun.

Thats not possible. Lets get everyone to slow it down, take it one step at a time, and all be safe. If you are the exception, too bad. Take one for the team, and follow the guidelines. If EVERYONE follows the guidelines, things will be better.

Stop thinking that you're an exception. Go with what smart people are roccomending. And soon enough you will have your 1000 jumps, and nobody will question what you do.


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

Forums : Skydiving Disciplines : Swooping and Canopy Control

 


Search for (options)