Forums: Skydiving: Safety and Training:
a must read

 

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All

The111  (D 29246)

Apr 12, 2005, 7:05 AM
Post #1 of 48 (2425 views)
Shortcut
a must read Can't Post

Go to the incidents forum. See how many times you count "low turn" in the message topics from the past few weeks.

Be careful out there, people. I've never been one to give much advice, but the words "low turn" are seriously plastered all over the incidents forum right now, and as cliched and overstated as this advice is, I felt everyone (myself included) could use another reminder.


CanuckInUSA  (D 26396)

Apr 12, 2005, 7:14 AM
Post #2 of 48 (2366 views)
Shortcut
Re: [The111] a must read [In reply to] Can't Post

And for every reported incident, you know that there are unreported ones as well.


LawnDart21  (D License)

Apr 12, 2005, 8:24 AM
Post #3 of 48 (2306 views)
Shortcut
Re: [The111] a must read [In reply to] Can't Post

As long as some jumpers in the 200-1000 jump range continue to believe they are bullet proof, we will continue to read the words "Low Turn" in the thread titles in the incidents forum.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Apr 12, 2005, 10:25 AM
Post #4 of 48 (2221 views)
Shortcut
Re: [LawnDart21] a must read [In reply to] Can't Post

> As long as some jumpers in the 200-1000 jump range continue to
>believe they are bullet proof, we will continue to read the words "Low
>Turn" in the thread titles in the incidents forum.

And we will continue to hear impassioned defenses of every newbie's right to jump 1.6:1 loadings at 100 jumps. After all (so the defense usually goes) they understand the risk, and have landed it ten times without serious injury, thus proving their competence.

I know several people who now have thousands of jumps and are excellent swoopers who have come to me and said "why didn't I listen when I had 100 jumps? Why did I have to break my femur before I learned?" If only there was a way to transfer that sort of experience someplace other than an ER.


The111  (D 29246)

Apr 12, 2005, 10:51 AM
Post #5 of 48 (2196 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] a must read [In reply to] Can't Post

In an effort to look at the positive, there are many low-timers who ARE scared straight by incidents/advice. We only hear about the ones who don't listen.

There will always be those we can't change (without regulation), but that does not mean we're not succeeding on some level.

There are also still those who honestly don't know (the ones we read about who are being pushed to aggressive canopies by their instructors!). Shocked Perhaps this is where the biggest need for awareness lies. Those who already know, but won't change, are their own responsibility, but those who don't know are an even bigger tragedy.


kelpdiver  (B 7)

Apr 12, 2005, 11:43 AM
Post #6 of 48 (2173 views)
Shortcut
Re: [LawnDart21] a must read [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
As long as some jumpers in the 200-1000 jump range continue to believe they are bullet proof, we will continue to read the words "Low Turn" in the thread titles in the incidents forum.

Risk doesn't go away at 1001, either, as proven more than a few times in 2004 and 2005. If you think you've grown out of this risk....


LawnDart21  (D License)

Apr 12, 2005, 12:12 PM
Post #7 of 48 (2161 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kelpdiver] a must read [In reply to] Can't Post

"If you think you've grown out of this risk...."

Where in my post did I say ANTHING about risk? I was talking about the "I'm bullet proof" mentality that is periodically exhibited by "some" skydivers. By no coincidence, that mentality usually shows up around 200 jumps and can stay as long as 1000 jumps. (Hence my statement about 200-1000 jumps). Is 1000 jumps an arbitrary number? Of course it is, would you prefer I use 197-986 jumps?

And yes, the "I'm bullet proof" mentality does seem to dissipate after 1000 jumps because they either 1) matured and witnessed other peoples injuries, 2) injured themselves, or 3) hooked themselves out of sport in one way or another. So those "bullet proof" individuals that are still in the sport after 1000 jumps, tend to have out grown that mentality.

If you READ my post, you wouldn't have been so quick to judge me.

Go make a 1000 skydives and then come back to this thread and see if you agree with me or not.


LawnDart21  (D License)

Apr 12, 2005, 12:16 PM
Post #8 of 48 (2156 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] a must read [In reply to] Can't Post

Amen Bill,

"and have landed it ten times without serious injury, thus proving their competence."

Its then the 11th landing when they cut off 30ft off the ground and have to make an evasive manuever that causes the headaches............but they know best.


kelpdiver  (B 7)

Apr 12, 2005, 2:33 PM
Post #9 of 48 (2102 views)
Shortcut
Re: [LawnDart21] a must read [In reply to] Can't Post

sorry, I didn't judge you in particular. But quite a few in your shoes have been posting similar lines of thinking that this is a problem of the next generation. And that's pretty dangerous thinking to me. One can get complacent in their real experience, just as those hotshots can get complacent in their perceived experience.

The jump numbers I've have for LOWT fatalities from early 05 to 03:

1000, 4000, 624, 1116, 1000, 15, 94, 800, 1000, 44, 1334. Though the median experience for a canopy related fatality over the past 10 years is right about 500, for LOWT in the very recent past it's 1000.


tdog  (D 28800)

Apr 12, 2005, 2:43 PM
Post #10 of 48 (2094 views)
Shortcut
Re: [The111] a must read [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Go to the incidents forum. See how many times you count "low turn" in the message topics from the past few weeks.

Be careful out there, people. I've never been one to give much advice, but the words "low turn" are seriously plastered all over the incidents forum right now, and as cliched and overstated as this advice is, I felt everyone (myself included) could use another reminder.

I was actually thinking there should be a sub-thread of incidents called "Landing Incidents."


mjosparky  (D 5476)

Apr 12, 2005, 5:15 PM
Post #11 of 48 (2043 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kelpdiver] a must read [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
sorry, I didn't judge you in particular. But quite a few in your shoes have been posting similar lines of thinking that this is a problem of the next generation. And that's pretty dangerous thinking to me. One can get complacent in their real experience, just as those hotshots can get complacent in their perceived experience.

The jump numbers I've have for LOWT fatalities from early 05 to 03:

1000, 4000, 624, 1116, 1000, 15, 94, 800, 1000, 44, 1334. Though the median experience for a canopy related fatality over the past 10 years is right about 500, for LOWT in the very recent past it's 1000.

You just don't get the point that he is trying to make. He didn't say anything about complacency, the next generation or perceived experience. He was talking about the people with "I am bullet proof" mentality.

You should read what the man posted and not apply your agenda to it for the sake of arguing. Try accepting it just as it is written.

Sparky


kelpdiver  (B 7)

Apr 12, 2005, 5:26 PM
Post #12 of 48 (2037 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mjosparky] a must read [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
You just don't get the point that he is trying to make.

And you both missed mine. Remove the 200-1000jump bullet proof wonders from the sport and you're still going to see posting in incidents marked Low Turn.

The original poster said it best.
"I felt everyone (myself included) could use another reminder."

I hate to see that message get hidden, so I'm saying no more here. PM me if desired.


adamsr  (C 102479)

Apr 12, 2005, 5:38 PM
Post #13 of 48 (2030 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mjosparky] a must read [In reply to] Can't Post

I have to back up kelpdiver on this one,

I dont see his post as being a personal attack on anyone and think it was taken out of context, he was just extending the 'be careful' advice.

Yes, having more jumps and more experience will generally allow you to do more things like successfully pull off safe controlled high performance landings, but that's no reason to become complacent

If every skydiver throughout the world took a step back, evaluated their performance and aimed to be safer and more conservative under canopy low turn fatalities would reduce across the board irrespective of jump numbers.

The problem applies to all skydivers, and death wont be impressed by how many jumps you have!!


mjosparky  (D 5476)

Apr 12, 2005, 11:00 PM
Post #14 of 48 (1944 views)
Shortcut
Re: [adamsr] a must read [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
evaluated their performance and aimed to be safer and more conservative under canopy

A good place to start would be not jumping a reserve that is overloaded by 50 pounds.

Quote:
Specifications for the Flight Concepts 7 Cell F-111 Reserve Canopies.

Model Area Weight Est Pack Vol. Max. Suspended Wt.
Mini Cricket 130 4.8 320 145 LBS.
Cricket 145 4.9 360 160 LBS.
Firelite 175 5.7 380 190 LBS.
Maverick 200 6.2 415 220 LBS.
Fury 220 6.6 470 242 LBS.
Sharpchuter 245 7.2 475 254 LBS.


adamsr  (C 102479)

Apr 13, 2005, 4:26 AM
Post #15 of 48 (1897 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mjosparky] a must read [In reply to] Can't Post

how about the main too, PISA set their limit at a maximum wingloading of 1.2:1 for ALL their canopies. Basically this limit is to cover the company against law suits from people who blame the canopy for going in!

I believe I have a fairly conservative reserve setup, as my reserve is bigger than my main, which goes some way to closing the gap in performance caused by the difference in ZP to F111.

I see no real reason why anyone would want a reserve smaller than their main, as the last thing you need after a potentially stressful malfunction and emergency procedure is to have to land a canopy smaller than you have ever landed before, plus the performance defecit of a F111 canopy, and very possibly an off landing due to losing height from the malfunction.

P.S. I do agree my wingloading is creeping up, but it's very easy to put on weight while at university... takeaways and beer aren't the ideal healthy lifestyle! and I plan to do something about it in the coming months!


LawnDart21  (D License)

Apr 13, 2005, 5:38 AM
Post #16 of 48 (1870 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kelpdiver] a must read [In reply to] Can't Post

For every fatality you have collected info on, how many non-fatal low turn incidents have there been? Go back and redue your Low Turn eval, and add in all of the countless low turn incidents where the "I'm Bullet Proof" jumpers were lucky enough to not kill themselves. Your numbers will change.


LawnDart21  (D License)

Apr 13, 2005, 5:44 AM
Post #17 of 48 (1869 views)
Shortcut
Re: [adamsr] a must read [In reply to] Can't Post

Okay, so maybe my issue is here, and I quote:

"he was just extending the 'be careful' advice."

For better or for worse, I guess I just have a problem with someone telling me I should "be careful" that is so new to the sport. I am careful. You dont stay in this sport very long if your not.


(This post was edited by LawnDart21 on Apr 13, 2005, 5:45 AM)


LawnDart21  (D License)

Apr 13, 2005, 5:44 AM
Post #18 of 48 (1869 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mjosparky] a must read [In reply to] Can't Post

Thank you Sparky.


adamsr  (C 102479)

Apr 13, 2005, 6:49 AM
Post #19 of 48 (1847 views)
Shortcut
Re: [LawnDart21] a must read [In reply to] Can't Post

I see your point, but i think we all need to get over the jump number snobbery, good advice is good advice no matter who it comes from.

No one person is any better than another person just because they have more or less jumps. People with more jumps are more experienced, and many experienced jumpers have a lot of good advice to give out, which as a low numbers skydiver myself is extremely useful to listen to and not make the same mistakes myself.

Forums like these are extremely useful in spreading and sharing knowledge, but no one should be put down, attacked, or dismissed without consideration when obviously just trying to look out for the safety of others in this sport, just because they dont have as many jumps as other people!!

And I am sure you are a very careful skydiver, but in a sport as potentially dangerous as ours, it pays to be careful, check everything, check it again, and look out for others. We are all human after all.


LawnDart21  (D License)

Apr 13, 2005, 6:53 AM
Post #20 of 48 (1844 views)
Shortcut
Re: [adamsr] a must read [In reply to] Can't Post

I dont think my posts were snobby at all.

I quote you:
"but no one should be put down, attacked, or dismissed without consideration"

I didnt put anyone down.
I didnt attack anyone.
I dismissed the advice, but I considered it before I dismissed it.

Where is the problem?


(This post was edited by LawnDart21 on Apr 13, 2005, 6:54 AM)


LawnDart21  (D License)

Apr 13, 2005, 7:23 AM
Post #21 of 48 (1836 views)
Shortcut
Re: [LawnDart21] a must read [In reply to] Can't Post

I'm gonna call truce and call it a day in this thread. Lets simply agree to disagree. It was a productive conversation, but its starting to go in circles.


mjosparky  (D 5476)

Apr 13, 2005, 7:05 PM
Post #22 of 48 (1767 views)
Shortcut
Re: [adamsr] a must read [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I believe I have a fairly conservative reserve setup,

If your profile is correct, your reserve is loaded 50 pounds over what the manufacture says is the maximum weight. I don't consider that conservative.

Sparky


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Apr 13, 2005, 7:09 PM
Post #23 of 48 (1763 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mjosparky] a must read [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
If your profile is correct, your reserve is loaded 50 pounds over what the manufacture says is the maximum weight. I don't consider that conservative.

And 16 pounds over the max TSO'd weight.

Derek


adamsr  (C 102479)

Apr 14, 2005, 5:23 AM
Post #24 of 48 (1717 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Hooknswoop] a must read [In reply to] Can't Post

I notice both your profiles do not have you gear info or weights, but i would not be suprised at all if you are overloading your reserves also.

The maximum exit weight for PD canopies is the same for the PD reserve 126 all the way up to 253.
I know this is due to strength tolerances, but indicates to me that wingloading in no way affects the manufacturers tolerances.

Personally i dont see why if the 126 - 253 can only take 254 pounds, why the 281 square foot can take 300 pounds.


nicknitro71  (D 26704)

Apr 14, 2005, 5:42 AM
Post #25 of 48 (1710 views)
Shortcut
Re: [adamsr] a must read [In reply to] Can't Post

First not all reserves are manufactured the same. You could have a 120 that holds up loaded 1.8 and one that blows up. The TSO is a minimum not a maximun.

I bet when Derek was jumping he did not load his reserve over the maximum exit weight limit. On top of that you can't compare yourself with someone with over 3000 skydives, all the ratings, who flies a main over 3.0...


First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Skydiving : Safety and Training

 


Search for (options)