1.) i meant "entanglement" of main/reserve, main/jumper or reserve/jumper, not entanglement in terms of canopy-collision. check the fatality-list on here, the number is surprisingly high!
2.) well, in that case it was for a hit and rock and i was assigned to pull at 6k, so that's like almost 3x of your "normal" pull-altitude.
as for A and B, as i said, if you dont loose altitude awareness pulling higher means more time to work stuff. especially with modern canopies as they seem to snivel forever. your BSR's were probably written in a time where you all jumped rounds that open within 100ft or so. a modern canopy takes ten times as long.
Any canopy that can be docked on by a wingsuit is by definition lethal.
In reply to:
This one is total crap. The proof is that those that have docked with a WS are not dead.
In fairness, he said "can be docked" not "have docked"?
Quote:
Any canopy that can exceed the parameters of an AAD is by definition lethal.
In reply to:
A more logical thought is that the AAD's had an issue in that they were being used in a manor not considered during the design... Again, an AAD issue, not a canopy issue.
Even more logical is those instances where the pilot out-flew the AAD's parameters on landing.
Quote:
Any canopy that can cause a cutaway from a brake fire is by definition lethal.
In reply to:
More crap. I have seen Ravens cutaway due to a brake fire. And it is not lethal unless the pilot performs incorrectly.
You shot yourself in the foot. You know as well as I do that he is talking about HP canopies spinning you on your back from a premature brake release.
Dec 6, 2011, 1:18 PM
Post #207 of 456
(901 views)
Shortcut
Re: [virgin-burner] HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
1.) i meant "entanglement" of .... main/jumper or reserve/jumper, not entanglement in terms of canopy-collision. check the fatality-list on here, the number is surprisingly high!
Oh...you meant Horseshoe. You guys call that situation an entanglement? What to you CReW guys call an entanglement then? What do you call the collision instance? Just curious.
In reply to:
... if you dont loose altitude awareness pulling higher means more time to work stuff.
Your dependence on "time" just may bite you in the ass on of these days....it's happened to waaaaaay too many people
In reply to:
especially with modern canopies as they seem to snivel forever. your BSR's were probably written in a time where you all jumped rounds that open within 100ft or so. a modern canopy takes ten times as long.
Dec 6, 2011, 1:20 PM
Post #208 of 456
(899 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Quote:
In fairness, he said "can be docked" not "have docked"?
Well if it HAS, then it CAN BE.
Quote:
Even more logical is those instances where the pilot out-flew the AAD's parameters on landing.
Maybe, but the same landing techniques were used under 120 Sabres without issue. The point being that even if I grant you your point, it is STILL not the canopies fault.
Quote:
You shot yourself in the foot. You know as well as I do that he is talking about HP canopies spinning you on your back from a premature brake release.
No I didn't. He said that "Any canopy that can cause a cutaway from a brake fire is by definition lethal." And I have seen a Raven "cause a cutaway".
I have had brake fires on 107 Stiletto's, 96 Velo's, and 88 FX's.... None required a cutaway, most brake fires don't.
He was trying to blame canopies for the faults of the PILOTS.... It is clear he had an agenda and frankly I found most of it to be crap without any basis in reality.
Dec 6, 2011, 1:27 PM
Post #209 of 456
(898 views)
Shortcut
Re: [virgin-burner] HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Quote:
1.) i meant "entanglement" of main/reserve, main/jumper or reserve/jumper, not entanglement in terms of canopy-collision.
That is due to not cutting away, not running out of altitude.
Quote:
2.) well, in that case it was for a hit and rock and i was assigned to pull at 6k, so that's like almost 3x of your "normal" pull-altitude.
And again..... Loss of altitude awareness does not really matter what altitude you are AT... It only matters that you THINK you have enough time.
Quote:
as for A and B, as i said, if you dont loose altitude awareness pulling higher means more time to work stuff.
And if you don't lose altitude awareness it really does not matter. I have chopped from 750-800 feet before, AAD's fire the reserve at 750 feet.
Quote:
especially with modern canopies as they seem to snivel forever.....a modern canopy takes ten times as long.
Again, I have more jumps on 'Modern canopies' than you have jumps. Fact is I most likely have more jumps on old canopies than you have jumps.... you still have not proven your points.
Quote:
no, i said you it doesnt seem to be a problem as it is for you internet-skydivers.. which is fine with me!
yea-yea, if you like sangi so much, why dont you guys get a room together!?
you can repeat it all you want, it doesnt make it more true. people at his dz voiced their concerns as well.
and pounding on your experience vs. mine only seems to imply that you have nothing else to support YOUR authorative (is that even a word!?) claims than just that.
look, i'm tired of this stupid arguments, i'll happily do the way i was taught. you can jump rsl's, skyhooks all day since you probably will need it, i'm happy with audibles and a what i reckon to be safer pull-altitude.
Dec 6, 2011, 1:53 PM
Post #213 of 456
(883 views)
Shortcut
Re: [virgin-burner] HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Quote:
yea-yea, if you like sangi so much, why dont you guys get a room together!?
Can't say I know the guy.... I only know that he and you sure act the same based on your posts. And if you can't take a man at his word... Well...?
Quote:
and pounding on your experience vs. mine only seems to imply that you have nothing else to support YOUR authorative (is that even a word!?) claims than just that.
Well, it goes to show that I have 10+ times the experience that you claim to have.
And I have brought valid arguments that you have not answered.
Quote:
look, i'm tired of this stupid arguments
Then maybe you should avoid them?
Quote:
you can jump rsl's, skyhooks all day since you probably will need it,
1. A lame attempt at a personal attack. 2. you clearly have no idea of my position on RSL's 3. I have PROVEN I don't need RSL's by having 7 times the number of malfunctions without one than you have.
Quote:
i'm happy with audibles and a what i reckon to be safer pull-altitude
And it is OK to have an opinion. But you seem to think your opinion is more valid than a guy with 10 times your experience. And that somehow your opinion is right and everyone else is wrong.
I'll put any of your canopy skills up against mine ANY day.
And I'll put my experience up against yours any day. The wise would bet on me.
(This post was edited by Ron on Dec 6, 2011, 1:54 PM)
my opinion on this matter is by having spent almost a day digging through the fatality-list on here. and seeing that your chances are highest when you're either a student or have 1000+ jumps. and a high rate of fatalities in the last class seems to be by gear-problems of sorts.
in a case where a reserve doesnt have enough time to inflate properly and the result is a high-speed impact with the planet underneath you, the assumption that such a fatality could most likely have been prevented - by simply pulling higher and having more time to get a working parachute above your head - is a valid one. you havent proved or disproved that point. and it doesnt take a gazillion jumps to make that assumption. even a guy with zero jumps can come up with that conclusion. your experience doesnt always help, but ignorance is clearly of no help at all.
And http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=869327#869327
So I track all the accidents (not just fatalities) and have for 18 years.... I just don't care to report them anymore.
Quote:
in a case where a reserve doesnt have enough time to inflate properly and the result is a high-speed impact with the planet underneath you, the assumption that such a fatality could most likely have been prevented - by simply pulling higher and having more time to get a working parachute above your head - is a valid one
Not when you are low due to losing track of altitude..... Like I have said, I have CUTAWAY at 750-800 feet.
Quote:
your experience doesnt always help
It is a much better bet than a guy with 10 times LESS experience.
In fairness, he said "can be docked" not "have docked"?
Well if it HAS, then it CAN BE.
Quote:
Even more logical is those instances where the pilot out-flew the AAD's parameters on landing.
Maybe, but the same landing techniques were used under 120 Sabres without issue. The point being that even if I grant you your point, it is STILL not the canopies fault.
Quote:
You shot yourself in the foot. You know as well as I do that he is talking about HP canopies spinning you on your back from a premature brake release.
No I didn't. He said that "Any canopy that can cause a cutaway from a brake fire is by definition lethal." And I have seen a Raven "cause a cutaway".
I have had brake fires on 107 Stiletto's, 96 Velo's, and 88 FX's.... None required a cutaway, most brake fires don't.
He was trying to blame canopies for the faults of the PILOTS.... It is clear he had an agenda and frankly I found most of it to be crap without any basis in reality.
OK. I agree on all counts. I read between the lines on the part about the spinning cutaways .
The only way is that you were actually checking your altimeter.
Wrong, you can also look at the ground.
OK...you got me in the big scheme of things. However, the response was to him, not you. He's yet to give us any indication of it so I don't think he has trained his eyes as yet. Hence, the point to the altimeter.
(This post was edited by popsjumper on Dec 6, 2011, 3:44 PM)
Dec 6, 2011, 3:53 PM
Post #220 of 456
(845 views)
Shortcut
Re: [virgin-burner] HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
if you cutaway your main and say it get's hung up on your helmet; that's not exactly a horseshoe, is it!?
In reply to:
Yes it is. Our worst nightmare.
In reply to:
i've never jumped a round and dont feel any need to do so..
Can't blame you for that. It would be good to get some idea of what the old folks are talking about, though. I do NOT recommend T-10s.
In reply to:
and nope, i didnt check my altimeter; i was very busy with other stuff at the time. but as i pointed out in a later post, KNOWING i pulled at 6k..
And that is the reason I asked. Jumpers often think they have more "time" than they actually do have? It has cause more than one crash. Time distortion is a killer. Time is relative, altitude is absolute.
I strongly suggest that you use the altimeter at crunch time.
Dec 6, 2011, 4:20 PM
Post #221 of 456
(831 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] HP From an Old Fart
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Quote:
OK...you got me in the big scheme of things. However, the response was to him, not you. He's yet to give us any indication of it so I don't think he has trained his eyes as yet. Hence, the point to the altimeter.
And you are 100% correct that the Alti is a much better answer.
He was trying to blame canopies for the faults of the PILOTS.... It is clear he had an agenda and frankly I found most of it to be crap without any basis in reality. So, Ron, what is your solution to the problem of jumpers that can't keep up with their canopy killing or injuring themselves? That's my reality.
I can only see two ways: Remove the inexperienced pilots (By Training them) or remove their access to HP Canopies until they have that training.
If there is a third way I'd be very happy to hear it.
Either way is going to take an element of compulsion.
Having canopy courses available doesn't work unless people HAVE to take them. (Witness Virgin Burner et al)
I applaud Bill Von for the difference he's making in his corner of the world but we need a world full of Bill Vons that have the authority to make their words mandatory.
And, for the record I don't have any agenda other than reducing the carnage.
(This post was edited by Marisan on Dec 6, 2011, 8:41 PM)
For all those people that have sent me their ideas by PM. There are some really good ones. Can I ask you to post them on this thread so we can get some discussion going.
I won't post them without your permission.
Don't worry, the flaming doesn't hurt " that " much.
For all those people that have sent me their ideas by PM. There are some really good ones. Can I ask you to post them on this thread so we can get some discussion going.
A simple canopy progression license, required independent of skydiving licenses, but cannot progress to a higher loading until these are demonstrated. They can have the A/B/C/D scale as long as that does not get too confusing. (Canopy Pilot A,B,C, or D[unlimited])
A- up to 1/1 loading: demonstrate full stalls on risers and brakes, full control input porpoising, coordinated wingovers, spirals to recover to a heading, patterns to a spot landing. 100' square must be able to show good judgement in landing patterns and traffic. flight and patterns and landings on rears, etc.
B- up to 1.5/1 loading: All the above (not rear landings) redone at 1.5/1 plus intro to accelerated landings,
C-up to 2/1 loading: All the above at 2/1 loading plus advanced canopy course AND swooping course if wanted. (can't swoop without)
D-2.5/1 to unlimited All above at 2.5/1 loading plus advanced swooping course.
