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

tmccann  (A 61009)

Mar 13, 2012, 4:44 PM
Post #26 of 166 (1233 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
The turn at 50 feet is indeed dangerous. Can you think of a safer way to demonstrate that skill? Doing it over water is a good way but most people don't have that option.

I'm happy to practice the hell out of my braked turns at altitude, but how would I know that I'm ready to demonstrate this skill at 50ft if I can't gauge the altitude lost when I practice? Also, as a practical matter, aren't turns that low forbidden at many DZs?

Some canopy coaches will go up with the student on a full altitude hop & pop and provide a level for the student to practice, while giving feedback. The student can practice his/her flat/flare turns and accurately gauge altitude lost. Same for riser vs. toggle turns. Why not let this substitute? A little more expensive, since it requires a coach, but perhaps the program could be devised to check several in-air skills at once?


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 13, 2012, 4:47 PM
Post #27 of 166 (1228 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tmccann] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

>but how would I know that I'm ready to demonstrate this skill at 50ft if I
>can't gauge the altitude lost when I practice?

Yep, that's the rub. One way to do it is to sneak up on it; do it at 1000 feet, then 500 feet, then 200 feet, then 100 feet, then 50 feet. You'll see if you are losing way too much altitude before you get too close to recover.

>Also, as a practical matter,
>aren't turns that low forbidden at many DZs?

Hmm. I've seen DZ's prohibit turns over 90 degrees but not too many that prohibit turns at all below X feet.

>Some canopy coaches will go up with the student on a full altitude hop &
> pop and provide a level for the student to practice, while giving feedback.
>The student can practice his/her flat/flare turns and accurately gauge
>altitude lost. Same for riser vs. toggle turns. Why not let this substitute?

That could work, although it's not as accurate and does not teach the visual cues that someone who is actually turning low needs. But it would teach them the basic skills.


crotalus01  (B 28932)

Mar 13, 2012, 4:50 PM
Post #28 of 166 (1228 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

I would suggest bumping down 1 size per category for Beginner and Intermediate - and honestly, I think required education would be much better than an arbitrary blanket w/l restriction. Do you not think if a program was put together where jumpers received about as much canopy education as they do freefall education, then not only would they make better canopy choices, but also be capable of flying and handling a smaller canopy or larger w/l sooner in their progression?
Has there been any thought in the direction of requiring some very basic CRW, or maybe requiring an altitude hop and pop (or even a series of them)? I learned more about canopy flight from doing CRW than anything, and when I started I did a lot of jumps where I opened at 12K and just saw what my canopy could do. I still do that when I demo a new canopy if the upper winds allow it....hell, in the summertime I do one everytime I am at the DZ and the winds allow for it.


(This post was edited by crotalus01 on Mar 13, 2012, 4:52 PM)


topdocker  (D 12018)

Mar 13, 2012, 4:50 PM
Post #29 of 166 (1226 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

I don't think a card will work in the long run. You could have someone who has several thousands of jumps over ten years and still only be in the Novice Category because they don't want to do the sign offs. Eventually, they could just downsize because "everyone knows they are good enough and they've been around so long."

At some point, there is going to have to be a database for lost cards. (Yes, I have my original D-license, but it looks like crap). An Expert card will have to be carried around for as long as you want to jump your HP canopies or it has to appear on your membership card. People lose stuff over time.

Does this count for tandems? Because they are student jumps....

I think we are looking to have to make a rating for Advanced Canopy Coach. Someone who can teach/evaluate/critique experienced jumpers who want to progress in their evolution of canopy training. I would hesitate to emphasize the swoop aspect of it and go more for the improvement of skills from opening, avoidance, control, pattern flying, predictablity of flight, entering the landing pattern, and landing.

I am more on board since a BSR really doesn't do much unless we educate jumpers. Then ultimately, the BSR becomes moot.

good discussion....

top




Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 13, 2012, 5:01 PM
Post #31 of 166 (1214 views)
Shortcut
Re: [crotalus01] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

>and honestly, I think required education would be much better than an
>arbitrary blanket w/l restriction.

I agree. The purpose of this is not the restriction - the purpose is to get them the training they need to be able to perform those maneuvers before they downsize.

>Do you not think if a program was put together where jumpers received about as
>much canopy education as they do freefall education, then not only would they make
>better canopy choices, but also be capable of flying and handling a smaller canopy or
>larger w/l sooner in their progression?

Yes. But we have that education right now. Why don't most jumpers avail themselves of it? Because they don't have to. They can just buy a Velo 96 at 200 jumps. That's easier and cheaper in the short term.

>Has there been any thought in the direction of requiring some very basic CRW, or
>maybe requiring an altitude hop and pop (or even a series of them)?

1) I think CRW is a great idea. But you've seen people's reactions to front riser landings - can you imagine their reaction to someone telling them "you have to do CRW to demonstrate canopy competence?" That being said, no contact CRW is a good way to learn canopy control, but it's hard to describe what sort of skills are demonstrated on CRW jumps.

2) High altitude hop and pops are a good idea and would likely be how many people learn the above skills.

Note the above is not a description of how to learn those skills, or how to qualify coaches - just an attempt to describe what skills people should have before downsizing.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 13, 2012, 5:04 PM
Post #32 of 166 (1213 views)
Shortcut
Re: [topdocker] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

>You could have someone who has several thousands of jumps over ten years and
>still only be in the Novice Category because they don't want to do the sign offs.

That's fine. I am sure there are people out there with thousands of jumps with A licenses.

>Eventually, they could just downsize because "everyone knows they are good
>enough and they've been around so long."

Until they go to a new DZ, or try to enter a swoop competition, or want to do a demo. Eventually they'll think "geez this is a pain in the butt, I should just do the stupid maneuvers and get the card."

>I think we are looking to have to make a rating for Advanced Canopy Coach.

I agree. That has to be part of any such attempt to add canopy loading restrictions based on performance.


tmccann  (A 61009)

Mar 13, 2012, 5:04 PM
Post #33 of 166 (1210 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>but how would I know that I'm ready to demonstrate this skill at 50ft if I
>can't gauge the altitude lost when I practice?

Yep, that's the rub. One way to do it is to sneak up on it; do it at 1000 feet, then 500 feet, then 200 feet, then 100 feet, then 50 feet. You'll see if you are losing way too much altitude before you get too close to recover.

>Also, as a practical matter,
>aren't turns that low forbidden at many DZs?

Hmm. I've seen DZ's prohibit turns over 90 degrees but not too many that prohibit turns at all below X feet.

>Some canopy coaches will go up with the student on a full altitude hop &
> pop and provide a level for the student to practice, while giving feedback.
>The student can practice his/her flat/flare turns and accurately gauge
>altitude lost. Same for riser vs. toggle turns. Why not let this substitute?

That could work, although it's not as accurate and does not teach the visual cues that someone who is actually turning low needs. But it would teach them the basic skills.

Thanks for the feedback. I'm probably thinking of the combination of the strong suggestion not to make more than minor course corrections after final and the "no >90 under 1k".

I'll think through trying the flat turns progressively lower - I've taken them through my normal pattern (as low as 250 ft to final), but will talk to my local S&TA about bringing my final down lower to practice further. Frankly, the idea of turning that low to the ground scares me, but I take it that that's supposed to be part of the point.


Squeak  (E 1313)

Mar 13, 2012, 5:55 PM
Post #34 of 166 (1190 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>Any chance of making the canopy choices a little less conservative?

Sure, I posted this to get suggestions. What would you suggest?
there does not appear to be any mention on canopy "type". WL is but one aspect of spanking yourself into the ground.


nigel99  (D 1)

Mar 13, 2012, 9:25 PM
Post #35 of 166 (1153 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

I think there are a few flaws and problems.

It seems that forcing people to wait until 500 jumps from approximately 100 jumps to downsize is recipe for people bending the rules. On top of that your table then drops from conservative to about 1.6:1 wing loading at 500 jumps.

Why not stick with the current recommendations in the SIM? Also why not reach out to organisations such as the BPA that already have canopy progression manuals and procedures in place? I don't see the point in re-inventing the wheel.


MakeItHappen

Mar 13, 2012, 10:03 PM
Post #36 of 166 (1137 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

What definition of 'size' are you using?
something based on canopies that are available today or something well defined?

.


skyguyscott  (D 13458)

Mar 13, 2012, 11:42 PM
Post #37 of 166 (1123 views)
Shortcut
Re: [crotalus01] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

I agree that doing CRW is great for really getting people to learn how to fly their canopies to the edge of their flight envelopes.

So is doing accuracy.

But, one thing I miss about the 90s is that we no longer have a single canopy that really can do everything well. I, for one, am not enthusiastic about doing CRW with micro-lined ellipticals. Today, we have different canopies for different disciplines, all at ridiculously high prices.

This proposal rests on the assumption that everyone wants to downsize so they can presumably swoop. But it is a much larger sport with other disciples like CRW and accuracy. Ever try using the winds to back up over the target? You can with the right canopy. Should I try these suggested skill sets with a strato-cloud? What if I just want to compete in accuracy? Or CRW? Or are we only interested in promoting swooping, or saying that this proposal is only for those who want to downsize so they can swoop?

One idea is to come up with a canopy training curriculum that includes several different tracks; a track for swooping, a track for accuracy, a track for CRW, a track for Demos (Pro Rating) etc.

But I wonder, if the goal is really not so much to train people for a certain discipline, but rather to fly and land safely under canopy, we should do that in the FJC and thoughout the ISP. I think we are guilty, during student training, of focusing much more on the free fall, and not as much on canopy control. I think we should have a designated ground coach watching and critiquing every student jump from the moment they deploy until touch down. There is no way the JMs can do that as effectively because they have to fly and land themselves, watching for traffic, and can't watch the student the whole time. If we spent as much or more time following the ISP canopy dive flows and critiquing their canopy skills as we do their free fall skills we would see a measurable improvement in safety. And if we can't even do that, or do it more consistently, then what good will implementing yet another training track do?


JackC1

Mar 14, 2012, 2:39 AM
Post #38 of 166 (1105 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>but how would I know that I'm ready to demonstrate this skill at 50ft if I
>can't gauge the altitude lost when I practice?

Yep, that's the rub. One way to do it is to sneak up on it; do it at 1000 feet, then 500 feet, then 200 feet, then 100 feet, then 50 feet. You'll see if you are losing way too much altitude before you get too close to recover.

So why isn't that part of the proposal? Instead you've got the one shot, do or die, 90 degree turn at 50ft natural selection test.

And why, for the third time of asking, are all the canopy drills exactly the same for all levels?


davelepka  (D 21448)

Mar 14, 2012, 5:26 AM
Post #39 of 166 (1081 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JackC1] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
And why, for the third time of asking, are all the canopy drills exactly the same for all levels?

They're not the same, the canopies are different. All canopies fly by the same mechansim and theory, the difference is in the degree of response and reaction you get to control inputs. I flare my Velo with the same basic motion that I flared a Manta on my first jump, it's just done at a different speed and with a different level of precision.

Determining if a jumper can 'handle' a canopy or not could very well be the same test for any canopy, with the only variable being the canopy.

That aside, my take on the whole idea is that it's too few steps along the way. I think the B Germain chart is the way to go when structuring that part of the plan. It maintains sensible WL along the way, but does allow for downsizing (small increments) at 100 jumps intervals. It's hard to argue with a .1 sq ft per pound downsize provided the jumper was doing OK with the current canopy, and had stuck with it for at least 100 jumps.

In terms of education, if you tie it in with licensing requirements, the canopy control course could take care of the 'test' requirements for those downsizes. For example, the B license class could be 'proof' the jumper is ready to downsize at 100 jumps, the C would coincide with the 200 jump downsize, and the D at 500 jumps.

As for downsizing at 300 and 400 jumps, a simple skills evel could be used. Make it like the PRO rating, with 3 or 4 declared jumps where an insctructor or S&TA observes, and you have to fly a pattern and land within a certain area. If one of the patterns includes a flat turn to final, then so be it.


(This post was edited by davelepka on Mar 14, 2012, 5:28 AM)


joephus  (A 60938)

Mar 14, 2012, 8:53 AM
Post #40 of 166 (1032 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>Does not the canopy slow right back down very quickly from such a maneuver?

Depends on the canopy, but yes, they slow down _relatively_ quickly compared to, say, a front riser turn to final. This is one of the advantages of front risers for jumpers concerned about the manuever - drop the risers and you are back to trim speed pretty quickly.

What about people that physically can't do a front riser turn? They made front riser turns waviable on the A-License card would this be waivable if the person didn't posses the strength to do a front riser turn to final?


Premier skybytch  (D License)

Mar 14, 2012, 9:27 AM
Post #41 of 166 (1027 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

There's no need to reinvent the wheel. Implement Brian Germain's chart as a BSR for jumpers up to 500 jumps. Require D license qualification and coaching/training targeted toward higher wingloadings and high performance landings for wingloadings above 1.5 and/or crossbraced canopies. Allow for waivers to everything except the training requirement for advanced canopies.

This is more in line with USPA's education not regulation stance. It allows for the exceptional noobie to advance faster. And it will not only keep 200 jump wonders with mad skillz from flying canopies they don't have the experience to handle, it will keep 1000+ jump wonders who don't have the knowledge or skills needed to fly high wingloadings and swoop specific canopies somewhat safely from jumping them as well.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 14, 2012, 9:31 AM
Post #42 of 166 (1022 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skybytch] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

>There's no need to reinvent the wheel. Implement Brian Germain's chart as a BSR
>for jumpers up to 500 jumps.

Yeah, that's where the loading numbers come from.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 14, 2012, 9:33 AM
Post #43 of 166 (1022 views)
Shortcut
Re: [joephus] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

>What about people that physically can't do a front riser turn?

No problems. They can continue to jump their current canopy.

>would this be waivable if the person didn't posses the strength to do a front riser
>turn to final?

I hope not. People who are physically unable to control their canopies using all the controls should stay on a larger canopy. Imagine what will happen if they break a toggle line down low; they would be unable to flare. At that point the only thing that would save their lives is being on a larger canopy.

Note that you cannot currently get an A license under the ISP without being able to do front riser turns so this won't normally come up.


(This post was edited by billvon on Mar 14, 2012, 9:39 AM)


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 14, 2012, 9:38 AM
Post #44 of 166 (1021 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JackC1] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

>So why isn't that part of the proposal?

This only lists the requirements, not how to learn how to do them. (I wrote an article in the safety section about how to learn those skills.)

>Instead you've got the one shot, do or die, 90 degree turn at 50ft natural selection test.

?? No one said anything about "one shot." It's something that has to be learned over many jumps.

What we have today is (effectively) a one shot, do or die, hard low turn requirement with no training. It happens when someone finds themselves about to hit a fence. So they toggle turn and die. That's what this particular requirement is trying to overcome.

>And why, for the third time of asking, are all the canopy drills exactly the same for all levels?

They're not - the drills under the smaller canopies are a lot harder.

That being said there's no reason to put every one at every level, as long as all get learned. Do you have a suggestion for a different order?


(This post was edited by billvon on Mar 14, 2012, 9:41 AM)


Premier Remster  (C License)

Mar 14, 2012, 9:46 AM
Post #45 of 166 (1017 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
?? No one said anything about "one shot." It's something that has to be learned over many jumps.

Yeah. Heaven forbid they start by practicing high, then bring it to 50ft and start by doing small turns and slowly build up to 90deg. That would be too logical.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 14, 2012, 9:50 AM
Post #46 of 166 (1015 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Squeak] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

>there does not appear to be any mention on canopy "type". WL is but one aspect of
>spanking yourself into the ground.

Agreed. But it is, by far, the biggest.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 14, 2012, 9:59 AM
Post #47 of 166 (1014 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nigel99] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

>Why not stick with the current recommendations in the SIM?

Here are the recommendations I can find in the SIM:

==============
Advanced equipment generally refers to canopies loaded
as follows:

a. above 230 square feet, 1.1 pounds per square foot or higher

b. from 190 to 229 square feet, 1.0 pounds per square foot or higher

c. from 150 to 189 square feet, .9 pounds per square foot or higher

d. canopies smaller than 150 square feet at any wing loading
=================

I don't think one definition of "advanced" is sufficient if we're going to have a few stages that jumpers progress through.

Are there other recommendations in the SIM that you think would be better to follow?


joephus  (A 60938)

Mar 14, 2012, 12:33 PM
Post #48 of 166 (969 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
No problems. They can continue to jump their current canopy.

I imagine this would probably work given your weight vs. size limits. A 170 can definitely cover a wide range of smaller people for a long time. However, I could see instances of smaller people (sub 130lb range) being stuck on a lightly loaded canopy their entire skydiving career only because they lack the upper body strength for front riser inputs. That might not necessarily be a bad thing, but it seems a little draconian to me.

In reply to:
Imagine what will happen if they break a toggle line down low; they would be unable to flare. At that point the only thing that would save their lives is being on a larger canopy.

Well I'd hope they wouldn't be trying to flair with front risers which take considerably more upper body strength when compared to rear risers.

In reply to:
Note that you cannot currently get an A license under the ISP without being able to do front riser turns so this won't normally come up.

That simply isn't true. Look at the A profiency card again. http://www.uspa.org/...icenseProfandApp.pdf

7. Above 1,000 feet, perform front riser dives and
turns (may be waived if insufficient strength).


It does come up fairly often. My girlfriend along with several other female jumpers I know had to get this waived because they didn't posses the upper body strength to perform front riser dives.


(This post was edited by joephus on Mar 14, 2012, 12:34 PM)


topdocker  (D 12018)

Mar 14, 2012, 1:11 PM
Post #49 of 166 (951 views)
Shortcut
Re: [joephus] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
No problems. They can continue to jump their current canopy.

I imagine this would probably work given your weight vs. size limits. A 170 can definitely cover a wide range of smaller people for a long time. However, I could see instances of smaller people (sub 130lb range) being stuck on a lightly loaded canopy their entire skydiving career only because they lack the upper body strength for front riser inputs. That might not necessarily be a bad thing, but it seems a little draconian to me.

In reply to:
Imagine what will happen if they break a toggle line down low; they would be unable to flare. At that point the only thing that would save their lives is being on a larger canopy.

Well I'd hope they wouldn't be trying to flair with front risers which take considerably more upper body strength when compared to rear risers.

In reply to:
Note that you cannot currently get an A license under the ISP without being able to do front riser turns so this won't normally come up.

That simply isn't true. Look at the A profiency card again. http://www.uspa.org/...icenseProfandApp.pdf

7. Above 1,000 feet, perform front riser dives and
turns (may be waived if insufficient strength).


It does come up fairly often. My girlfriend along with several other female jumpers I know had to get this waived because they didn't posses the upper body strength to perform front riser dives.

Then they need to go to a canopy course and learn how to do front riser turns. There are techniques and tools that allow you to do them without using all sorts of strength. Also, realize that this is a physical sport and having some strength may save your life.

You don't have to want to swoop to understand what front riser input can do for you, it is a technique that can help in the landing area.

Bryan Burke has a great Safety Day presentation about canopy accidents, and two of the major points are that most skydivers only know how to reliably use their toggles, and the more you use your toggles, the more you suck. Kinda along the lines of "if the only tool you have is a hammer, all the world is a nail."

Skydiving is a harsh mistress. We spent 20 or so years focusing on making freefall safer. AFF, tandems, AADS, full-face helmets, windtunnels, etc. and the effects are showing in the statistics. But the canopies have gotten much more dangerous over the same time span and we are seeing the effects of that. We now must focus everyone on how much safer we can make the canopy portion of the skydive.

top


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 14, 2012, 1:22 PM
Post #50 of 166 (944 views)
Shortcut
Re: [joephus] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

>My girlfriend along with several other female jumpers I know had to get this waived
>because they didn't posses the upper body strength to perform front riser dives.

I would hope that they would also start working on having enough strength to control their canopies well. The risers (both front and rear) are ways to get more control of your canopy; they shouldn't be ignored by canopy pilots.


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)