Forums: Skydiving Disciplines: Canopy Relative Work:
CReW wing loadings...Please read

 

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

Nullified  (C 32259)

Feb 23, 2004, 10:20 PM
Post #1 of 63 (3695 views)
Shortcut
CReW wing loadings...Please read Can't Post

I just received this e-mail from Scott Miller.

I hope that you will ALL read this slowly and completely.

I'm also asking you ALL to post your thoughts. Everyone. 30 jumps or 9000 jumps.

Stay safe,
Mike

Hi Mike,

Thanks for passing on the information about *****. I’m sending some good thoughts her way.

But first, I’m going to rant a little. And I’m sending this your way because I consider you a friend, and I think you’ll understand and forgive me for ranting. I also think that maybe you’re in a position to help improve the situation I’m going to rant about.

When ***** went through my canopy course at Sky’s The Limit in September, she had 83 jumps, was flying a Sabre 190, and listed her exit weight at 170 lbs. I got this information from the registration form she filled out.

That was five months ago. How many jumps has she made since then? It’s wintertime and she lives up North. Has she been jumping a whole lot? Has she made 100 jumps since September? Has she even made 50?



What the FUCK was she doing under a Lightning 126?



I’ve seen this happen more than once: a low-time jumper gets interested in CRW, and pretty soon her new CRW buddies want her to jump some ridiculously small canopy that she really has no business jumping, just so she will be at the “right” wing loading for CRW. Does anybody stop for a minute and consider the fact that you still have to land after a CRW jump? I understand the need for compatible canopies, but I also know that low-time jumpers make mistakes, and they need canopies that will allow them to survive those mistakes.

If someone like ***** showed up on the DZ and said “hey everyone, I’m going to jump a Stiletto 120,” what would happen? People would tell her she’s crazy. At least one or two experienced jumpers would probably spend the next 20 minutes with her explaining why that would be a bad idea. But if the same person says “I want to do CRW,” some “experienced” CRW dog will soon be telling her she needs a Lightning 126. Does this really make sense? Do people really think a Lightning loaded just under 1.4 to 1 is any safer than a Stiletto loaded just over 1.4 to 1? I think either one would be an equally bad idea for a low-time jumper. And by the way, I’ve jumped every size Stiletto and every size Lightning PD makes, but if someone disagrees with me about this I will be happy to sit down and listen to the person explain why. And if the person says “because the Stiletto is elliptical” I’ll probably piss my pants laughing.

I may be ranting like this because I feel a little guilty. When I met ***** in September, she told me she wanted to try CRW. I told her that it was a great idea. I told her that she would have fun, and learn a lot about flying a canopy. That’s what I always tell people about CRW.

I’m starting to re-think that advice, though. Maybe I should tell low-time jumpers to stay as far away from the CRW dogs as possible, until some of them pull their heads out of their asses and stop telling people like ***** they need to be under a 126 loaded at 1.38 to 1.

Mike, please feel free to post this message anywhere you want, or forward it to anyone you want to. It might piss some people off, but frankly I don’t care. These are my own opinions, not those of anyone I work for now or have worked for in the past, and I’m tired of being diplomatic about things like this.

I hope you stay involved in CRW, Mike, and I hope you have the chance to teach other people who want to try it. I also hope you agree with at least some of what I’ve written here, and keep it in mind. Low-time jumpers need relatively large, forgiving canopies. This fact does not change just because someone wants to learn CRW. If experienced CRW jumpers want to jump with low-timers, why not use larger canopies and give the low-timers half a chance to land safely?

Take care.

- Scott



(This post was edited by Nullified on Feb 23, 2004, 10:23 PM)


rehmwa  (D 12816)

Feb 24, 2004, 8:08 AM
Post #2 of 63 (3601 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Nullified] CReW wing loadings...Please read [In reply to] Can't Post

Nice note.

At our DZ we introduce new CrW jumpers on big docile canopies. It's why I have my Maverick still.


Sargeatlarge  (F 294)

Feb 24, 2004, 6:21 PM
Post #3 of 63 (3552 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Nullified] CReW wing loadings...Please read [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Hi all...the points in the letter were fair enough and well made. At our DZ the experienced CReW dogs (some of whom have been world champions) go up in canopy sizes and jumps 180 228 square feet so that the newbies can be compatible and land safely. We, after all, are supposed to have the experience and should be able to fly sufficiently well for the newbie to learn safely.


Premier PhreeZone  (D License)
Moderator
Feb 24, 2004, 8:24 PM
Post #4 of 63 (3543 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Nullified] CReW wing loadings...Please read [In reply to] Can't Post

Please also read this thread: http://www.dropzone.com/...i?post=937643#937643


sikorsky  (D 6301)

Feb 26, 2004, 5:56 PM
Post #5 of 63 (3468 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Nullified] CReW wing loadings...Please read [In reply to] Can't Post

with you 99%

--what's about 5 inches on a good day?


Pendragon  (D 104102)

Mar 9, 2004, 6:14 AM
Post #6 of 63 (3363 views)
Shortcut
Re: [PhreeZone] CReW wing loadings...Please read [In reply to] Can't Post

All made interesting reading.

I'm still quite low on the jump #s but have begun to approach people to teach me CReW, hence my interest.

Putting the wing loading question aside, I impose a rule on myself to have decided where I'm going to land (not necessarily the exact spot, but at least the general area/field etc.) by ~1,000ft to give myself sufficient time to think about and set up the approach. That might be a bit of overkill, but I'm curious to know what people think of the idea...

I'm jumping a 170 @ ~1.0-1.1 all up atm, although will probably use soming closer to 220 for CReW.


chuckbrown  (D 19538)

Mar 9, 2004, 7:44 AM
Post #7 of 63 (3354 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Pendragon] CReW wing loadings...Please read [In reply to] Can't Post

You should also read the thread in Safety & Training under Lake Wales CRW injury. If you're comfortable jumping at 1.1 there's no reason to go up in size to do CRW. It's more important to do CRW with similarly loaded canopies. If you're not going to use a Lightning, Triathlons are good for CRW, as are Spectres.


Premier faulknerwn  (D 17441)
Moderator
Mar 9, 2004, 9:55 AM
Post #8 of 63 (3345 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Pendragon] CReW wing loadings...Please read [In reply to] Can't Post

I have somewhere safe to land by 1500 feet. I'll occasionally head closer to the dz from there, but I always have an out and somewhere I am 100% sure I can get to at that altitude.
W


Genn  (D 22590)

Mar 17, 2004, 12:47 PM
Post #9 of 63 (3272 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Nullified] CReW wing loadings...Please read [In reply to] Can't Post

Hi Mike...it's Genn...You want thoughts, well here goes.

I read what you posted by Scott Miller and quite frankly..I'm insulted! It was so generalized and it pissed me off. Here's why, (in order of the rant):

Quote:
When ***** went through my canopy course at Sky’s The Limit in September, she had 83 jumps, was flying a Sabre 190, and listed her exit weight at 170 lbs. I got this information from the registration form she filled out.

The PS126 used in Florida was a demo that she requested from you (PD). On her second trip to Florida, she was given another PS126 with no questions asked. If you had all this information on record, why was it missed TWICE! If it was such a problem, why wasn't her request denied?

Quote:
What the FUCK was she doing under a Lightning 126?

You're going to have to ask her and PD( since you had the records) about that. It is common knowledge that low timers shouldn't put THEMSELVES under a high wingloading. We as skydivers have a responsibility to know our own individual limits.

I jumped with ***** on her first trip to Florida. Just watching her landings hurt. I, and others tried to talk to her about this and give her tips on landing that canopy. Her response was: "I could land it if I want to."- After that, I was done. I'm not a canopy cop, nor due I pursue such moronic responses.

Quote:
I’ve seen this happen more than once: a low-time jumper gets interested in CRW, and pretty soon her new CRW buddies want her to jump some ridiculously small canopy that she really has no business jumping, just so she will be at the “right” wing loading for CRW.

I'm assuming this isn't gender related...but if it is, my response still applies since I'm female myself.

I jump at the same DZ as *****. I learned to do CRW there as well. However, I had excellent training (Thanks Jon, Alan, Vinny, and Scooter) and was NOT pressured one bit to downsize. I started on a PS143 and not one person wanted me to "jump some ridiculously small canopy that she really has no business jumping, just so she will be at the “right” wing loading for CRW". I was floaty and everyone made due.

Quote:
Does anybody stop for a minute and consider the fact that you still have to land after a CRW jump?

ummmm....Never even crossed my mind!

Quote:
I’m starting to re-think that advice, though. Maybe I should tell low-time jumpers to stay as far away from the CRW dogs as possible, until some of them pull their heads out of their asses and stop telling people like ***** they need to be under a 126 loaded at 1.38 to 1.

Oh please! Placing blame on CRW dogs is asinine. Like I said before, my mentors did NOT have their heads up their asses. In fact, when I was ready for my PS126 (the average wingloading)...The only one who told me to order that canopy was MYSELF. To turn people away from CRW because you feel "a little guilty" just isn't fair to the CRW discipline. Especially when PD had her records and could have prevented this from the get go.

Also, IMO CRW Dogs are some of the best canopy pilots in the world. All of a sudden, because ***** experienced pilot error on approach, CRW Dogs take the fall about wingloadings.

I find it interesting you even have the time to write this letter to Mike. The fact is....The majority of low-turns or high wingloading incidents are freefallers. Where are all the personal letters to them that you wrote and requested to be posted publicly by somebody else? There should be a countless number of them.

If your comment I quoted holds true, shouldn't you be telling the low-timers to stay as far away from freefall and swooping as possible? After all, they are taking up most of the incident reports.

I can't tell you how many pictures I've seen in Parachutist showing Velocity CRW. Enticing high performance canopy pilots to try Velocity CRW with little or no training at all. I don't see PD taking responsibility in debriefing these people under high performance CRW. Hence, the two in Texas that entangled so tight they couldnt get them apart on the ground. Just because somebody has thousands of jumps does not mean you can just do CRW. It's a completely different discipline and no matter what, people need to be trained on safety procedures. I've noticed in the past years more high performance CRW on the DZs and none of these people have come to the local CRW Dogs to ask about safety procedures, breakdowns, etc. They see PD's pics and think it's cool. Do the CRW Dogs get blamed for these types too?

Again, it is common knowledge now that this is a basic approach issue and this had little to do with wingloading. There was no landing pattern and the alternate out was ignored. However, I can't seem to forget that she paid you to teach her these basic canopy flight rules. Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to put all the blame on one specific event. Her mishap had so many variables. ie; training, doing CRW under the recommended altitude, the pilot losing heading, her decision to demo a smaller canopy, etc etc etc!

Finally, to sum up my rant....Why isn't more emphasis put on PD if it is such a freaking problem? After all, the demo came from them. Also, if you people want to "control" what people decide to fly...try starting with the people of authority..ie; Manufactures and Dealers. There are only so much fun jumpers can say to a person. In the end, it is THEIR decision.


(This post was edited by Genn on Mar 17, 2004, 12:51 PM)


Nullified  (C 32259)

Mar 17, 2004, 10:35 PM
Post #10 of 63 (3231 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Genn] CReW wing loadings...Please read [In reply to] Can't Post

Hi Genn.

I'm not sure why you feel insulted.

Many of the statements that you made actually support what Scott was trying to say in his e-mail.

Most interesting was your comment about Vinny, Scooter, Jon and Alan...
Quote:
I learned to do CRW there as well. However, I had excellent training (Thanks Jon, Alan, Vinny, and Scooter) and was NOT pressured one bit to downsize. I started on a PS143 and not one person wanted me to "jump some ridiculously small canopy that she really has no business jumping, just so she will be at the “right” wing loading for CRW". I was floaty and everyone made due.
Genn, that's the point that Scott was trying to make. You may not like the way he said it, but your above quote sums it up pretty well.

Scott no longer works for PD, and was not involved in their demo program. The records that he makes mention of are from his independent canopy skills camps.

Concerning your statement about low turn injuries and freefallers, the online forums and pages of Parachutist are filled with discussions about wingloadings. And that is another point of Scott's e-mail...that outside of CReW, there seems to be a more public concern when a low timer chooses an aggressive / less forgiving wing loading or planform.

Maybe more people should take an approach more like Scooter, Vinny, Jon and Alan did with you.
Some do, and more can.

See you soon,
Mike
Edited for spelling


(This post was edited by Nullified on Mar 17, 2004, 11:15 PM)


relyon  (D 18973)

Mar 18, 2004, 2:15 PM
Post #11 of 63 (3201 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Nullified] CReW wing loadings...Please read [In reply to] Can't Post

With the author's permission, I'm posting a recent e-mail to the crwdogs mailing list by the jumper involved in the unfortunate incident that prompted this and several other threads. Hopefully it will shed some light on what occurred and perhaps help in preventing it from happening again.

I wish them a full and speedy recovery and hope I have the chance to meet and skydive with them in the future.

Bob



From: "***** :)" <*****> 
To: crwdogs@boxofclue.com
Sent: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 10:29:17 -0500
Subject: low turn at february CRW camp

First of all, I want to thank every one of you that called, came and visited
me, sent me a card, e-mailed me, and just hoped i would be able to recover.
I would first like to say what happened to me is my own fault. I don't know
why i did a low turn like i did (my brain is still not allowing me to
remember). I know better than to do a turn like that, yet i still did it
under my canopy. Wingloading wasn't an issue on this accident. I could
have been under a gigantic canopy, and the same results would have still
occured. I got very lucky with this accident. Both my surgeons, have
informed me that i should recover, and be able to jump again (although my
femur surgeon made sure to tell me that I should think hard about jumping
again, he doesn't agree with it). Tuesday I even got an okay to fly out of
Florida. Wednesday, I flew to buffalo with my mom, where I'm currently
staying until I can start walking on my leg (should be another month or so).
The femur was a compound fracture which required 3 surgeries, the 3rd
surgery a titanium rod had to be placed in my leg(so i can set off metal
detectors now). That was the least of my problems though. I also had a
aortic tear, but due to the injury they were afraid that even with the
by-pass that was created, I wasn't getting blood to my brain, so they had to
cut me open from the front of my chest, so they could clamp a bunch of
veins, so i could still receive blood to the brain. I was told surviving
that surgery is quite low, and I was real lucky. I just wanted to thank all
you guys. As I mentioned, I'm out of florida now (no offense to you guys
who live there, but THANK GOODNESS i'm back up north). I look forward to
doing CRW with you soon (not too soon though, i got to get to be 100%
first).

Have some awesome jumps, and blue skies always,

***** :)


Genn  (D 22590)

Mar 18, 2004, 2:26 PM
Post #12 of 63 (3198 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Nullified] CReW wing loadings...Please read [In reply to] Can't Post

Mike,

No no no no no.....

Maybe you should have posted all the responses from the CRW Dog list too. I'm not the only one with this point of view, and you know it.
In case I wasn't clear enough the first time, I do NOT agree nor support what he claims.

And when you want to quote me like that...Please add his comment I responded too. This way there is no confusion and/or manipulation of my post.

Furthermore, I could give a shit about politics and lose respect for all the brown nosers that are afraid to write what they really think.

And...Since I feel like I'm speaking to his PR person...I don't really give a crap about this anymore. I wasn't one of her instructors and she never took an extra safety course from me...Anyhow...I hope she heals and learns from this mishap.


(This post was edited by Genn on Mar 18, 2004, 2:30 PM)


Scrumpot  (D License)

Mar 18, 2004, 3:13 PM
Post #13 of 63 (3183 views)
Shortcut
Re: [relyon] CReW wing loadings...Please read [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Wingloading wasn't an issue on this accident. I could have been under a gigantic canopy, and the same results would have still occured.

Although I think it is admirable that this jumper is accepting culpability for him/(her?)self, I do still find myself somewhat disagreeing, and now asking again of you Mike, for further opinion on this statement.

If instead for instance this jumper actually was under a "gigantic" canopy (let alone reasonable for their weight & wingloading vs. experience level) would not most likely the injuries sustained as a result of the (presumed) "panic turn" been most likely at least somewhat mitigated? This jumper very nearly died from the sounds of it here! ...Granted, that a panic turn, or any low turn close to the ground on any canopy can indeed injure or kill. However, on a higher wing-loaded canopy, the direness of the results, experience and observation tells me, would be also most likely and conversely therefore "amplified" too accordingly ...would they not?

I do still think this issue, or component of the issue is in fact, relevant. ...Comments?

Best wishes for a speedy and hopefully FULL recovery <<<vibes>>> to this jumper.
-Grant


relyon  (D 18973)

Mar 18, 2004, 4:52 PM
Post #14 of 63 (3154 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Nullified] CReW wing loadings...Please read [In reply to] Can't Post

Mike,

First you write

In reply to:
... I'm not sure why you feel insulted. ...

and then later

In reply to:
You may not like the way he said it ...

I think you know exactly why Genn says she's insulted. Still confused? How about:

Quote:
... What the FUCK ...

... some “experienced” CRW dog ...

... stay as far away from the CRW dogs as possible, until some of them pull their heads out of their asses ...

... It might piss some people off, but frankly I don’t care. ...

I'm insulted too, as is every other CRWdog I've spoken to regarding this e-mail. I have no idea what Scott is trying to accomplish with his shotgun blast message, but I can tell you it has pissed a whole lot of people off (he did say he didn't care). People that don't deserve such scathing words. As far as cranial-rectal extraction goes, maybe Scott can pull his own head out long enough to get to know some of the people he takes the time to torch.

In reply to:
And that is another point of Scott's e-mail...that outside of CReW, there seems to be a more public concern ...

Where do you come off with this statement? If you know anything about the CRW community, you should know what you're saying is very wrong. We have an enviable safety record, and go out of our way to keep it that way. CRW will learn from this incident and work to make things even safer, in spite of Scott's e-mail.

In reply to:
... when a low timer chooses an aggressive / less forgiving wing loading or planform.

You do realize the Lighting is based on the same airfoil and planform as the PD Reserve, right? Not exactly what I'd call aggressive / less forgiving.

In reply to:
Maybe more people should take an approach more like Scooter, Vinny, Jon and Alan did with you.
Some do, and more can.

The overwhelming majority do, but you and Scott would need to spend some time with us to know that. I noticed you posted Scott's e-mail to the crwdogs list and two places here at dropzone.com, but didn't post any of the replies from the list (notably Kirk VanZandt's explaining why the Lightning wingloading is what it is). Why is that?

What exactly is it you are trying to accomplish? Don't reply saying you're concerned about CRW wingloads - you haven't said anything about it in any of your posts. Rather, you've posted a very confrontational message and have sat back to watch the fireworks. Fortunately or unfortunately, most CRWdogs either don't frequent dropzone.com or have chosen not to respond in kind.

Bob Lyon
D-18973, NCCS-224
2000 US 8-way Speed Team
2002 CF Record Americas 56-way
2003 CF World Record 64-way (x2), 65-way, and 70-way


selbbub78  (C 34824)

Mar 18, 2004, 7:02 PM
Post #15 of 63 (3125 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Scrumpot] CReW wing loadings...Please read [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
Wingloading wasn't an issue on this accident. I could have been under a gigantic canopy, and the same results would have still occured.

Although I think it is admirable that this jumper is accepting culpability for him/(her?)self, I do still find myself somewhat disagreeing, and now asking again of you Mike, for further opinion on this statement.

Hey,

I'm going to speak up here, as it I who was/is the injured jumper (yes i have internet access again). Well first of all, although Mike is a good friend, he wasn't there, in fact no one really saw the whole accident that occured. I did a low turn. Why, i did a full turn low to the ground, i can't tell you right now, my mind is slowly letting me remember more and more of what happened. I know better than to turn low to the ground. It didn't have anything to do with being nervous or scared, or anything else, i just did it. It doesn't make sense. I had about 6 great landings/jumps on the 126 which i was flying without a problem. I'm just lucky that i survived and can learn from this situation. I hope others learn too. Just my 2 cents.

blue skies,


Nullified  (C 32259)

Mar 18, 2004, 10:35 PM
Post #16 of 63 (3103 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Genn] CReW wing loadings...Please read [In reply to] Can't Post

Hi Genn.
Quote:
Mike,

No no no no no.....

Maybe you should have posted all the responses from the CRW Dog list too. I'm not the only one with this point of view, and you know it.
In case I wasn't clear enough the first time, I do NOT agree nor support what he claims.
Why would I have cross posted every reply from everyone to every forum?
Your point of view was very clear. I never said that you agreed with what he claims. I only suggested that you seem to agree that newbies don't need to be under a highly loaded canopy to begin learning CReW. You stated that Vinny and Scooter et cetera worked around your light wing loading rather than suggest a higher loading than you were ready for at that time. That's the point of the e-mail, that it can be done.
Quote:
And when you want to quote me like that...Please add his comment I responded too. This way there is no confusion and/or manipulation of my post.
Here's his comment that you responded to;
Quote:
I’ve seen this happen more than once: a low-time jumper gets interested in CRW, and pretty soon her new CRW buddies want her to jump some ridiculously small canopy that she really has no business jumping, just so she will be at the “right” wing loading for CRW.
You responded with;
Quote:
I jump at the same DZ as *****. I learned to do CRW there as well. However, I had excellent training (Thanks Jon, Alan, Vinny, and Scooter) and was NOT pressured one bit to downsize. I started on a PS143 and not one person wanted me to "jump some ridiculously small canopy that she really has no business jumping, just so she will be at the “right” wing loading for CRW". I was floaty and everyone made due.
to which I responded,
Quote:
Genn, that's the point that Scott was trying to make.
There was no confusion or manipulation.
Quote:
Furthermore, I could give a shit about politics and lose respect for all the brown nosers that are afraid to write what they really think.
I'm writing what I really think.

Stay safe,
Mike


Nullified  (C 32259)

Mar 19, 2004, 12:25 AM
Post #17 of 63 (3096 views)
Shortcut
Re: [relyon] CReW wing loadings...Please read [In reply to] Can't Post

Bob,
Quote:
I think you know exactly why Genn says she's insulted. Still confused? How about:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


... What the FUCK ...

... some “experienced” CRW dog ...

... stay as far away from the CRW dogs as possible, until some of them pull their heads out of their asses ...

... It might piss some people off, but frankly I don’t care.

No, I still don't understand. Unless this e-mail describes Genn, which it does not, then why would she be insulted?
Quote:
I'm insulted too, as is every other CRWdog I've spoken to regarding this e-mail.
Again, why? If this e-mail doesn't apply to you, then it doesn't apply to you. Same for every other CReW Dog who you've spoken to.
Quote:
I have no idea what Scott is trying to accomplish with his shotgun blast message...
To get people to consider the added risk of lower time jumpers under more highly loaded canopies.
Quote:
As far as cranial-rectal extraction goes, maybe Scott can pull his own head out long enough to get to know some of the people he takes the time to torch.
I'd like the names of the CReW Dogs who he torched. As far as I remember, "...Some of them..." was as specific as he got.
Quote:
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And that is another point of Scott's e-mail...that outside of CReW, there seems to be a more public concern ...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Where do you come off with this statement? If you know anything about the CRW community, you should know what you're saying is very wrong. We have an enviable safety record, and go out of our way to keep it that way. CRW will learn from this incident and work to make things even safer, in spite of Scott's e-mail.
In spite of Scott's e-mail?
Regarding my statement, I didn't mean to imply that CReW Dogs care less. That was poorly worded on my part, and I'm sorry about that.
So, and I ask this with no sarcasm, what is it that CRW will, "Learn from this incident", and how will CRW, "Work to make things even safer"? What is it that's lacking, or needs to be addressed or changed?
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


... when a low timer chooses an aggressive / less forgiving wing loading or planform.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You do realize the Lighting is based on the same airfoil and planform as the PD Reserve, right? Not exactly what I'd call aggressive / less forgiving.
Would you recomend a reserve loaded at 1.3 - 1.4 to a low time jumper?
Quote:
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Maybe more people should take an approach more like Scooter, Vinny, Jon and Alan did with you.
Some do, and more can.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The overwhelming majority do, but you and Scott would need to spend some time with us to know that.
Well, then the e-mail doesn't apply to the overwhelming majority of CReW Dogs, and they shouldn't feel insulted. It doesn't apply to me, and that's why I wasn't insulted by it.
Quote:
I noticed you posted Scott's e-mail to the crwdogs list and two places here at dropzone.com, but didn't post any of the replies from the list (notably Kirk VanZandt's explaining why the Lightning wingloading is what it is). Why is that?
I posted Scott's e-mail because I was hoping to begin a discussion. I didn't realize that I was then responsible for distributing everyones replies on every forum, to every forum.
Kirk's post was an excellent explanation of Lightning wing loadings, and I sincerely thanked him for the information, and for taking the time. But, and I don't mean any criticism by saying this, explanations don't change the risk factor of a higher wing loading. Explain, yes. Alter, no.
Quote:
What exactly is it you are trying to accomplish? Don't reply saying you're concerned about CRW wingloads - you haven't said anything about it in any of your posts. Rather, you've posted a very confrontational message and have sat back to watch the fireworks.
I won't say that I'm concerned about CRW wingloads. I'll say that I'm concerned about wing loads, period. I have commented on CRW wingloads in other posts. In the other forums, there was much more discussion, so that's where most of my comments were made. Again, I'm not going to crosspost every reply to every forum. My posts are there, go find them. I wrote them once, I'm not going to go digging them because someone missed or chose to not read them.
Quote:
Fortunately or unfortunately, most CRWdogs either don't frequent dropzone.com or have chosen not to respond in kind.
Chosen not to reply for what reason? Is safety not a worthy issue?

If you don't like the way the e-mail was written, say that, and get past it. Beyond that, you're attacking someone for questioning the practice of suggesting higher wing loadings to newer jumpers. Don't let a valid issue become lost over dissagreement of words.

To that end, I offer an apology for my misinterpreted statements and poorly chosen words, and ask that you and everyone else share your thoughts on the issue.

Stay safe,
Mike


Nullified  (C 32259)

Mar 19, 2004, 1:30 AM
Post #18 of 63 (3090 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Scrumpot] CReW wing loadings...Please read [In reply to] Can't Post

Hi Grant.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Wingloading wasn't an issue on this accident. I could have been under a gigantic canopy, and the same results would have still occured.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Although I think it is admirable that this jumper is accepting culpability for him/(her?)self, I do still find myself somewhat disagreeing, and now asking again of you Mike, for further opinion on this statement.
Quote:
I don't disagree with Bubbles in that she made the mistake that put her in the hospital, but I do disagree with her regarding the results.
To say that under a gigantic canopy the sane results would've occured is like saying that under a smaller canopy the resluts wouldn't have been worse. If this were the case, then downsizing would never be an issue. We could all just buy tiny canopies fresh out of AFF.
Every canopy is dangerous, but a larger canopy is going to do less damage than a smaller canopy if the same mistake is made.
Bubbles almost died. If she had been flying a 113, the damage would've been greater. If she had been under a VX46, well, that's the idea.

Grant, this isn't directed towards you, but I'm finding it really sad that most people seem to be more concerned with the way the e-mail was written than about the topic of the e-mail.

Some people have gone past the heated tone of the words and addressed the issue, but most haven't.

Stay safe,
Mike


selbbub78  (C 34824)

Mar 19, 2004, 5:55 AM
Post #19 of 63 (3061 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Nullified] CReW wing loadings...Please read [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I don't disagree with Bubbles in that she made the mistake that put her in the hospital, but I do disagree with her regarding the results.
To say that under a gigantic canopy the sane results would've occured is like saying that under a smaller canopy the resluts wouldn't have been worse. If this were the case, then downsizing would never be an issue. We could all just buy tiny canopies fresh out of AFF.
Every canopy is dangerous, but a larger canopy is going to do less damage than a smaller canopy if the same mistake is made.
Bubbles almost died. If she had been flying a 113, the damage would've been greater. If she had been under a VX46, well, that's the idea.
Some people have gone past the heated tone of the words and addressed the issue, but most haven't.

Stay safe,
Mike

Well, just to clarify, since I really don't know what everyone on this list knows. I did a 180 degree toggle turn at approximly 50 feet. Why I did this, i'm still not sure. Just to make sure everyone realizes also, there's no way i would be flying a 113, or a VX46. Why??? Because i'm not ready for that. I think that's what Mike's original post is about. Just wingloading in general. It is apparent that wingloading can be an issue. It just wasn't in my situation. At least that's what I think. I'm newer on a 126 (approximatly 30 jumps on it), but I was jumping bigger canopies until I was ready for that canopies. No one made me feel like I had to downsize just to fit in with the 1.3 to 1.4 wingloading. The guys I was doing CRW with worked with the canopies that I was jumping, and worked with my experience level all through the entire thing. Just my 2 cents.

blue skies,


Genn  (D 22590)

Mar 19, 2004, 7:26 AM
Post #20 of 63 (3049 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Nullified] CReW wing loadings...Please read [In reply to] Can't Post

Hi Mike,

Look...I responded to his letter because you asked people of all experience levels to give their input.

I wasn't under the impression that you would be responding/defending/explaining (whatever) Scott Miller wrote. If anything, I expected it from the horse's mouth. I also think it is cowardly to let you take the heat for what he said. My original response was not directed at you in any way. Unfortunately, I'm responding to you now, given your stance.


Scrumpot  (D License)

Mar 19, 2004, 7:28 AM
Post #21 of 63 (3047 views)
Shortcut
Re: [selbbub78] CReW wing loadings...Please read [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Just my 2 cents.

And THANK YOU for adding it! ...Sincerely.
My best wishes to you now for a speedy and hopefully full recovery.

I do not speak from inexperience myself (unfortunately) in this regard.
Here's my point (and a story):

On jump #100-something back in 1998 I also "turned myself into the ground" ...Under my PD210 (loaded at ~1-1). Compression fractured all 5 of my lower lumbar vertebrae (good thing I was already 6' 2" otherwise people might be calling me "shorty" now Wink). Like you, it was a completely DUMB canopy piloting MISTAKE and was nobody's fault except my own. Since then, I've obviously had a lot of time to think about (and have hopefully learned from) my accident. One of those things I know is that if I were under instead a 1.3 or higher loaded canopy, and had pulled the exact same "stunt" ...I most likely would not even be here today to type this. That's how radical, and DUMB my canopy piloting error was. So yes, absolutely you can hurt yourself under any size canopy. I'm living proof of that. However, and I submit quite vociferously really, that the only thing that "saved me" if you will, was the fact that I was under instead that 1-1 PD.

At the time, I had also flown, and had on-hand a Sabre 190 as well (which w/have put me at about 1.2). Had just about like you... roughly 25-30 reasonably "good" landings on it too & at the time otherwise I think ...I would have been saying exactly the same thing: That I can handle it, and that THAT was not the issue. I would have been wrong. Most likely too: DEAD WRONG. Although most of us can fly & land quite compitently, even early in our progressions somewhat higher wing loadings (cause canopies now adays provide more lift, and actual "flight") under "normal" (read: ideal) conditions ...it's instead when the inevitable variables are thrown in that we put ourselves in true peril.

Again, I am in a glass house so I am certainly not throwing stones. But it seems to me that plain & simple you were NOT ready for that 1.3+ wingloading, period ...no matter what you "thought". I am not entering the "debate" as to whether anyone felt actually pressured here, pushed in one direction etc. or not, or even if/and/or anyone is getting upset simply because opinions are being posted here in that regard, because that is something I simply do not know/know about. It may be germane for those of you who were actually involved to honestly reflect upon & assess and reconcile; However, even outside of that I do believe that there are lessons to be learned here as a result of your accident. ...Which I do hope for your own sake as well as others, get taken to heart.

Heal quickly, but more importantly heal WELL!

Blue Skies,
-Grant


(This post was edited by Scrumpot on Mar 19, 2004, 7:32 AM)


chuckbrown  (D 19538)

Mar 19, 2004, 9:11 AM
Post #22 of 63 (3029 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Scrumpot] CReW wing loadings...Please read [In reply to] Can't Post

The reason Scott Miller's e-mail has pissed off the CRW community is that he portrayed CRW as full of reckless jumpers who won't hestitate to put a low time jumper under a dangerous canopy. His message to new (to CRW) jumpers is stay away from the CRW Dogs because they're likely to get you hurt in pursuit of the Holy Wingload. Higher wingloadings are killing people in the sport these days, but it isn't happening in the CRW community. Other than Bubbles, I haven't heard of one other serious injury or death because of landing a Lightning or any CRW canopy at any wingloading. Scott Miller's broadside to the CRW community was completely misdirected and completely out of place in response to this incident, specifically, and with respect to CRW in general. I guess he decided that pond swoopers shouldn't be getting all the glory for jumpers landing and going to the hospital. A 180 turn at 50 feet was never a wingloading issue & he should have waited until he had all the facts before foaming at the mouth. According to someone who watched the landing, her canopy hit before she did. Does anyone seriously think a 1.0 WL would have made a difference?

Fortunately for the CRW community, most jumpers are introduced to CRW at their local DZ after watching how careful and competent the local CRW Dogs are.


(This post was edited by chuckbrown on Mar 19, 2004, 9:44 AM)


Scrumpot  (D License)

Mar 19, 2004, 9:35 AM
Post #23 of 63 (3023 views)
Shortcut
Re: [chuckbrown] CReW wing loadings...Please read [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Does anyone seriously think a 1.0 WL would have made a difference?

Yes. I do. ...re-read my post. Maybe I'm wrong though. Just a bit more information to consider & throw out there from yet another (experienced mishap victim) perspective, that's all. I feel strongly, based upon my experience, that had I been on a 1.3-1 canopy at my experience level at the time, instead of my 1.0-1 that I just happened to be on (I had lent my 190 to another LIGHTER jumper coincidentally), that I would not be here today. Some of us, regardless of how loud it is shouted, still totally delude ourselves as it pertains to percieved abilities under certain progressive wing loadings, despite illustrative experiences of people past (and passed). Not saying that is what necessarily happened here, because obviously I don't KNOW. Only "Bubbles" knows that or not for herself, for sure. But I do think it is worth at least an honest reconsideration and assessment. If it also makes others THINK too, well then all the better. That's my only point, and the only reasoning for recounting my "story" here as well.

Again, I am staying comletely out of the "Scott Miller vs. the CRW-dog" controversy. I am neither Scott Miller, nor a CRW-dog personally, myself.

-Grant


relyon  (D 18973)

Mar 19, 2004, 11:10 AM
Post #24 of 63 (3005 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Nullified] CReW wing loadings...Please read [In reply to] Can't Post

Mike,

In reply to:
No, I still don't understand. ...

Then you choose not to, and after this reply I'll not waste my time further trying to convince you otherwise.

In reply to:
Again, why? If this e-mail doesn't apply to you, then it doesn't apply to you. Same for every other CReW Dog who you've spoken to.

The phrase "... stay as far away from the CRW dogs as possible ..." applies to me, you, and every other CRWdog. I and many of my CRW buds take offense to that and a lot of the rest of his message. You're aware of it, so much so that you e-mailed the crwdogs list a conciliatory message to patch things up.

In reply to:
To get people to consider the added risk of lower time jumpers under more highly loaded canopies.

Then he is incorrectly assuming CRWdogs don't consider that risk and has a really poor way of expressing himself if that's the best he can come up with. I'm guessing Scott doesn't use quite those same words or tone in his canopy course, but perhaps I'm wrong.

In reply to:
I'd like the names of the CReW Dogs who he torched. As far as I remember, "...Some of them..." was as specific as he got.

What percentage is "some"? Who does "them" refer to? Without stating either the phrase most certainly does apply all CRWdogs.

In reply to:
Regarding my statement, I didn't mean to imply that CReW Dogs care less. That was poorly worded on my part, and I'm sorry about that.

Ok.

In reply to:
So, and I ask this with no sarcasm, what is it that CRW will, "Learn from this incident", and how will CRW, "Work to make things even safer"? What is it that's lacking, or needs to be addressed or changed?

Stressing even harder those things we already do, and using this and other incidents as example of what to do and not do. Here's a few items that come to mind:

  • Realize that landing out is more likely to happen on CRW jumps.

  • Be more concerned about getting to the ground safely than getting back to the dropzone.

  • Choose a good landing site early as opposed to being forced to a poor one when there's no altitude or options.

  • DO NOT MAKE RADICAL LOW TURNS!
These apply to any jumper, any canopy, and any wingloading. Many non-CRW jumpers are either not used to off-DZ landings or think it won't happen to them. I'm not talking about landing a hundred yards away in the desert at some place like Perris. I'm referring to everything from city streets, baseball fields, backyards, McDonald's parking lots (hi Wendy!), and forests. At Kapowsin, if you don't land on the DZ or pretty close to it, chances are you'll be coming down in trees, clearcuts, or a rushing river bed.

In reply to:
Would you recomend a reserve loaded at 1.3 - 1.4 to a low time jumper?

Of course not. I don't recommend it for experienced jumpers who have little or no experience on moderately to highly loaded F-111 7-cells. There's plenty of people I see as an accident waiting to happen the first time they chop. That still doesn't make the PD/PR/PS series canopies aggressive or less forgiving.

In reply to:
... I didn't realize that I was then responsible for distributing everyones replies on every forum, to every forum.

You're not, but don't ignore the large volume of replies that didn't support Scott's rant (his word), but instead pointed to (IMO and numerous others, including the jumper involved) the root cause of the injuries sustained in this incident: a radical low turn. I've done 'em, you've probably done 'em, and damn near everyone else has done 'em. Aside from students with less than a half-dozen who can validly claim ignorance, we all need to quit making this stupid mistake and stop doing 'em.

In reply to:
... But, and I don't mean any criticism by saying this, explanations don't change the risk factor of a higher wing loading. Explain, yes. Alter, no.

Quite true. It's also very true is that radical low turns on any canopy at any wingloading greatly increases the risk factor and make landing injuries very likely. Quit ignoring that and asserting it isn't an issue here - it most certainly is.

In reply to:
... In the other forums, there was much more discussion, so that's where most of my comments were made. ...

I read all of them and didn't see them. Scrumpot didn't either and even asked about it. I did read requests to read Scott's message, denial that a low turn was the issue, and a whole lot questions. I can infer a lot from what you did write, but I prefer not doing that beause way too often I'm wrong in my assumptions.

In reply to:
Chosen not to reply for what reason? ...

Many don't frequent dropzone.com. Of those that do, I can't answer why they haven't posted. I'll point out again that many did reply on the crwdogs list, but you've neither posted their replies nor commented on them. My guess is because they didn't doing anything to sharpen Scott's axe. Why you're turning the grindstone for him I can only guess too.

In reply to:
... Is safety not a worthy issue?

Is expressing one's self in a constructive, civil manner not a better way of discussing such a worthy issue? Or has rude language and vague finger pointing become the methods du jour for getting a message across?

In reply to:
If you don't like the way the e-mail was written, say that, and get past it. ...

I did just that and gave concrete examples of exactly what I took offense to. It was the first time I've made any comment on it. This reply is my second and last about the e-mail.

In reply to:
... Beyond that, you're attacking someone for questioning the practice of suggesting higher wing loadings to newer jumpers. Don't let a valid issue become lost over dissagreement of words.

Show me where in anything I've written where I'm attacking Scott. On the contrary, I've pointed out exactly where in Scott's e-mail he does just that, and I feel you are choosing to ignore that and bolster him. A valid issue lost due to words? Talk to Scott about that.

In reply to:
To that end, I offer an apology for my misinterpreted statements and poorly chosen words, and ask that you and everyone else share your thoughts on the issue.

It's not you that needs to apologize, it's Scott. Not for bringing up wingloadings, but for sending a scathing e-mail through a third party directed at a community of skydivers he doesn't know.

Bob

PS - I do consider a Stilleto a less safe canopy than a Lightning at any wingloading. I've not heard of a single instance where a Lightning has been cutaway due to linetwists from opening or an aggressive toggle input; Stillettos have earned a nickname for it.


selbbub78  (C 34824)

Mar 19, 2004, 11:39 AM
Post #25 of 63 (2998 views)
Shortcut
Re: [chuckbrown] CReW wing loadings...Please read [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
The reason Scott Miller's e-mail has pissed off the CRW community is that he portrayed CRW as full of reckless jumpers who won't hestitate to put a low time jumper under a dangerous canopy. His message to new (to CRW) jumpers is stay away from the CRW Dogs because they're likely to get you hurt in pursuit of the Holy Wingload. seriously think a 1.0 WL would have made a difference?

You know the ironic thing about this entire wingloading thing with scott miller, is that he told me that i could probably find some people at my DZ to jump with if i was really interested in trying it. At the time, i thought "hmmm, okay sure why not". Well my first CRW jumps were on my Sabre 190 (just some stacks). My sabre 190 i was wingloading at like a .88. Something ridiculous like that. Eventually I went to a 160 Tri-Hybrid which i was at a 1:1. The guys i jumped with were on the lightnings, and i might have had to front riser a little bit, but No problems, and no issues. At no time did anyone try to tell me i should downsize before I was ready. Heck, every once in a while i still use my tri-hybrid for CRW. It's fun! I can't speak for other DZs, but I know at my DZ, no one who does CRW up there, tried to get me onto a smaller canopy then I was ready for at any time.

As for the comment about a Wingloading of a 1:1 making a difference...... Let's see, I did a 180 degree hard toggle turn at approximatly 50 feet. I don't care what canopy you're under, but no matter what the wingloading is, that's going have the same effect. Having my canopy hit the ground first, has nothing to do with the size of the canopy. It deals with pilot error. Unfortunatly, I screwed up.

blue skies,


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

Forums : Skydiving Disciplines : Canopy Relative Work

 


Search for (options)