Dumbass Question of the Day: Technological Help to Prevent Low Hook Turns?

[flyhi 24]

A large portion of the discussion on this site revolves around the prevention of low hook turns and the resultant injuries. So far, from what I've read, everyone seems to look at the man portion of the man-machine interface. I was wondering if anyone has looked at the other end of the equation: the machine. Does anyone know of anyone looking at any technological steps being taken to assist with "aggressive turns to final"?

I would throw out an adjustable low altitude audible that signals safe or unsafe altitude to begin a turn, a fiber optic indicator which turns from green to red when it is too low to initiate,... I have to believe with all the great minds out there, someone should be able to address the problem and was just wondering if anyone will or has considered it.

It may sound illogical, undoable, too expensive, but look at the AAD, RSL, skyhook, audible altimeter,... when some of us started, none of those existed. Then again, it may just be the cafe mocha talking. Any thoughts?

Shit happens. And it usually happens because of physics.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Good idea if it can be done, but I bet not.

A: too many variables to measure to accuratly predict "correct" turn hight. If it could be done there goes the pro swoop tour.

B: people are actively tryint to come in too close to the ground and accidentaly killing themselves in the process. They're just gonna ignore the light/beep etc.

C: if you think you're gonna hit that tree/pilon etc your gonna turn anyway and ignore the light/beep

[ianmdrennan 2]

There are already tools to assist in this (Neptune, alti's etc). Problem is that every canopy dives and responds differently. Not to mention the amount of turn we're talking about (enough for a 90 is not enough for a 270, etc). Density altitude changes those numbers on a daily basis, etc, etc, etc.

I think the tools are there for us to learn safe turning altitudes for our canopies today, but they can't do everything for us. We have to use them, and know when to use them for them to be effective.

Blue skies
Ian

Performance Designs Factory Team

[Blahr 0]

Even a canopy manufacturer wont commit to specifics of performance even when given very specific info.

ie:

I Asked PD
"What is the airspeed of my Sabre2 210 in full STRAIGHT flight loaded exactly at 1:1"

They declined to give any direct answer.

With that in mind, how can any electronic device know about how any given canopy will perform during radical or high performance maneuvers with the amazing number of variables involved?

Since there is no way for it to accurately analyze and predict this, how then can it give reliable info on when it safe or not safe to initiate said high performance maneuver?

[Tonto 1]

You'd need more than just altitude. Some canopies can land safely with 180's started at 80 feet. (SM 290) Others would need 10x that. Then there's tempreture, humidity, density altitude, altitude ASL, etc.

Lots of stuff.

t

It's the year of the Pig.

[riggerrob 561]

Steering line configuration can make a huge difference in reducing the amount of altitude lost in turns. For example, you could ask the designers of PD's Navigator student canopy or Icarus' elliptical student canopies.

[LawnDart21 0]

I dunno, sounds good in theory, but.....
At higher wing loadings, the differnce of 6 feet on a plane out can be the difference between a 300 ft swoop or a ride to the ER or worse. That difference really has little to do with the initial turn on final to initiate the swoop, rather its in that turn to the swoop, that the pilot makes the necessary adjustments, ie risers, toggles or no input in necessary, to arrive at the ground just above it, rather than making a big whole in the ground. Plus, with density altitudes and wind speeds always changing slightly, I can't think there ever exists an exact "point of no return" on a low turn/hook turn situation. My philosophy is simply that my eyes are the best indicator for me. I KNOW what too low looks like for me, having been there over a pond, and getting really wet...lol (that differnce of 6 feet I mentioned). In my opinion, the goal is a system of memory/visual calibration built up in each canopy pilot over time. Successful swoops and unsuccesful swoops all add up to being able to just know when you are too low, or at a good alti to commit to a hook turn. The problem is that the unsuccessful hooks obviously can injure or kill if they go bad, which I think goes back to our initial point of taking it slow and progressing incrementally, rather tahn all the "downsized too quickly" incidents we are reading about. I think it would a fair comment to say that most, if not all of the pro pilots have busted themselves up, or atleast pounded in, learning thier skills, the question was how did they survive it, while others didn't? Luck may play a role, but if you see any of thier "Parachutist" profiles, I think the answer is there. Canopy Progression: "PD-170: 2Zillion jumps, Sabre 170: 2 zillion more jumps, etc, etc. They took the time to learn everything their larger canopies could or could not do, and then applied that knowledge base of how to learn a canopies flight envelope on the smaller canopies they jumped. Anyways, thats my .03 cents. Safe Swoops!
Tom

[base698 1]

I have a serious new radical idea... How about people just learn to fly their parachutes?!

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I have a serious new radical idea... How about people just learn to fly their parachutes?!

It's an interesting point for discussion.

However, I tend to be with you on this. The low hook turn guys are already ignoring advice and broken bodies which argue against the practice. So adding another warning of some kind, isn't going to help, because they'll just ignore that too.

We already have altimeters, and common sense guidelines about not doing hook turns below a certain altitude. Those references are being ignored.

And the technological issues surrounding the many variables would seem to be a huge obstacle.

I think this one is a human issue.

What we ought to have, although politically incorrect, is stories in "Parachutist" about how some skydivers have busted themselves up and ruined their lives, by doing hook turns and crashing into the ground. Such articles would describe the accident, how their health and fitness will never be correct again as long as they live, and the hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills, which they'll be paying for the remainder of their lives.

[Martini 0]

Well, Bob, I think that you have a concept that is useful and probably practical. (eventually) Not so much as an alarm but as an information system. If the user could have an accurate and useful altitude readout it might help prevent object fixation, brainlock, distraction etc. from causing a low hook. My personal hangup is twilight interfering with depth perception. Even though most of the information the brain processes during the hook (groundspeed, airspeed, altitude, acceleration, body/canopy angle and lots of other stuff) is mostly visual, a confirmation of true altitude, not a guess at the altimeter, could be a real help to some. For instance I set up a 180 around 450' and a 270 around 650' and a better judgement of altitude might help with consistency even if it just trains my eyes to be more accurate. On the other hand if someone were to become totally reliant on an artificial swoop system they would be injured in short order. An altimeter or Dytter is an aid but no substitute for experience and awareness but having tools like those certainly increases safety. It wouldn't be a bad thing if I knew I was about to set up a swoop 100' low. I'll bet some of the folks who have smashed in might have liked that kind of help.

Sometimes you eat the bear..............

[BASE813 0]

cars dont crash by themselves - the driver is always at fault!


Parachutes dont fly themselves - human error is 100% of the problem - and no amount of tools or gadgets will stop this............ as 698 says "learn to fly you parachute" and you wont get hurt........ and this also means taking into account the environment you are flying in - is it higher then your used to? is there wind factors to think about? blah blah blah.........

[sducoach 0]

Great Idea! Until someone developes a ground proximity radar and an autopilot for canopy pilots.........................

Blues,

J.E.

James 4:8

[firstime 0]

Nice answer 813,
I'll go with 99.9 %. leave that small element of mech
failure. I am going to try to keep my "under 100 jump mentality" as I progress I will always try to remember the posts that I have read HERE, and use them to keep my ass safe.

Be Well ,Safe

Blue skies