BUBLHED 0 #51 November 21, 2008 True. didn't think of that, I guess that i tend to give too much credit that people in general practice (carving, high aoa turns etc.) and explore what they can and can't do under canopy.ATTACK LIFE ! IT'S GOING TO KILL YOU ANYWAY!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,456 #52 November 21, 2008 QuoteI didn't think there would be a huge differance. Makes me wonder if a person of reasonable intelligence, self control and a strong sense of self preservation couldn't handle a canopy slightly smaller, especially if they are the type to do straight in landings. I know there is more to it, but if the canopy isn't accelerated past full glide speed on the approach seems reasonably safe to me. Am I wrong? Under the conditions above of course. Not a huge difference. Noticable, and I was paying close attention. I'm not an instructor, but IMO most reasonably intelligent people could probably land a canopy 2 or 3 (or more) sizes too small under good conditions. That's the killer. I can land my Triathalon downwind (not too fast), crosswind, braked, with gentle braked turns during flare, off field, and in a variety of other unusual situatons. I think I could safely land a 150 or maybe even a 135 under normal circumstances, but not necessarily otherwise. If (when) something went wrong, how wrong would it go? I'm not willing to find out, so I'll keep jumping my Tri for a while yet. Others can and will do what they want, these are just my opinions"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
likestojump 3 #53 November 21, 2008 QuoteI don't know why but clearly when you look at the stats the entire country has a better than average safety record. Lets give you a taste of your own medicine. Let's nitpick this to the bone. How many jumps are done in Canada annually ? How many in US ? How many sport jumpers in Canada ? How many in US ? How many sport injuries in Canada annually ? How many in US ? now take those statistics and balance them out, adjust for the differences. And please, define "better than average safety record". Start by defining "average" safety record. FACTS ONLY PLEASE. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Travman 6 #54 November 21, 2008 I agree 170's are hot items and are the most popular first rig. It took me all of 30 seconds to find a buyer for my 170 when I downsized. But most of the people at my DZ seem to go for about a 1 to 1.1, and on occasion 1.2 for their first rig. So generally a 150 to 190. I did notice a lot of visiting instructors advising me to get a 150 instead of a 170 for my first canopy at my first Christmas boogie. So the culture at Picton might be different to other DZ's, probably because we have much busier airspace due to bigger (and multiple) planes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,691 #55 November 21, 2008 >I don't know why but clearly when you look at the stats the entire country >has a better than average safety record. That's because they all fly down to Lost Prairie and Eloy to hurt themselves! Seriously, I haven't seen much difference in injury rates between Canada and the US. Canada has far fewer injuries/deaths - but also far fewer jumps are made there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
phoenixlpr 0 #56 November 21, 2008 QuotePersonally I feel quite different between a 1.0 and a 1.3 (jumped on the same day, not years apart). Sure.There were days I had jumps on a 160 and 105 too. Size does matter. 1.3 on a 150 is not equal with 1.3 on 190. I took 12 kg of extra weight and jump my Cobalt135, it was not flying at all like a 105 I jumped later. WL and size together might have some sense. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #57 November 21, 2008 QuoteI haven't yet jumped anything more that a 1.17 WL,but how much differance is there really between 1.1 and 1.3 as far as speed and responsiveness? This same canopy when I bought it I was at a 1.05 WL then either I got fatter or MAYBIE IT SHRUNK but I never really noticed a differance, even when I had taken a few years off. I think Brians chart is alittle to conservitive but don't think anyone should get to small to fast. Just curious as to what the effects of 2 tenths WL really are? Going from 1.1 to 1.3, esp coupled with a windy or hot day, is definitely a significant change. Some stupid shit you could get away with before results in some pretty rough landings. Personal experience - my first year, going to Elsinore/Perris in summer while dropping a size...no real injuries, but it was a clear indication of how quickly it can get bad. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BUBLHED 0 #58 November 22, 2008 I think your probebly right. I have read that below a certain size that the problems compound greater than just the WL. I can't remember what that size was however. Seems like the higher the WL and the smaller the size go together into creating hazardous situations. ie: a 190 at 1.3 versus a 120 at 1.3 might be a significant differance? I weigh 245 out the door so I don't see myself trying a 120 but I may try a 190 one of these days.ATTACK LIFE ! IT'S GOING TO KILL YOU ANYWAY!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
squarecanopy 0 #59 November 22, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Almost a thousand jumps so far and no medical bills so my luck is holding out, but thanks for your well wishes that's OK, I didn't get my metal until after 1000 jumps, don't be in such a hurry beleive me i'm notWhilst i did do from a 230 to a 150 at 40ish jumps i went to a 135 at 500 jumps and still jump it now, and cant see my self changing anytime soon You must be jumping at sea level. Just burning a hole in the sky..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chubba 0 #60 November 22, 2008 Quotethat it is not uncommon here in OZ for a 1st rig choice to be for a 150-170ish canopy that will load up at about 1.2-1.3. I have seen it in Qld NSW and WA. and you will often find 170ish canopies advertised as "good 1st canopy" Fellow Australian here, Squeak is RIGHT on the money. Everyone seems to get a 170, regardless of weight if they are spending a decent whack of money. I haven't seen anybody buy a nice ZP canopy loaded ~1.0 or under, like Squeak said, the majority seem to load 1.2-1.3. I've seen guys @ 100 jumps on Sabre's loaded easily 1.5+, or cross braced at 150 jumps, the culture is definitely fast over here. The only people I have seen that are buying larger canopies are the people that grab discount F1-11 rigs to get off renting ASAP... though I see the tendency when they do buy new to go quite smaller, an example is a PD190 (1.0) to a Sabre135 (1.4) @ 90 jumps. I'm a light jumper, I went from a PD 230 to a Sabre2 170 @ 25 jumps, it's loaded slightly under 1.0. Every single person (bar my 2 original instructors) were telling me to buy a 150, some even suggested a 135 for my weight. I actually started a thread here on DZ.com asking whether I should consider a 190 (loaded 0.8ish?) because I have previous injuries... when I told other jumpers about the 190 I got essentially laughed at. My 2 original instructors eventually settled me onto the 170 after a bit of coaching... 19 jumps later on my Sabre2, all 19 soft stand up landings and not looking to change for the next few years, I'm happy. So far, I haven't seen a serious canopy injury from all these 1st canopy selections. I strongly agree with the conservative approach and I personally think a lot of these guys are way over there heads, but I'm very happy they have stayed safe so far. Bit of a rant, but that's my personal view so far of the Aus "1st canopy" scene. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Squeak 17 #61 November 22, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote Almost a thousand jumps so far and no medical bills so my luck is holding out, but thanks for your well wishes that's OK, I didn't get my metal until after 1000 jumps, don't be in such a hurry beleive me i'm notWhilst i did do from a 230 to a 150 at 40ish jumps i went to a 135 at 500 jumps and still jump it now, and cant see my self changing anytime soon You must be jumping at sea level. yes just like the vast majority of east and west coast jumpers in the USofA, what's your point? My point was and is that not all places do things the same as the USofA and it does not seem to turn out to be the Big Bad terrible Thing that alot of people claim it to be.You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky) My Life ROCKS! How's yours doing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hackish 8 #62 November 22, 2008 I will have to find the report I read on the subject and see if I can find their sources. I'll post the data I have right now and edit as I dig up others. How many jumps are done in Canada annually ? 148,000 per year average (unconfirmed so far) How many in US ? 2004 - 2,221,115 2005 - 2,177,007 2006 - 2,122,749 2007 - 2,157,899 How many sport jumpers in Canada ? 2004 2005 2006 2007 How many in US ? 2004 - 32057 2005 - 31276 2006 - 30618 2007 - 31264 How many sport injuries in Canada annually ? Fatalities: 2004 - 0 2005 - 2 2006 - 0 2007 - 2 Injuries: 2004 2005 2006 2007 How many in US ? Fatalities: 2004 - 21 2005 - 27 2006 - 21 2007 - 18 Injuries requiring medical attention: 2004 2005 2006 2007 - 821 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
squarecanopy 0 #63 November 22, 2008 You must be jumping at sea level. yes just like the vast majority of east and west coast jumpers in the USofA, what's your point? My point was and is that not all places do things the same as the USofA and it does not seem to turn out to be the Big Bad terrible Thing that alot of people claim it to be. Point taken. My point is that jumping a 1.3 or 1.4 WL at 40 jumps here in Colorado is a recipe for getting your ass busted bad. The field elevation at Mile High in Longmont is 5052 ft MSL, and on hot days the density altitude on the ground can exceed 9,000 ft. Thin air = less lift = less margin for error - means more experience needed for safe landings at high wing loadings. Your lack of injury jumping a high WL at low levels of experience was due to your sea level environment. It is simply the principles of aerodynamics dictated by the laws of physics. Jumping your 150 or 135 with only 40 jumps in Colorado would very likely get you hurt, especially in the summer. Whew. It was alot shorter just to say " you must be jumping at sea level". BTW I am sincerely happy for your lack of injuries. Keep it up. I have been through the shattered tib/fib thing and it ain't fun. Keeps you out of the airplane for long periods of time too. Blue Skies Safe Landings Just burning a hole in the sky..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
likestojump 3 #64 November 22, 2008 Michael, your wrote "I don't know why but clearly when you look at the stats the entire country has a better than average safety record." yet now, you are unable to back up that statement. You have not provided a single piece of evidence in support of the statement and were not able to objectify (quantify) "average". Your statement is not credible until proven otherwise. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kami-kaze 0 #65 November 22, 2008 Additional Info on how different things can be in OZ compared to USA... a) no one does downwinders...to a point when I did one they said "so, it can be done.. " b) Jumping on cloudy day is allowed. You do a cloud jump course which involves reading a piece of paper and signing it at the manufest, and you are on the load.. c) There are E, F licenses that the only purpose is the Australian skydiving federation makes money out of issuing (and by tickling peoples egos for having it) on top of a already high cost of membership. good one.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Piece 0 #66 November 22, 2008 148/2100 = 0.07. 22*0.07 = 1.5. So Canada should have about 1.5 deaths per year according to your numbers. More importantly, trying to do statistics on a data set this small is like trying to count the number of spots on a cow based on a single hair and a screwdriver for tools. I've been to plenty of dropzones in Canada. I have a busted knee from some canopy advice I followed out there. No way this attitude is safer, there just aren't enough jumpers for a big enough body count to convince you otherwise. Canadians are no different from Americans in this (or any, really) regard. If you think crude statistics make you safe, think again: my head is on fire and my feet are frozen, on average I'm fine! Edit: this is not in any way intended to be knocking Canadian skydiving, I really miss the DZs I used to jump at.http://icanhascheezburger.com/2008/02/28/funny-pictures-i-come-with-sarcasm/ Proudly uncool since 1982. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hackish 8 #67 November 22, 2008 QuoteMichael, your wrote "I don't know why but clearly when you look at the stats the entire country has a better than average safety record." yet now, you are unable to back up that statement. You have not provided a single piece of evidence in support of the statement and were not able to objectify (quantify) "average". Your statement is not credible until proven otherwise. As I said in my description the stats are incomplete and I will fill the missing ones out when I get them. There were some studies published and quoted many times when we were drafting up letters to fight the NPA-99 thing. The average of 1 fatality per 148,000 jumps is probably not significant enough to compare to the 1 per 100,000 jumps in the US so let's wait for more data. I suspect if the canopy advice here were really bad then you'd see a higher ratio of injuries and deaths per jump. -Michael Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
likestojump 3 #68 November 23, 2008 QuoteQuoteMichael, your wrote "I don't know why but clearly when you look at the stats the entire country has a better than average safety record." yet now, you are unable to back up that statement. You have not provided a single piece of evidence in support of the statement and were not able to objectify (quantify) "average". Your statement is not credible until proven otherwise. As I said in my description the stats are incomplete and I will fill the missing ones out when I get them. There were some studies published and quoted many times when we were drafting up letters to fight the NPA-99 thing. The average of 1 fatality per 148,000 jumps is probably not significant enough to compare to the 1 per 100,000 jumps in the US so let's wait for more data. I suspect if the canopy advice here were really bad then you'd see a higher ratio of injuries and deaths per jump. -Michael so, essentially you are cofirming my statement of total lack of credibility of your statement ? why "say" something that you cannot backup ? That just takes away your credibility and distorts the conversaion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
danielcroft 2 #69 November 23, 2008 Maybe you guys could argue amongst yourselves somewhere else? Back on topic... I went from 1:1 (190) to 1.1:1 (170) and really didn't notice much difference. There's definitely a difference between them but it wasn't as scary or as noticeable as I was expecting. I have friends who've started out on some fairly highly loaded canopies just due to their weight. Their feeling was that because that's what they learned on it wasn't a big deal for them. Not to say that they couldn't get into trouble faster nor is it to say that they're necessarily going to get into trouble because of their wing loading. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #70 November 23, 2008 Quote I have friends who've started out on some fairly highly loaded canopies just due to their weight. Their feeling was that because that's what they learned on it wasn't a big deal for them. Not to say that they couldn't get into trouble faster nor is it to say that they're necessarily going to get into trouble because of their wing loading. There is a general consensus that the standard wing loading arguments are for average size people and that they should be more stringently followed for smaller people, and less so for big people. The reason for this is that a smaller canopy goes faster at a given wing loading than a larger one at the same loading. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Blink 0 #71 November 23, 2008 QuoteI have friends who've started out on some fairly highly loaded canopies just due to their weight. No, you have friend that started out on some fairly highly loaded canopies due to their choice in canopy size, their weight has nothing to do with it. If they weighed 230 lbs, and jumped a 230, then it'd be a 1:1, but they chose to go to a 190/170, whatever is may be. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,819 #72 November 23, 2008 QuoteQuote I have friends who've started out on some fairly highly loaded canopies just due to their weight. Their feeling was that because that's what they learned on it wasn't a big deal for them. Not to say that they couldn't get into trouble faster nor is it to say that they're necessarily going to get into trouble because of their wing loading. There is a general consensus that the standard wing loading arguments are for average size people and that they should be more stringently followed for smaller people, and less so for big people. The reason for this is that a smaller canopy goes faster at a given wing loading than a larger one at the same loading. I don't believe that to be the reason. Small canopies are more sensitive to control inputs than large canopies at the same WL.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Blink 0 #73 November 23, 2008 Woops, offtopic. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #74 November 23, 2008 QuoteQuoteI don't believe that to be the reason. Small canopies are more sensitive to control inputs than large canopies at the same WL. You are correct. A quote from PD's publication on wingloading: Different canopy models of the same size may perform differently, but they will fly approximately the same speed. Wing loading is the biggest determinant of speed. A Stiletto 190 is not really faster than a Sabre 190, or even a PD 190! Other aspects of performance will be different, however. (Turn rate, glide angle, etc.) These differences may influence a person’s impression of speed. http://performancedesigns.com/docs/wingload.pdf While I don't dispute John's point, yours is off topic. We are discussing different sized canopies, not different models. A Sabre 2 135 at 1:1 is going much faster than a Sabre 2 190 at 1:1. Does it also turn faster? Yes it does. Does it lose more altitude in a 180 degree turn? not sure. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BUBLHED 0 #75 November 23, 2008 *** Exactly and yes it does loose more altitude in a 180 degree turn. If the turn is done in the same manner. If the 190 is accelerating to 50 mph during a 7 second diving 180 and the 135 is doing 60 mph during the same 7 second dive the 135 will be loosing more altitude. The differance is that going faster and being more responsive the 135 will only need a 5 second diving 180 to reach the level-off but you'll still be going faster with less time to react. At least that's how it plays out in my mind. ATTACK LIFE ! IT'S GOING TO KILL YOU ANYWAY!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites