Is this really safe?

[skybytch 259]

Quote

Having a rig that holds a large main and a large reserve looks even worse.

That statement shows that you bought into the appearance bullshit just like the cool kids you are talking about.

[sundevil777 93]

Admitting that it looks worse is very different than admitting that it will be very important to the decision of what size canopies to buy.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[skybytch 259]

Quote

Admitting that it looks worse is very different than admitting that it will be very important to the decision of what size canopies to buy..

What exactly is it about large containers (or large canopies, for that matter) that make them so not cool that even people who think that novices shouldn't be jumping small stuff insist on perpetuating the myth that bigger rigs don't look as good as smaller ones? If we don't want novices flying 1.4 wingloadings, perhaps we should stop telling them that rigs designed to hold bigger canopies look like shit.

[sundevil777 93]

Quote

Quote

Admitting that it looks worse is very different than admitting that it will be very important to the decision of what size canopies to buy..

What exactly is it about large containers (or large canopies, for that matter) that make them so not cool that even people who think that novices shouldn't be jumping small stuff insist on perpetuating the myth that bigger rigs don't look as good as smaller ones? If we don't want novices flying 1.4 wingloadings, perhaps we should stop telling them that rigs designed to hold bigger canopies look like shit.

The problem is that it isn't a myth. Of course we would have fewer downsizing so quickly if it wasn't so, and if smaller rigs weren't lighter, but they are.

I jump a beautiful rig that is large, a nice soft landing that keeps me more likely to walk without a limp is what I want, so I jump a 210 main/220 reserve. If I could have bought canopies that could pack smaller, then I would have because I think my rig would look even better if it were smaller, would rather it be less bulky on my back, and wish it was lighter. The larger optimums were not quite available when I ordered my latest rig, I definitely would have paid extra for the ability to get the container smaller.

If we're going to prevent people from downsizing too quickly, it won't be done by denying that smaller rigs have appeal.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[skybytch 259]

I can understand wanting a lighter rig, but weight has nothing to do with appearance. Less bulky only matters if the rig is so large for your body size that it hangs down over your ass or sticks out on either side of you - I will agree that looks like shit, but that's not the rig's fault.

Instead of telling jumpers with big canopies that their rigs look like shit and they need to downsize if they want to look cool, perhaps we should just STFU and let them happily jump the gear that is safer for them and everyone in the air with them. It's because experienced jumpers loudly denigrate larger rigs that newbies have any clue at all that jumping one isn't considered "cool."

[sundevil777 93]

Quote

It's because experienced jumpers loudly denigrate larger rigs that newbies have any clue at all that jumping one isn't considered "cool."

Quite right!

At least I will never be guilty of that, of course others are. My rig doesn't look awkward or terribly bulky on me, but I certainly would prefer it be a smaller and lighter for many reasons, including that I think it would look better.

Perhaps some novices are also pushed to small canopies because so many think that the logical WL to settle at within a couple hundred jumps is between 1.3 and 1.5 or more. Novices are so often told that is what they will want soon. This is a separate issue from the appearance aspect, although related.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[wolfriverjoe 1,346]

Quote

Quote

Having a rig that holds a large main and a large reserve looks even worse.

That statement shows that you bought into the appearance bullshit just like the cool kids you are talking about.

No. I don't buy into the bullshit.

I sort of figured that calling a smaller rig "sexy" would get across the point that I don't buy into that line of thinking. I should have been a little less sarcastic. Or maybe made it clear that I didn't agree with what the "cool kids" think.

For the record, I jump a 190 with a 176 reserve. I'm in the process of getting a new rig that will have a 170 main and a 176 reserve.
I personally like a lot of fabric over my head.

"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

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Do you think it is safe / ok to jump a 130 sqft reserve with so little experience?

No.

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

but I certainly would prefer it be a smaller and lighter for many reasons, including that I think it would look better.

What are some of these reasons? The only logical reasons I have found for buying a real small rig would be because you fly and swoop a very small canopy and regardless what some jumpers think there are just a small number of jumpers that have the skills to do this safely. The other reason would be to look cool. This is just a guess on my part and would apply to belly fliers since I am not familiar with head downers, about 50% of people jumping tiny rigs also wear weights when they jump Since they mostly do 4/8 way, big ways or fun jumps they are not heavy into swooping. So why the tiny rigs, “looking cool”. How many jumpers have died behind “looking cool”?

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

Quote

If you can find a FAR anywhere that mentions loading a parachute of any sort (other than the max weights in the various TSO-23s), or one that requires following manufacturer's recommendations (for anything other than AADs) I'd love to see it and be proven wrong.

Slightly off topic, but the insecure little boy in me likes to prove people wrong. You forgot about TI certification:

"One of the parachutists using the tandem parachute system . . . Has been certified by the appropriate parachute manufacturer or tandem course provider as being properly trained on the use of the specific tandem parachute system to be used." [PART 105 SEC 105.45 (a) 1 (v)]

Tandem jumping is in a category by itself. Even so with the discussion being on wing loading and experience I would say the statement stands. Find one place in the CFR’s that addresses either one. Even Part 105.45 does not say anything about wing loading or experience.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[sundevil777 93]

Quote

Quote

but I certainly would prefer it be a smaller and lighter for many reasons, including that I think it would look better.

What are some of these reasons? The only logical reasons I have found for buying a real small rig would be because you fly and swoop a very small canopy and regardless what some jumpers think there are just a small number of jumpers that have the skills to do this safely. The other reason would be to look cool. This is just a guess on my part and would apply to belly fliers since I am not familiar with head downers, about 50% of people jumping tiny rigs also wear weights when they jump Since they mostly do 4/8 way, big ways or fun jumps they are not heavy into swooping. So why the tiny rigs, “looking cool”. How many jumpers have died behind “looking cool”?

Sparky

I am not burdened with the need to wear weights in order to fall fast enough. There is no downside for me to have less overall influence from gravity.

I would rather have a rig that would not take up as much room while crammed in the plane, as much room in a door jam-up, as much room in my gear bag (especially when travelling).

I would rather be able to fly with a less bulky rig. I didn't like the bulky gutter gear that I started with. When I first jumped a rig that had the reserve mounted on the back in 1981, I thought it was incredibly liberating. As the size and weight of what was on my back reduced with each more advanced rig I jumped and bought through the years, I very much appreciated the improvement. I haven't yet gotten to the point where I wouldn't want it to still be smaller and lighter. Perhaps if I had one of the teeny tiny rigs that are available now, then I may no longer wish it was smaller. But I've had to land in too many places where a low WL was very helpful to seek that improvement in size and weight.

I will never be the one that influences others to jump high wingloads. I just think it is not realistic to deny tiny rigs are appealing. Influencing novices to not downsize too quickly will not be done by trying to convince them they don't want a small rig, it will be done by convincing them that high wingloads have inherent dangers and that they want to stay out of the hospital, walk without a limp.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[BlindBrick 0]

Quote

You can legally jump a handkerchief if you want.

Only if you itend to either land it or chop it on a tert rig.

-Blind

"If you end up in an alligator's jaws, naked, you probably did something to deserve it."

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

Influencing novices to not downsize too quickly will not be done by trying to convince them they don't want a small rig, it will be done by convincing them that high wingloads have inherent dangers and that they want to stay out of the hospital, walk without a limp.

And we know how well that works. Approximately 30% of fatalities in the last few years have been while trying to land a small canopy.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

I just think it is not realistic to deny tiny rigs are appealing. Influencing novices to not downsize too quickly will not be done by trying to convince them they don't want a small rig,

You've misinterpreting the point.
Denial is not the issue. Broadcasting the appeal of small and denigrating the appeal of large is the point.

The point is saying that this is NOT good:
"Get out of the big-ass boat and get yourself something cool."

You're misinterpreting us as saying:
"Small is not appealing."

I'm with the 'bytch...
People who fly the small ones are the ones who are denigrating the larger ones.
They don't realize the impact and influence they have on young jumpers.

I personally believe it's all about ego.
"Look at me! I fly a handkerchief! Ain't I just the coolest cat on the block? You, on the other hand, are a nerd because you fly a big-ass boat. You wanna be cool like me? Get yourself a handkerchief!"

Before anyone replies with "I fly a small one because I like the performance and speed or whatever" take note that what you fly is not the issue. The issue is how you influence others.
Food for thought.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[sundevil777 93]

OK, so I understand you think I'm misinterpreting your point. I think I'm just more pragmatic about what can actually be done.

What would you change? In order to prevent those that have teeny rigs from influencing the novice, it means that teeny rigs have to not be allowed or something like that, right? Perhaps a teeny canopy would have to be put in a large rig that has "filler" foam in the pack trays so that it isn't a teeny rig. However, we'd still have people doing impressive swoop landings to influence the novice, so we'd have to stop that, maybe make them go somewhere they can't be seen landing?

Anyway, it isn't going to happen, there will be teeny rigs and impressive swoops to tempt the novice. So we are left with other less effective ways of preventing early downsizing. Perhaps a really ugly scared straight program should be imposed upon all jumpers. When you fill out your waiver (not first time students), you have to watch a series of videos of landings gone wrong, including multiple fracture/bones popping out/blood pouring out images, with visitations in the hospital, scenes of operations to fix hips and femurs, a listing with pics of those regulars at the DZ that have been hurt, etc. Make them watch it every month or something like that.

I don't pretend to have the answer, really I don't. I'm just admitting that teeny rigs are appealing and even if all ridiculing of large rigs stops, the appeal will still be there.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[airtwardo 6]

What would you change? In order to prevent those that have teeny rigs from influencing the novice, it means that teeny rigs have to not be allowed or something like that, right?

Small chevron type patches sewn on the side of the rig to denote the number of injuries the lil' snot-rag has caused...


We just need to get across to the n00bs it's an odds game.

I'm a big guy - jump a big rig - never been injured in 3 1/2 decades of playing...little rig guys tend to limp a lot.

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[davelepka 4]

Quote

Before anyone replies with "I fly a small one because I like the performance and speed or whatever" take note that what you fly is not the issue. The issue is how you influence others.
Food for thought.

Exactly. I do fly a small canopy because I like the spped and performance. I have also spent a decade and half and 5000+ jumps building up to the point where I can jump that type of canopy. Furhtermore, what I jump is nowhere near the smallest canopy I could safely jump, it's the size I prefer to jump on a day to day basis.

The trick is to convey that to the newbies. The trick is to point out to them when they're pushing too hard, in no uncertain terms. Don't hold back, and don't subscribe to the 'you get more flies with honey' routine, tell them they're being an asshole, and on their way to being a stain on the LZ and ruining your day, or quite possibly your season by going in at your DZ.

After that, stick to your guns. Don't give in and jump with them next week even though they didn't change. Don't have a beer with them after jumping, or offer up advice on other things. Make them persona-non-grata, and people will get the message.

The problem is that people tolerate the bullshit. They let is slide, or say, 'He's a great guy, but he needs to slow down'. The thing is, he's not a great guy, he's the problem, and if left unchecked, he becomes the axample for the next crop of problems comnig up next year.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, all of these things that plauge our sport, like aggressive downsizing and over-eager swoopers simply need to be looked at as outcasts. Nobody has a problem looking a low-puller straight in the eye and telling them they're dangerous, and avoiding jumping with them, but not for a guy who's pushing the limits with WL or swooping. The fun jumpers, the staff, the management, the S&TAs are all guilty of it. If a guy makes a habit of dumping at 1600', all hell breaks loose and everyone has an opinion, but when a guy is jumping an eliptical at 1.5 with 200 jumps, people sit quitely and discuss it amongst themselves.

How about telling the guy he's an asshole, and sticking to your guns until he proves otherwise? I jumped with a guy like that once, he was out of control to the point that we nick-named him 'Danger', and most of us stopped jumping with him all together. He spent a season in Eloy, got his shit together, and went on to become a great jumper that we all looked forward to jumping with.

If skydivers would start acting like skydivers, instead of members of a quilting clatch, we wouldn't have these problems. We wouldn't tolerate the assholes, and it would be very uncomfortable for them to keep coming back to the DZ until they cut the shit out.

[Unstable 8]

Quote

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, all of these things that plauge our sport, like aggressive downsizing and over-eager swoopers simply need to be looked at as outcasts. Nobody has a problem looking a low-puller straight in the eye and telling them they're dangerous, and avoiding jumping with them, but not for a guy who's pushing the limits with WL or swooping.

Agreed. I can think of a few DZ's that are notorious for this kind of behavior. I remember at My first collegiates competition, I saw a few college kids jumping 1.5-2.0 Wing loading with less than 400 jumps ~ no one even considered to call him out on it until they had to scoop him up and take him to the hospital.

Another point I would like to observe is the use of lower pack-volume reserve parachtues, such as the optimum. Fantastic canopy ~ However, I wish jumpers would use them correctly. About 1/2 of the folks I know that bought them new reasoned along the lines of having a smaller and smalller container, not necessarily having a larger reserve.

=========Shaun ==========

[DocPop 1]

Here is the response I got from PD. So it seems that it is illegal to load a reserve over 1.4 under 500 jumps, but only if it is a PD reserve.

Quote

Thanks for contacting PD on this.

You won’t find the wording in an FAR about the 500 jumps, but rather it is in our owners manual, and the FAA requires users to operate within the manufacturers operating limitations.

I hope this information addresses your questions adequately.

Best regards,
Rusty Vest

"The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls."

~ CanuckInUSA

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

Here is the response I got from PD. So it seems that it is illegal to load a reserve over 1.4 under 500 jumps, but only if it is a PD reserve.

Quote

Thanks for contacting PD on this.

You won’t find the wording in an FAR about the 500 jumps, but rather it is in our owners manual, and the FAA requires users to operate within the manufacturers operating limitations.

I hope this information addresses your questions adequately.

Best regards,
Rusty Vest

It is all well and good that the manufacturer says we must follow the published operating limitations, but if PD cannot state the FAR that requires it, it means nothing as far as federal law is concerned.

So please ask Rusty to tell us which FAR requires compliance (on the part of the jumper) with the operating limitations published in the manual.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

You won’t find the wording in an FAR about the 500 jumps, but rather it is in our owners manual, and the FAA requires users to operate within the manufacturers operating limitations.

That's a very indirect connection to the law, which is why so many people are skeptical about it.

Regardless, now we need to connect the two dots: which FAA rule states that users must operate their parachutes within the manufacturers operating limitations.

Somehow I'm uneasy with this connection - it gives the manufacturer the ability to make "law" all on their own. If the manufacturers got tired of being sued for people injuring themselves with hook turns, all the manufacturers have to do is write "no hook turns" in their owner's manuals, and voila! It's now "against the law" to do hook turns.

Has the FAA ever prosecuted anyone for violating this "law" with parachutes?

[Scrumpot 1]

Quote

Has the FAA ever prosecuted anyone for violating this "law" with parachutes?

Even if they did - we all know it would not be the individual skydiver "violating" anyway. Same as per ramp-checks (which have been conducted) for out-of-date reserves - FAA applies their recourse against the certificated pilot of the aircraft being used in the operation, and not the PIC of the skydiving gear itself.

coitus non circum - Moab Stone

[likestojump 3]

Quote

Quote

Has the FAA ever prosecuted anyone for violating this "law" with parachutes?

Even if they did - we all know it would not be the individual skydiver "violating" anyway. Same as per ramp-checks (which have been conducted) for out-of-date reserves - FAA applies their recourse against the certificated pilot of the aircraft being used in the operation, and not the PIC of the skydiving gear itself.

awhile ago a user posted a letter from FAA referencing an investigation for cloud busting. It was directed the skydiver(s) involved, not the pilot (i.e. against people holding no (relevant) FAA certificate). I cannot find the link, but I *think* it was airtwardo who posted it.

[sundevil777 93]

Quote

the FAA requires users to operate within the manufacturers operating limitations.

That is not correct.

It is very 'interesting' to see that they do actually pretend that it is so, but it is not.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[DiverMike 5]

+1 There is no requirement to operate parachutes within the manufacturers operating limitations.

also:

Sec. 91.13 — Careless or reckless operation only pertains to aircraft and I have not found any indication that the FAA considers an unpowered parachute an aircraft.

For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.