Fibula, femur, or fatality (105 elliptical 1.3 PSF 127 jumps)

[denete 2]

Quote

Downsizing isnt a must, but saying you will never downsize at jump 13, when the thrill of just jumping and surviving it is about 90% of the total experience, is a bit premature imo.

I absolutely understand what you mean. Perhaps I'll feel that way in the future, but as for today I don't really have a frame of reference to make that prediction. Thanks for the realistic point of view.

SCR #14809

"our attitude is the thing most capable of keeping us safe"
(look, grab, look, grab, peel, punch, punch, arch)

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

I'm in agreement with Kallend. We all accept different levels of risk. Some jump with AAD, RSL, low wingloading mains and reserves. Some jump with no AAD and/or no RSL and/or small HP canopies and/or no reserves.

For the umpteenth time: this isn't about Chris recognizing and choosing to accept a known level of personal risk. It's about him over-estimating his skill level, and under-estimating his risk; and then stubbornly, and arrogantly, dismissing expert opinions that don't validate his preconceived notions.

[billvon 2,380]

>Some jump with AAD, RSL, low wingloading mains and reserves.
>Some jump with no AAD and/or no RSL and/or small HP canopies and/or
>no reserves.

Yes. However, there is a huge difference between taking a risk and being OK with it and not even understand the risk we were taking.

I taught an FJC yesterday. I used my rig for a few of the throwout walkthroughs just because it's lighter, so it's easier on the students at first. One woman (weighed about 170) asked if she could jump a rig like mine, because it was so much more comfortable and fit her better. (Mine has a Nitro 108.)

"That wouldn't be a good idea; the canopy is a lot smaller and harder to fly," I said.

"I'll be on radio, right? So I'll get help anyway, right?"

Should I have let her jump a 108? After all, she was "accepting the risk" even after I told her it was harder to land.

We as jumpers (and instructors) have a responsibility to other jumpers. When we are instructors, that responsibility is explicit; they're not jumping anything we don't approve of. When it's an experienced jumper to a less experienced jumper, we still have that responsibility (IMO) even though we're not in charge any more.

That guy who wants to jump a 105 at 200 jumps may be the world's best canopy pilot, and may have thousands of hours under small paragliders. Or he may just have seen his friends jump them and thought "that can't be too hard; I'll take that risk!" At that point, though, he hasn't seen landings gone wrong, hasn't been cut off much, hasn't had a spinner, hasn't had to land in someone's backyard, hasn't watched someone die after making a minor mistake. He can't accept the risk yet because he doesn't even understand what he's risking.

In my experience, 90% of the time it is the latter.

[phoenixlpr 0]

None can beat your story!

[mnskydiver688 0]

The difference between understanding risk and taking it is very interesting. Isn't it "understood" that as a skydiver we could die taking part in the sport? What if in a sport that could kill you in a multitude of ways you had a choice? I thought about the fact that we as skydivers must admit that even if we do everything right we could still die. This means that there are things that are out of control that could kill us. What if the decision to downsize rapidly is a person's sub-conscious way of exhibiting a certain amount of control? They know that they could still die, but the way in which they would die would be their fault. They were in control. A person who believes they are truly capable of flying that smaller canopy can not be convinced otherwise until the image of control is removed. When they experience a moment when that canopy is no longer under their control, only then will they re-evaluate why they picked that canopy. Many times that moment is followed by injury or death. That is why the "I am an natural" statement is the first thing to come to mind when their decision is challenged. Is isn't about being a better pilot or displaying skills that make them believe they are capable, it is that their control has not been challenged. Just my uneducated opinion running rampant in the fields of theory and imagination, forgive if you yawned while reading.

Sky Canyon Wingsuiters

[pchapman 261]

I decided to vote "Other".

The "expected outcome" might be defined by the mean outcome or most likely outcome, depending on how one chooses to define it. That's clearly a harsher definition than most people assume, otherwise I couldn't believe that 31% of current voters really expect that the jumper is likely to die from his choice!

If this Cobalt 105 scenario applies to a certain Chris-Ottawa fellow [with this thread being based on other recent ones involving him], I figure the expected outcome is no injury beyond a twisted ankle some day.

Part of the issue is whether someone plans to swoop hard. Since so many want to do so early in their careers, our thoughts about downsizing these days are often coloured by that assumption, which is often a true one, but is also a worst case scenario of sorts. If Chris does decide to start learning 270s on his own during the next couple hundred jumps, maybe I'd change my vote.

Last weekend Chris dropped by the DZ I'm at. His landings were OK standups, although with clearly visible minor issues no worse than any other jumper with under 200 jumps. Given that he isn't planning on doing 270 degree swoop approaches, and isn't mixing it up with an Otter load of other jumpers, there isn't a huge danger there.

He did dig the bottom end of his flare while focusing on landing by the tuffet on a load where we were having an informal bet on doing accuracy. [<--Minor edit for accuracy after reviewing video.] He realized what he did and hopefully learned -- distraction and extra tasks can mess things up for those not yet in easy control of their canopy.

Given one opening I saw and the couple landings on what still is a somewhat high performance canopy, he will have a higher than average chance of having to cut away, or thumping in a bit on landing. I think he knows this. Whether or not he sounds defensive in his posts, his choice to post and take flak for his actions has probably contributed to him learning something.

Like many on these threads, I don't know what the statistics really are. But I figure that the whole issue of junior jumpers breaking tibs, fibs, and femurs applies much more to those making diving swoop approaches to their landings.

[phoenixlpr 0]

Thanks for you positive post! It was really nice to read it.

[kallend 1,620]

Quote

Quote

I'm in agreement with Kallend. We all accept different levels of risk. Some jump with AAD, RSL, low wingloading mains and reserves. Some jump with no AAD and/or no RSL and/or small HP canopies and/or no reserves.

For the umpteenth time: this isn't about Chris recognizing and choosing to accept a known level of personal risk. It's about him over-estimating his skill level, and under-estimating his risk; and then stubbornly, and arrogantly, dismissing expert opinions that don't validate his preconceived notions.

Who on this forum is an expert on Chris's landings?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[AnKaLi 0]

Quote

Quote

Kallend surely from a pure learning point of view it is obvious that the lower someones experience level is the higher their likelihood of making a mistake? The higher the performance level the more likely a serious injury will result. The same is true in lots of dangerous activities (motorcycling for example has far more deaths on >100hp sports bikes with riders <3 years experience).

New riders hit a danger zone after the first 6-12 months when they start to get comfortable on the motorcycle. So you can't presume a straight progression for skydiving, or that they become less prone to error over time. It may well be that the longer they get from their last form of training, the more likely they are to make a mistake.

Not to take the thread off topic at all, but I do believe it is really hard to compare skydiving and motorcycling. The majority of motorcyclists out there are not safety conscious like the majority of skydivers are. This is evident in what people wear while riding. Back when we used to ride, we were teased by other riders because of the amount of gear we wore while riding.

[voltage 0]

Just want to give a word of thanks to all experienced guys giving advise here. The recommendations here gave me a broader perspective when I shopped for gear and I got myself a Spectre at 1:1 wingloading. Most other people recommended a 170 or 150 at WL 1.1-1.3 at that time (40 jumps).

Another jumper with similar expierence and weight from my dropzone got that 150. At around 10 jumps on that canopy he was far out and barely made it back to the DZ, did a too-low-a-turn into the wind and hit hard. He would most probably have been fine on a 190. Thanks god only some stiches and pain for two weeks, but it fucked up his jumping holiday in the U.S. big time. All the while I kept jumping my ass off! So thanks. Big is not always bad.

[billvon 2,380]

>But I figure that the whole issue of junior jumpers breaking tibs, fibs,
>and femurs applies much more to those making diving swoop approaches
>to their landings.

I agree. However, I think the risk of death (i.e. really hard impacts as opposed to broken-leg impacts) is greater for people who never, ever swoop.

Swoopers get experience turning their canopies low and recovering before impact. When they misjudge, it's usually by a few feet and they wind up not quite planing out before they hit. Result - sprained/broken ankle or whatever.

People who never swoop don't know how to turn low. They don't know how much altitude they will lose (and doing turns at 3000 feet does NOT teach you this.) They don't know how their canopy will recover, how much brake to give it to recover faster etc etc.

That's why (I think) we often see incident reports along the lines of "he never swooped, but this time he toggle turned 180 at 50 feet and his canopy hit before he did!" It's not likely that he just started swooping; it's more likely that he saw something that spooked him (say, a flag pointing the wrong way, a post he thought was a fence, oncoming traffic etc) and instinctively turned without knowing what would happen.

So I worry when I see things like "I know it's a fast canopy but I'll be REALLY REALLY careful and only land straight in on moderate wind days!" Sure, it's a good idea to be careful on any new canopy. But if you have to be that ultra careful, you may be missing some of the learning experiences that make people better canopy pilots near the ground.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>People who never swoop don't know how to turn low. ........

So I worry when I see things like "I know it's a fast canopy but I'll be REALLY REALLY careful and only land straight in on moderate wind days!"

That's a new point I've never read, but I think it's a good one.

"I want the tiny canopy so I can stroke my ego, but I promise NOT to learn how to use it so I can kill myself when I have an emergency"

Problem is, if they jump this one and are too timid to learn it, they also aren't learning on that less aggressive canopy they should have been jumping - like they should have been doing in the first place.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[beowulf 1]

The act of learning is about making mistakes and/or learning from mistakes of others. If you really want to be a great canopy pilot you will make mistakes. It's better to make the mistakes under a big canopy then it is to make them under a small canopy and everyone makes mistakes.

[Orange1 0]

Quote

Another jumper with similar expierence and weight from my dropzone got that 150. At around 10 jumps on that canopy he was far out and barely made it back to the DZ, did a too-low-a-turn into the wind and hit hard. He would most probably have been fine on a 190.

Hmm...me, Saturday, long spot, nothing clear between me and the DZ... i could see i could make it back but that i wouldn't have enough altitude to fly a pattern. took a downwind landing with the wind speed somewhere around low teens. it wasn't pretty, but i never doubted that i could do it - it did make me wonder though how many low turns to get into wind happen not because of pattern fixation but because people get scared at how fast their canopies are going and don't trust themselves to land them at that speed? i admit to briefly thinking, while the ground came rushing towards me faster than i have ever seen it, "would be nice to be on a bigger canopy right now " my personal comfort level on a canopy has to be: "can i land this downwind in the maximum winds in which i am prepared to jump?"

Skydiving: wasting fossil fuels just for fun.

[cobaltdan 0]

>People who never swoop don't know how to turn low. They don't know how much altitude they will lose (and doing turns at 3000 feet does NOT teach you this.) They don't know how their canopy will recover, how much brake to give it to recover faster etc etc.


I agree with your point.....two types of jumpers will get hurt turning low: the expert that pushes it too far, and the conservative that says I will never hook (because sooner or later you will be in a bad position or make a series of poor decisions and have to turn low, and the time to learn is not in a bad situation for the first time)

with that said, I do however think that practicing turns and mock swoops high up is extremely beneficial, especially with the right instruction. When you practice high up you lack the close quarter visuals of swooping near the ground, however you can hone your sense of balance. It is your sense of balance that tells you where in your recovery arc you are and hence your vertical decent rate. most non-swoopers would have difficulty performing a 90 or 180 up high with their eyes closed and flaring to dead level flight. learning this up high will accelerate one's learning on landing and greatly increase their safety.

Daniel Preston <><>
atairaerodynamics.com (sport)
atairaerospace.com (military)

[pchapman 261]

Billvon compared the swoopers who, if they hit, may be more likely just to give the earth a glancing blow, to the "I'll be very careful" group, who are more likely to panic toggle whip into the ground.

No objections!

But I'll note, however, that it looks like the definitions being used are that those are EXPERIENCED swoopers versus INEXPERIENCED careful-approach people.

The swoopers wouldn't as safely get to that glancing-blow level if they just started whipping out 270s off student status. Obviously some structured progression can help.

In the same vein, someone can be an experienced and safe non-swooper, if they have taken the time to do some of those canopy control exercises, so that they aren't at great risk of the low emergency toggle whip.

Either way, rapid downsizing makes it more difficult to progress.

The swoopers shouldn't try to jump to the hard core swoop level instantly, and the non-swoopers shouldn't be satisfied only with very conservative approaches.

Some people need to be held back a bit, others need to be given a push!


PS - Dan Preston's idea about eyes-closed turn practice up high (and in clear air) is an intriguing one. Maybe good for getting a feel of the timing and non-visual cues.

[phoenixlpr 0]

Quote

PS - Dan Preston's idea about eyes-closed turn practice up high (and in clear air) is an intriguing one. Maybe good for getting a feel of the timing and non-visual cues.

He is 100% right. It takes time to learn to feel how and when a canopy "flare" on releasing fronts.

[voltage 0]

Sound exactly like what happened to the jumper I wrote about, only he did the turn.

Lately I was in this situation (too low at pattern entry point) and did the whole pattern in one big 180° flat-turn from about 150 feet. There were outs in most directions tough, and I had a nice (not perfect) landing. I learned a bit more about my canopy on that jump.

That is why I agree so strongly with the recommendations here. Only a moderate canopy can afford such a learning expierence (not directed at you - looks like you jump a very appropriate wingloading).

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

New riders hit a danger zone after the first 6-12 months when they start to get comfortable on the motorcycle. So you can't presume a straight progression for skydiving, or that they become less prone to error over time. It may well be that the longer they get from their last form of training, the more likely they are to make a mistake.

Not to take the thread off topic at all, but I do believe it is really hard to compare skydiving and motorcycling. The majority of motorcyclists out there are not safety conscious like the majority of skydivers are. This is evident in what people wear while riding. Back when we used to ride, we were teased by other riders because of the amount of gear we wore while riding.

Actually, the comparison is spot on. At 42 jumps, yes, you're quite safety conscious. I'm far more comfortable, less paranoid now than I was at that point. And clearly Chris is that way as well. And this is a mixed bag. You look at the accidents and you see that students and new jumpers aren't the general profile. They don't rationalize away risks the way we do later. Likewise, new riders tend to be more conservative, though they often do not have the same initial level of quality in training that an A licensed jumper just received. (only a portion of riders take MSF, and that's a 4 day course, not the much longer student jumping process).

There's only one spot where I see new jumpers trying to justify risky choices and that's in buying a used rig that is almost right, but perhaps has a tiny reserve or a main that they need to 'grow into.' This is driven by the costs - after paying for their A license, spending another 2-4000 is daunting and waiting for the perfect deal to come along is a matter of luck and patience, and they're tired of spending 20-30/jump in rental fees.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Swoopers get experience turning their canopies low and recovering before impact. When they misjudge, it's usually by a few feet and they wind up not quite planing out before they hit. Result - sprained/broken ankle or whatever.

People who never swoop don't know how to turn low. They don't know how much altitude they will lose (and doing turns at 3000 feet does NOT teach you this.) They don't know how their canopy will recover, how much brake to give it to recover faster etc etc.

Two people can play canopy games at altitude to get a feeling for how their canopies work without swooping.

The first person out of the plane takes some delay and sets a heading (don't fly away from the drop zone) + descent rate. The second opens out the door.

The second jumper flies to the first using turns ending on the outside of the lower jumper (you do not want a botched turn to become a collision) to match his heading + descent rate with some comfortable horizontal separation (which could be 20' or 2" depending on experience and trust).

Once he's as close as he's going to get the second jumper turns and sets base. Repeat until you run out of altitude (3000'). Hook knives are a good idea but you should NOT be close enough that you're in danger of wrapping. Think of it as no-contact CRW.

Obviously the moving frame of reference makes a difference although the idea is to learn how to instinctively interact with the situation and not just memorize how hard and fast to yank on controls which won't work the same with different initial speeds/attitudes, different density altitudes, or different canopies.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Dear Chris,
I have been watching the forums over your rapid downsizing and reading what everyone has said....being a jumper with similar jump numbers, I haven't said anything as I don't have the experience behind me to say much. I do have to say from your response that you sound very angry and bitter from the advice that you have been given. You asked for an opininon and have been given one.....granted harsh at times. I realize it may be not what you have not wanted to hear and even not constructive at times when it could have been. Even at times I have wondered if you are just looking for a fight. I understand your desires although I have to say I don't share them as I have some other priorities that I have put to the fore front vs. the speed of my canopy. If you knew my wing loading I am sure you would be quite amused.......it is very low. I truly believe the people here have your best interest at heart....they have experienced many losses esp in the last couple years....losses that could have been prevented in some instances. I haven't had the experience of seeing someone I care about go in nor do I want that experience....I imagine once you see that, you may view the way you fly a little differently, esp if they leave behind young children or a significant other who is dependant on them

I liked this post, as it's relevant to both this thread and a couple questions I've gotten from a local jumper recently on myspace/email.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[billvon 2,380]

I agree there are a great many ways to get some practice in up high, get used to how the canopy feels, see where the stall points are. And flying relative to someone else (and practicing swooping near them) can also help someone who's starting out. But that does not replace doing some of that practice down low. We use different altitude cues down low and there is simply no way to tell when you have hit zero downward speed (i.e. a good flare) above 1000 feet.

So I'm all for practice up high, but the statement "I have flared thousands of times at altitude and done great!" does not mean the jumper is adequately prepared for actual landings. (Or swoops, or carves, or any other ground level maneuver.) That requires actual practice.

[skybytch 259]

Quote

there is simply no way to tell when you have hit zero downward speed (i.e. a good flare) above 1000 feet.

I disagree.

I do at least one "practice flare" up high on every skydive. I can feel it in the harness when I hit the point in the flare where the canopy has planed out. The only thing that can't be practiced/felt up high is when to flare; the mechanics can (and imho should) be practiced over and over, above 1000 feet.

[billvon 2,380]

> I can feel it in the harness when I hit the point in the flare where
>the canopy has planed out.

I don't think you did. I think instead you felt the same thing that you felt the last time you landed your canopy - but that is NOT the same as getting to a zero rate of descent at 3500 feet. Indeed, if you tried to land the exact same canopy at Lost Prairie, you wouldn't get a very good landing if you didn't change anything about how you land. The amount of toggle needed to plane out, the 'feel' of the landing, the speed at which the canopy shuts down, the rate at which you have to flare the canopy during the planeout - all different.

Practicing landing at 3500 feet is great, but does not replace actual landings - just as knowing how to land at sea level does not automatically mean you can land at Lost Prairie with no changes.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

there is simply no way to tell when you have hit zero downward speed (i.e. a good flare) above 1000 feet.

I disagree.

I do at least one "practice flare" up high on every skydive. I can feel it in the harness when I hit the point in the flare where the canopy has planed out. The only thing that can't be practiced/felt up high is when to flare; the mechanics can (and imho should) be practiced over and over, above 1000 feet.

Up high, I cannot tell the difference between a fairly flat descent, a flat plane, or a slight climb. When I'm jumping an unfamiliar canopy, I just flare to gauge how rapidly it progresses from full flight to something around flat (and at what approximate toggle height). Ideally, I'll do this at least once from normal flight and once with induced speed. With this under my belt, I'm not often surprised during the actual landing, but it does happen.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)