Updated Downsizing Recommendations

[chachi 0]

you people really need to stop looking at the reply to....

[YISkyDive 0]

I ment in a swooping basis. Forgive me. The last thing we need is coaches to be teaching swooping. We have that.

I didnt mean ingeneral canopy flight.

[mattjw916 2]

No we don't. Quite frankly I don't think we should either.

I like the idea of canopy "recommendations" or "suggested loadings" but words like "required" and "mandatory" won't have my support. I am also in favor of a canopy coach rating but not forcing anyone to seek additional costly training.

Using a new rating as a way of designating someone as competant to instruct a willing skydiver in the basics+more of canopy flight, beyond that which is currently out there, could possibly be more beneficial than more regualtions, IMHO. You don't have to be a pro-swooper to show someone how to time flares properly, get back from a long spot upwind or downwind of target, or explain why collapsing/pulling down your slider and opening your chest strap will help your canopy fly better etc. I know the SIM and ISP are out there, but I really haven't seen the canopy portion focused on much if at all.

My $0.02.

NSCR-2376, SCR-15080

[Remster 24]

Quote

you people really need to stop looking at the reply to....

hehehe

Quote

Re: [ntacfreefly] Updated Downsizing Recommendations - NEW [In reply to] Quote | Reply

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


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


Thats the LAST thing we need is canopy coaches. More thrown away money in the industry.

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


this is a preposterous statement.

Remster

[YISkyDive 0]

And I was NOT talking about swooping.

Just because I can drive a car, does not mean I can swoop. But the process of learning, developing, and improving skills is a long the same path.

Plus in autocross/ or everyday driving, you need to make decisions in under a second (much less than that)

I cant go swoop (or be a "wannabe" swooper) from autocross, but cha DAMN right im gonna use the mental process skills from autoX in swooping.

If you disagree, Im sorry. Just because someone raced motorcycles, cars, boats, jetskis, skis, or any other highspeed sport does not make them a good swooper, but the idea of decision making and interpreting situations(at least for me) is definetly brought.


On the point of people wont buy them/ read them/ use them.

Make it an A, B, C lisence requirment. Make a serperate test on canopy theory. Finally, on a C lisence exam, make the use of one or two ground coached jumps manditory- but put a freggin price cap of 15 bucks on it.

I dont want canopy coaches in this market because the next thing you'll see is 5 canopy coached jumps at 30 dollars a jump, and more people getting mad at paying and being taken advantage of.

Everything we need to help keep people alive is avaliable in written and visual form- Hell I have some of my own stuff done. I have 334 jumps, 1.5 years in the sport and I'm almost completed my own first chapter in a canopy flight manual. Its really not that hard. The people on DZ.com are the ones that care enough to read and think about a lot of the stuff out there, and probably will be the 'safer' 'better' or 'less at risk' pilot- but the people that arnt on here (within reason of course) over look the importance of flying a parachute and get themseleves into hot water.


I mean look- there are two groups of people getting hurt. The conservative pilot put in a bad situation ( I argue the wingloading chart will not help so much here- they are already conservative), and the second is the aggressive swooper constantly pushing whats possible. The wingloading chart would help here, but not it at all. These people that are flying around on these canopies need to be upsized, and taught about flat turns, flare turns, accuracy, advanced acccuracy all on bigger wings- with those leasons whether written, taught, or explained, to keep them safe.

Every pilot should know how what and why a flat turn is. Every pilot should understand a flare turn. Every pilot should understand weight shift, and all the reasons why people loosen chest straps and stow/ clear sliders.

I can think of many pilots that dont even know 1 of the above and have 200 jumps. I fault USPA for that, because they could have easily created a few articles, avaliable for distribution, or even placed on the net and made an exam around it.

The wingloading chart is not unresonable at all. I almost fit into it... But unlike myself- many people many people dont know about some life saving concepts. The problem is that when they dont know- reguardless of the WLing they will or still get hurt.

I know 3 situations where a true flat turn let a bad situation end fine. I can think of one situation where a flare turn kept me from getting ruffed up.

I also know a lot and a lot of Brian's material has kept me alive, and I am endlessly thankful for that. Brian is a great contributor and furtherour of our sport- he saved my ass more than once, but I think the material that I learned from him in various places would serve a lot better to every canopy pilot in a single area... allowing for everyone to benifet from what is already out there.

I just think the WLing chart is the easy way out. We limit what people can do to themseleves by flying a 'performance loading' but not a high performance loading- and hopefully they will be ok.

But I want to remind you the 288 F-111 Manta has killed people. Are accidents within the recommended WLings increased more than if everyone flew 119Xfire2s? HELL NO. But is there still a large area of _Potential_ to get hurt or killed if you make a _mistake_. Completely. Thats what bothers me- by a little proactive education- we could limit at least one bad accident. And if nothing else- that 1 person is enough to help our sport forward with one less draw back.

I know I was at least saved by just reading and understanding whats available on the internet. But I spent a year reading stuff to learn what I learned. I also picked peoples brains to the point they hated me. I asked one million questions a day. I learned everything I could, so that when pinned between bad and worse.. I had an Idea of how to get out of it and not be trying it for the first time.

the reason I did this was because at jump 33 I Needed a flare turn- I did the best I could but I hooked in hard. I didnt break or damage anything- but I got lucky. Ever since than I made it a point to learn everything I could about canopy flight- high performance and not.

[skybytch 259]

Quote

Thats the LAST thing we need is canopy coaches.

I agree that we need an education method set, but I disagree that we don't need canopy coaches/instructors. If what you are saying would work then why do we bother with a first jump course? Why not just hand a student a copy of Poynter's "Parachuting - The Skydiver's Handbook" and a rig and tell them to go have fun?

Skydiving is not a static activity, it's a dynamic activity. I can learn to play chess from a book - chess is a static activity. To learn the correct methods of performing in a dynamic environment requires that I actually perform those methods in that environment. Structured, live instruction is the best way to be sure that every jumper not only has the knowledge but has also demonstrated that they can apply that knowledge in the air.

Ideally, I'd like to see education - both from books and videos and from structured, live instruction - used in conjunction with the chart Brian has come up with.

I think the above would work best if there were a provision for those who wish to progress faster than the chart say to PROVE to a knowledgable person (ie canopy coach) that they have the knowledge and skills needed to safely do so.

[chachi 0]

every level of skydiver could use coaching on their canopy and want to know how many will get it? about 5% probably.

i never said everyone needs to swoop, in fact i don't think swooping is necessary to learn at all. i am talking about canopy coaching to the level you want. last year i started offering coaching from basic canopy to entry / intermediate swooping. you have no idea the lack of knowledge on simple accuracy even.

wing load guidelines are great for someone looking to stay conservative and needing some general information. canopy coaching is needed for every single licensed skydiver. if we all knew what we were doing wrong, or all the secrets no one would ever get hurt.

[YISkyDive 0]

I agree- pretty much. I just hate how some [not all] DZs think coached jumps = $$$$$$$$$$$$.

I also think that coaching ingeneral can be done without much 'air instruction'. Canopy coaches need to be ok with- they dont get free jumps. They walk in the landing area and tell someone what needs to be done, and make 15 that way.

I mean sure we can do video debreif and run along class on a single landing- but one most people arnt qualified to do this- and 2- I dont think the cost to the jumper is fair.

We need more of a 'standard' DVD which uses extensive 3d animation to show whats right and wrong. Than off of that the coach could explain in relation to what you saw- your doing this example. You need to do this.

But in the end- a coach can only teach a better flare.

do we want to start to force people to turn low to the ground? The logistics are a nightmare- somehow we would have to make sure that everyone that was at that stage practiced everything up high one million times.

I dont see what good a coach could do- I NEVER got coaching- I got a little private help- but I learned most of mystuff online and some coaching through the internet.

I never had someone stand in the feild while I was landing and tell me you could do this this this and this with your flare. A coach really couldnt do much more in the sport than teach flares... But when people are getting hurt- a good flare is the last of their worries.

I could be wrong- My statement was aggressive. Maybe not well thought out- but I still somewhat stand that we can have an A) swooping coach.. but those are already in play.. B) a canopy flight coach- but without costing the jumper more than 50 dollars- what can they do?

Im open on it- but logitistically its gonna be tight to use a canopy coach well.

[chachi 0]

Quote

But in the end- a coach can only teach a better flare.

this show just how little you know. you seem to only focus on that coaching will cost $$, and they are just out to rip you off. well it should cost you. the coaches spend big $$ in coaching themselves not to mention the travel involved.

a coach is going to start at ground zero in your canopy skills and work with your goals. i spend close to 2 hours on the ground when i start with someone and that is before they ever grab the rig. we talk about how to break up the canopy portion into learning, pattern, and final approcah. we walk the landing area and discuss ground references to use while setting up. we talk about control surfaces and the reasons to learn thing. the list keeps going and going and going. it is only about the flare if you think your canopy is designed to get you to the ground and thats it. if you want to be a canopy pilot, which should be everyones goal then you need to learn to pilot your canopy.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

I also know a lot and a lot of Brian's material has kept me alive,

Think of how much more you'll know when you have ten times the experience you have now. How about when you have twenty times the experience?

Don't bitch if it costs a few bucks to get some solid education into jumpers. The equipment has progressed to a point where it's become it's own animal, and needs to be treated accordingly.

How about this, if you want to proceed with an education equvilant to the level in 1990, then by all means, feel free to jump the equipment from 1990.

If you want to participate in skydiving in the year 2006, understand that it will take a different commitment than it did in years past.

All areas of skydiving have 'sped up' alot in the last 15 years. Aircraft capacity and speed, student learning progression, freefall speeds, RW speeds, tracking speeds, canopy speeds, and the list goes on. We need to catch the training up. It's as simple as that.

[skybytch 259]

Quote

a coach is going to start at ground zero in your canopy skills and work with your goals. i spend close to 2 hours on the ground when i start with someone and that is before they ever grab the rig. we talk about how to break up the canopy portion into learning, pattern, and final approcah. we walk the landing area and discuss ground references to use while setting up. we talk about control surfaces and the reasons to learn thing. the list keeps going and going and going. it is only about the flare if you think your canopy is designed to get you to the ground and thats it. if you want to be a canopy pilot, which should be everyones goal then you need to learn to pilot your canopy.

I took a basic skills course and that's exactly what was done - we spent time in the classroom and in the landing area learning and then we applied what we learned by jumping. The instructor stayed in the landing area with a video camera. Each approach and landing was videoed and then debriefed.

I learned more about flying my canopy in that one day than I had in the 900+ jumps I'd done previously. It was the best $150 ($75 for the course, $75 for five jumps) I've spent in this sport (excepting my first jump, of course).

People are willing to spend huge amounts of money to have "the best" gear. Why wouldn't they be willing to spend money for good training on how to use that gear?

Besides, nowhere have I seen anyone say that a coach would HAVE TO charge anything for what they do. That's up to the individual.

[Liemberg 0]

Quote

the LAST thing we need is canopy coaches.

AND

Quote

We need an EDUCATION method set, that is limited- why cant we develop manuals, and personal instruction DVDs/ CDs- that will significantly improve knowledge with little to no cost to the jumpers.

So.... when doing freefall training we need personal instruction, one-on-one coaching and now that we get the students this far that we are pretty sure they end up with a parachute above their head before they are back on the ground (without falling into eachtothers parachute) we say "OK, fine - now that you are under a parachute I need to tell you one small detail and that is, you are not home free, you have to land this thing too and when it's the latest 'sports-model' that is not always easy and you could kill yourself trying, but hey, here are three booklets, a video and a DVD, be sure to study this all carefully..."?

And when someone craters under a fully functional parachute we tell the grieving relatives "Hey, the manual was there but maybe he didn't read it all to well..."?

There is little SUCCESSFUL education in practical abilities that when carried out wrong have the potential to kill you, without personal student/teacher type instruction.

For that, you need a coach.

And like it or not, when you want to buy his time (like on a day with good jumpable weather) he could also make money doing tandems...

Quote

Racing AutoX and swooping bring in A lot and A lot of similar skills.

You'r shelled completely in a carbonfiber monococque when you swoop?

Your parachute has roll-bars, five-point seat belt and air bags?

Mine hasn't.

"Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci
A thousand words...

[YISkyDive 0]

Quote

You'r shelled completely in a carbonfiber monococque when you swoop?

Your parachute has roll-bars, five-point seat belt and air bags?

Mine hasn't.

This statement alone shows how incredibely short sited you are. If a sport helps someones mind fuction in feet per second, than yes, i thnk it helps. Racing doesnt have to help anyone but me. Its my personal opinion that it has helped me.

Im really sorry to hear that people that jump out of planes cant be self driven enough to read, watch, and test on information that can be had out of a properly written book.

Im also sorry that people think skydiving is so incredibily special that every other action sport in the world can have no impact on one's abiliity to part take.

I forgot, you have to special and eliete to have an impact or opinion on this sport.

Man, Look, if we introduce a canopy control manual you are x10 from 1990. So no, I do not feel the need to jump 1990 equipment.

I mean look, please, show me in the sim the extensive training that is already in written now. Please. Show me the mass amounts of written information that would take us back in time. Please show me where infact making someone read and test on canopy flying would be a bad thing- IF I AM NOT MISTAKEN THATS OUR LICENSE TESTS.

People, stop being short sighted. I am worried about money, and dropzones, and people getting taken advatage of. I have cross keys in my back yard. I have that right. Sure crosskeys and other DZs produce good RW skydivers, they produce Great skydivers- but I've seen lots of students go with the minum of 2 coached jumps and their fine.

If anyone tries to disprove my opinion about how other actions sports help in skydiving, than start a new thread. It has nothing to do with Brian's Wingloading chart- and its not fair I hijacked it from him. My personal correleation between hurtiling a vechicle at a cone, turn, straight away, or another car has nothing to do with every skydivers correlation between it. So it taught my brain to work in feet per second versus feet per minute... If im wrong, because I am a "wannabe" swooper, than so be it. Dont agree. Im ok with that- just let that point go.

Like I said- the examples of "he should have read the manual better" would actually be an IMPROVMENT in our current situtation. But than again, how could something I say be held with seriousness? I mean, unless there is an extensive required reading for my A, B, or C lisence that I missed.

If nothing else- my point has proved one thing- The wingloading chart is not enough. If everyone says its so important that we need coaches- than lets get a coaches progression system into play.

But the coaches are going to get what they teach from a manual, in a class, and basically follow the same route that everyone else that cares enough to be in this sport could have done. Yes a newbie CANNOT read a FJC manual and be ok. But a skydiver reading and watching a DVD can relate to some concepts they know already.

Knowledge is power. In the high performance world of canopy flight- where we are throwing ourseleves at the ground, I support a coach to the 10 power- and when I am at that point that I want to get into serious swooping (not just double fronts) I will seek out coaching.

Another thing- If we really want to get get coaches going- which lets say for a momement we do- when do we teach the pilots?

I might be wrong- but every pilot would benifit with diffrent things from A to B to C to D. We cant just put all the coaching off of student status. Thats what our AFF-Is and coaches are there for. To teach them about the parachute and how to survive.

Sorry this is sooooo displaced and messed up- I got other things I need to get through and didnt really have to much time to better orgonize it.

[chachi 0]

^ you are correct in saying a lot of written information needs to be out there. my first point was that a wing loading chart along with nothing else doesn't help. that nothing else i was talking about was information, a progressions in the licences, and on going mandatory coaching such as what is needed to get a relative work endorsement.

but don't kid yourself, the only real effective way to manage the risks is continuous coaching. people spend big $$ on every other aspect of their sport except the most high risk area. not only that, the most high risk area is where everyone wants to be visible in, swooping. seems kinda dumb to me. i know this, the people that i coach, especially the beginner / intermediate get a lot out of it and now understand the big picture a lot more.

[marks 0]

Quote

my first point was that a wing loading chart along with nothing else doesn't help. that nothing else i was talking about was information, a progressions in the licences, and on going mandatory coaching such as what is needed to get a relative work endorsement.

your wrong, it does help.

It is a step in the right direction. post it at your DZ and when you get "THAT GUY" you know the one, come up to you and tell you what he is buying... just point at the chart, no EGO involved..

it helps in such a way you would ever imagine. trust me, we have already done it.

[YISkyDive 0]

I stand corrected.. Recieved in my e-mail tonight from USPA...

Quote

New for 2006 is the USPA Fly To Survive DVD, which is currently in production. Each drop zone in the U.S. (with a known address at the USPA) will receive a free DVD, wall-sized posters, and presentation materials that can help each S&TA create a successful event. The 15-minute presentation outlines the “big six” points of canopy education each jumper needs to know to help reduce the number of canopy-related injuries and fatalities. The materials will be mailed the third week of February, arriving in plenty of time for your Safety Day event.

Its a step- and I am glad to see USPA do that in time for Safety Day.

Very cool. It may not be one on one coaching, but hopefully the information helps some people out there... or at least makes them better off than they where.

good stuff.

[Liemberg 0]

Quote

This statement alone shows how incredibely short sited you are.

Normally, after a remark like that I would be out of here...

Quote

Im really sorry to hear that people that jump out of planes cant be self driven enough to read, watch, and test on information that can be had out of a properly written book.

So, dyslectics should seek their entertainment elsewhere?

I have jumped with several great and talented skydivers that couldn't get one coherent sentence on paper if their life depended on it and I have found out that most of that type don't process written information all that well.
They have to SEE someone do something, maybe talk about it a bit with the one they see perform the feat, try it themselves and presto - they perform!

That is why - in a FJC - I not only hand out a booklet and show stuff on video, but also talk to them "until their ears fall of". (And this is a two way street of course, I want them to talk too...)

I end up with people who slept through this long talking session (but understood the booklet thoroughly), others that "skipped the booklet" (but picked up most of it from "dry training on the ground" and watching the video's), still others that "wake up for the first time" when they are in a suspended harness and FEEL cutaway pads, ripcords and toggles in their hands and others that combine a bit of everything.

HOWEVER: the parachute they then jump afterwards is suited for the task at hand, which means it wouldn't give them a 'snowballs chance in hell' to end up in the top fifty of any organized swooping event, but OTOH makes it difficult for them to kill themselves if they make a too radical turn too close to the ground. It steers like a 1990 barge, but then again, it doesn't stall easily either...

Quote

I am worried about money, and dropzones, and people getting taken advatage of.

Well, with a chart that is "enforced" (or even only promoted as a really good "USPA endorsed" idea where you at least would have some explaining to do should you ignore it), a greedy DZO/instructor type (like me ) is not able to sell as easy as now his "as good as new" Stiletto 135 to a slightly overweighted "former race driver" who is lead to believe that autosport background and a "can do" mentality works wonders on the solidity of the femurs...

"Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci
A thousand words...

[sweep 0]

Quote

Using a new rating as a way of designating someone as competant to instruct a willing skydiver in the basics+more of canopy flight, beyond that which is currently out there, could possibly be more beneficial than more regualtions, IMHO

Note that in the UK system, we cover both angles.

For parachutists there are four new grades achievable :
- Canopy Handling 1 - which is part of the A licence
- Canopy Handling 2 - part of the B licence
- Canopy Piloting 1 - optional
- Canopy Piloting 2 - optional but required for competition.

However, there are also two new ratings - the Canopy Handling coach and the Canopy Piloting coach. These have the same status as existing FS, FF etc coaching ratings. In order to obtain these you need to satisfy the Chief Instructor that you have the proficiency to understand the subject matter and also that you have either BPA or National Coaching Federation training in how to pass on your skills.

The system is fairly new still and only beginning to find its feet, but there is the potential for us to do some good work in canopy education, both for swoopers and for ordinary jumpers. As you say, you don't need to be a pro-swooper to teach all of this.

Sweep

----
Yay! I'm now a 200 jump wonder.... Still a know-it-all tho..

[billvon 2,454]

> Thats the LAST thing we need is canopy coaches. More thrown away
>money in the industry.

AFF instructors work; they are good at teaching people how to safely skydive. Canopy coaches, properly implemented, will also work.

>We need an EDUCATION method set, that is limited- why cant we
>develop manuals, and personal instruction DVDs/ CDs- that will
>significantly improve knowledge with little to no cost to the jumper.

We have them. They're not commonly used, which is the problem. We don't tell students "hey, read the stuff on water landings and you'll be good to go" - we do actual training because telling them to read the stuff didn't work.

[YISkyDive 0]

Quote

a greedy DZO/instructor type (like me Cool) is not able to sell as easy as now his "as good as new" Stiletto 135 to a slightly overweighted "former race driver" who is lead to believe that autosport background and a "can do" mentality works wonders on the solidity of the femurs...

Well at least I don't like Stilettos's, so thats a good start.

I think you just dont understand what I mean by racing and other sports have helped me. I has NOTHING to do with speed up progression, doing mad wack hardcore 270s at 330 jumps (dont do em, have not done em) or anything like that. Those sports have just helped me able to interpret information at a high rate of speed.... maybe not- but it just helped me. Kiteboarding also- a very dynamic sport- it teaches a lot about "feel" versus a set method of doing things. what ever.. no need to argue this one out anymore..

I never said it sped up progression, or eliminated essentaial steps. God I wish I could be able to not femur and fly a 111 Xbrace toy off of student- but I cant so I keep my dumb ass on a 170. I dont know where you got from me saying I found auto racing helped me that I was somehow trying to argue that it made me bullet proof. I mean sure- in a car you fuck up your day probably is still 10X better than when you miss under a parachute- but again I was ever assocationing the two on that level.

And on the dyslectics- forgive me for not being sensitive to people with tough or more difficult cases. Obviously everything needs to be more thought out before anything can ever happen.

Only time will tell, and hopefully, what ever happens, it will involve an improvment for both racers and non racers.. because obviously we need to classify them in the femur category... they think they are bullet proof somewhere said they can't femur and can skip essential steps in the learning process of flying a parachute. [sarcasim] Never said that. Never would have thought it. Dont think it.

Like I said earlier- my statement at least shows the WLing chart is not enough. But, I agree with marks- It will help with people that go 'look what I can do..'

[Liemberg 0]

YOU SHOULD NOT BE HERE, RIGHT NOW!


NOW DON'T GET DISTRACTED WITH ONGOING DISCUSSIONS ABOUT DOWNSIZING CHARTS BUT MEDITATE ABOUT FLYING YOUR SLOT AND SENDING GOOD VIBES THROUGH THE FORMATION!!!

"Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci
A thousand words...

[peek 20]

Rob, sorry I missed your answer to my question. You responded to Liemberg so I didn't get a notice email.

I agree that USPA is behind, but I'm not sure how much. USPA's ISP was supposed to be a panacea for all kinds of instructional problems, but I don't see too many people praising its canopy flight instruction. Maybe it's merely because they are not using it, I don't know.

My concern is that most national organizations create programs and documents much less effectively that the private sector. Politics are involved, things become politically correct and watered down.

There is some talk about the very popular private sector canopy coaches providing input to (some type of, not precisely identified yet) USPA canopy coaching program or document, but I think instruction would be better if there were just more (good) private sector canopy coaches available.

In another message you wrote:
"i spend close to 2 hours on the ground when i start with someone and that is before they ever grab the rig. we talk about how to break up the canopy portion into learning, pattern, and final approcah. we walk the landing area and discuss ground references to use while setting up. we talk about control surfaces and the reasons to learn thing. the list keeps going and going and going."


I'm glad you do! I can see that you care a lot about the people you teach.

I (and some others) are concerned that if a "canopy coach" rating is created, that it will be used (mainly) as a revenue source. It depends on the person doing the teaching.


By the way, to complete my position, I do not at this time support a mandatory "wing loading" requirement. It's more than just wing loading.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

By the way, to complete my position, I do not at this time support a mandatory "wing loading" requirement. It's more than just wing loading.

So you don't think that wing loading is enough of an issue to warant some sort of regulation?

I agree that it's more than just WL, and in truth, if I had to choose ONE solution, I'd say increase the emphasis on training, and tie-in additional training with the licensing program.

However, I don't see why we should have to choose a single course of action, when a mix of actions may provide a better result.

I'm sure that imporved training would have helped several jumpers to avoid or lessen the severity of an icident. I'm equally sure that lower WL's would have the same effect on some incidents as well. Of the two groups of incidents, I'm not sure if they would all be exclusive to their method of avoidance, or if there would be incidents where both fixes would be needed to be effective.

Either way, I can't see the logic to taking a pass on a step that would certainly help some people, not hurt anyone, and at least be universal in it's application. New traiing standards are all dependent on the performance of the instructor to ensure their effectiveness, while a WL limitation is a conctrete and universal concept, regardless of who informs the jumper of the limitation (of course the hole in the theory is that we have to rely on people to enforce the limitations).

[peek 20]

What I meant by "it's more than just wingloading" is that it is more than just wingloading that is making canopies turn so fast that they are easier to "hook in", intentional or not.

(The rest of this is thinking out loud and for the benefit of anyone reading, and not a rebuttal to you, Dave, or anyone else.)

I can only think of a few incidents where a person died from a straight in landing on a small canopy.

Generally, people are dieing under perfectly good canopies because of turns, intentional and not interntional.

Now for a slightly rhetorical question for anyone reading this:

What can be done (or what kind of regulation could be created) that could keep people from turning their canopies so quickly by mistake?


(I know this will open up a can of worms which may never be re-canned, but oh well...)

[davelepka 4]

Quote

What can be done (or what kind of regulation could be created) that could keep people from turning their canopies so quickly by mistake?

Not to beat a dead horse, but trun rate does increase with WL, so in turn a reduction in Wl will offer a reduction in turn rate.

That said, I'm not sure how many incidents are straight up low turns. By that I mean just incidetns where someone hauled in a toggle at a low altittude. My thinking is that a good number of them are the result of flying yourself into a situation where a low turn seems like your best option.

Very few jumpers would make a low turn while on final, into the wind, in a clear area. It's usually another factor that puts them into a spot where they feel they have to make a turn.

Sometimes it's to get into the wind, which is not a higher priority that landing with a level wing, but some jumpers either don't know or may have heard it, but not fully accepted it. The concept of landing into the wind is taught as being 'correct', and thats hard to re-teach.

Sometimes a low turn is made to avoid an obstacle. Again, better planning earlier in the jump would have put the jumper landign in a different area, and made the low turn non-existant.

What it really comes down to is better education. Giving jumpers the whole story in canopy flight. Show them the relevant factors, and how to apply them to their next jump, to every jump, and encourage them to use them.

Yeah it's alot of work, but it's what you need to do to minnimize your risk. Without the knowledge and planning, you are taking a chance. What if the spot is terrible? Or if you have a cutaway, and a short reserve ride?

It seems that jumpers today are ready for a routine skydive. We need to better prepare them for the unusual circumsatnces, the unforseen dangers. And, yes, part of this is giving them a canopy that is in line with their experience, and abilities.

It's almost as if each jump can be looked as a mission. In order to keep the probability for success high, you need proper planning, trained personel and appropriate equipment. Anytime you forefit one of those factors, your probability for success goes down.