chuckakers 369 #376 April 25, 2012 Quote>Do you think any canopy under 168-170 is a high performance canopy? If so why? No. Let's take discussions of the definition of HP canopies to G+R and leave this thread for discussions of the incident itself. OK Bill Von here it is! Any Canopy that, when it opens in line twists, spins up to a speed that makes cutaways problematic is by definition lethal. Any canopy, that has to be regularly opened at 4500' to give time to deal with high speed malfunctions is by definition lethal. Any canopy that can kill by a mere 90 degree wind change is by definition lethal. Any canopy that turns and dives so fast as to make any attempt to clear airspace impossible is by definition lethal. Any canopy that can be totally collapsed by turbulence is by definition lethal. Any canopy that can be docked on by a wingsuit is by definition lethal. Any canopy that can exceed the parameters of an AAD is by definition lethal. Any canopy that can cause a cutaway from a brake fire is by definition lethal. Any canopy that with the slightest lapse of currency or attention can cause injury is by definition lethal. Any canopy that (even on a test jump) that can cause GLOC (Google it) is by definition lethal. I'm sure you can think of more and I'm certainly sure the guys with Mad Skillz will flame away. Flame as much as you like because it's only luck keeping you out of the incident forum! All canopies are lethal. What's your point?Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
obelixtim 100 #377 April 25, 2012 QuoteAll canopies are lethal. If you want to be pedantic about it, yes that could be said to be true. Generally. But some are definitely way more lethal than others, and a lot less forgiving, when mistakes are made..... Variations in size give variations in consequences when an error is made. Indisputable. QuoteWhat's your point? He is simply saying, that once a canopy has opened correctly, and saved your life by stopping your FF into the ground, there is no real excuse to then die, especially as a result of a small error on landing. "Parachute" literally translates into "safe fall", so in the case of death on landing a good one, the exact opposite has happened, with increasing frequency. What was once sort of logical, about "parachute", has changed, and that old logic has gone out the window, for no apparent good reason. Its easy to see how people reach that conclusion. Its not that unreasonable, Nor should it be surprising. Nor can it be ignored.... HP death/injury stats provide the stick with which that drum is being beaten. And that is all he is doing, and warning that others may see it the same way, with even less understanding than a retired jumper who is fully cognisant with the risks we normally accept, and take for granted. Its not rocket science, but you already know that.....My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 369 #378 April 25, 2012 Quote QuoteAll canopies are lethal. If you want to be pedantic about it, yes that could be said to be true. Generally. But some are definitely way more lethal than others, and a lot less forgiving, when mistakes are made..... Variations in size give variations in consequences when an error is made. Indisputable. QuoteWhat's your point? He is simply saying, that once a canopy has opened correctly, and saved your life by stopping your FF into the ground, there is no real excuse to then die, especially as a result of a small error on landing. "Parachute" literally translates into "safe fall", so in the case of death on landing a good one, the exact opposite has happened, with increasing frequency. What was once sort of logical, about "parachute", has changed, and that old logic has gone out the window, for no apparent good reason. Its easy to see how people reach that conclusion. Its not that unreasonable, Nor should it be surprising. Nor can it be ignored.... HP death/injury stats provide the stick with which that drum is being beaten. And that is all he is doing, and warning that others may see it the same way, with even less understanding than a retired jumper who is fully cognisant with the risks we normally accept, and take for granted. Its not rocket science, but you already know that..... We don't fly parachutes. We fly canopies and all of them are lethal when handled improperly. Hook a Manta too low and you'll end up just as dead as you will hooking a Velo too low. HP canopies don't kill canopy pilots, canopy pilots do.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
obelixtim 100 #379 April 25, 2012 WE know that, but others cannot differentiate between parachutes/canopies. If they conclude "pilot error" then they'll question training/appropriateness of jumpers and canopies. Their simple conclusion will be "small canopies bad, ergo, big canopies good. If a whuffo administrator/regulator gets involved, and sees a trend in the size/type of canopies relative to accidents, thats what he'll look at. His view will be reinforced if the pilots are highly experienced. His conclusion will be HP canopies = dangerous. Kind of similar to the conclusion a lot of jumpers and ex jumpers like Marisan have already reached. I doubt if any outside regulators are going to get involved, but it could happen. And them not doing so, is not a reason for the jumping community to carry on regardless. Which you and I know it is not doing...but it could do better.My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 369 #380 April 25, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteNothing that has been suggested for the USPA to do short of banning HP canopies will stop this. So if you REALLY want to stop this, the answer is to reduce or eliminate access to HP canopies. The ongoing incidents prove that a ban on -- or severely restricted access to -- HP canopies is the only thing that would be effective. People keep talking about training and mentoring, but that alone is not working. It's just more talk. The time for talking has come and gone. It's time to DO something.. Well then what do you propose? You are talking about banning hp canopies. That will never happen and it shouldn't. Everyone has a choice. Yours may differ from those who are qualified and choose to jump hp canopies. If you want 100% guarantee nobody will get hurt or die this isn't the right lifestyle for you. So your answer is to just accept the collateral damage. It's just a cost of jumping HP Canopies??????????? You've had twenty years to stop this little problem and despite all the efforts of those that can be bothered sweet fcuk all has happened. I've said it so many times in this thread: Stop the carnage or someone else will do it for you. Time for a reality check here. As I have said concerning just about every aspect of skydiving, this is a matter of local regulation and enforcement. If a DZO wants to eliminate HP canopy crashes, he or she can limit wing loadings, ban performance turns, and make any rule they want concerning which canopies people can fly and how they can fly them. It's really that simple. If there is a "put your money where your mouth is" gun to be pointed, it is to be pointed at DZO's who scratch their heads over the problem, yet continue to allow HP canopies and HP flying techniques on their DZ's. Don't get me wrong. I have no problem with HP stuff. I hook my Postage Stamp on nearly every jump and have a son that competes professionally. My point is that individual business owners are the people with the control over this issue. If enough DZO's get tired of scraping little Johnny off the beer line, they will stop the so-called carnage through local regulation and enforcement of that regulation. If that happens on a large enough scale there will no longer be a market for hotrod canopies and manufacturers will stop making them. Will banning HP flying cost the DZO business to the guy down the street? Yep. Can they do it anyway? Yep. Will it fix the problem? It will on that DZ.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 369 #381 April 25, 2012 Quote WE know that, but others cannot differentiate between parachutes/canopies. If they conclude "pilot error" then they'll question training/appropriateness of jumpers and canopies. Their simple conclusion will be "small canopies bad, ergo, big canopies good. If a whuffo administrator/regulator gets involved, and sees a trend in the size/type of canopies relative to accidents, thats what he'll look at. His view will be reinforced if the pilots are highly experienced. His conclusion will be HP canopies = dangerous. Kind of similar to the conclusion a lot of jumpers and ex jumpers like Marisan have already reached. I doubt if any outside regulators are going to get involved, but it could happen. And them not doing so, is not a reason for the jumping community to carry on regardless. Which you and I know it is not doing...but it could do better. Your first statement is a correct one, but that's where it ends. The canopy crashing problem IS one of pilot error and we definitely should question the training and/or appropriateness of jumpers and canopies. As for the conclusion of outside regulators, blah blah blah. They will have an uphill battle sticking their noses into a sport they don't understand.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 369 #382 April 25, 2012 QuoteQuoteThat’s almost a dead heat with the over 1000 crowd coming on strong the last 3 years. Are those US fatalities alone?. If not, I'm sure the world wide figures would paint a slightly different picture.... And the figure for "maimed" would I'm sure would show the inexperienced dominating. What makes you say that? Stats are stats. If you want to talk about them, don't assume. Just go look them up.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davelepka 4 #383 April 25, 2012 QuoteBetween 2000 and 2005 low turns accounted for 34 fatalities….21 with fewer than 1000 jumps, 13 over 1000 jumps. Between 2006 and 2011 low turns accounted for 22 fatalities…..8 with fewer than 1000 jumps, 14 over 1000 jumps. That’s almost a dead heat with the over 1000 crowd coming on strong the last 3 years I would suggest that the over 1000 crowd has a greater exposure to landing fatalities than the under 1000 crowd. I think you'll find higher WL, more swoopers, and more activity in terms of overall jumps from jumpers with over 1000 jumps comapred to those under 1000. So the disturbing stat is that the under 1000 crowd is keeping pace with their more exposed counter-parts with over 1000 jumps. This is why I'm behind required canopy control classes and WL restrictions for new jumpers. If we can better equip and educate those new jumpers, maybe that stat for the under 1000 crowd can be brought back down to more closely reflect their exposure. The side effect is that all of those jumpers will, sooner or later, be in the over 1000 crowd, and the better training and preparation in their early years certainly won't hurt them several years down the line. However, at the end of the day there will always be skydiving fatalites of one sort or another. Sometime accidents do happen, and by that I mean 'true' accidents. 'True' in that the jumper made sound, prudent decisions, and despite that, the accident occured. Things break and people make mistakes, and you can't do much about that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skyjumpenfool 2 #384 April 25, 2012 Quote I would suggest that the over 1000 crowd has a greater exposure to landing fatalities than the under 1000 crowd. I think you'll find higher WL, more swoopers, and more activity in terms of overall jumps from jumpers with over 1000 jumps comapred to those under 1000. Quote Then add to that... now, the 1000 jump people will enter that phase of jumping on moderately W/L'd canopies instead of already being on postage stamps. Plus, they will have some "EARNED" skills to handle the next phase of HP canopy piloting. I’d suggest we’d see less mayhem in both subgroups. Time will tell?Birdshit & Fools Productions "Son, only two things fall from the sky." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DaVinciflies 0 #385 April 25, 2012 Quote You've had twenty years to stop this little problem and despite all the efforts of those that can be bothered sweet fcuk all has happened. I've said it so many times in this thread: Stop the carnage or someone else will do it for you. Nobody has done it in the past 20 years...what makes you think something has changed now? I don't buy this argument. However, I do agree with the sentiment - that something should be done. In my opinion the answer is to introduce a "type-rating" for canopies with education and training before someone is allowed to jump into a higher performance class of canopy. This way the big boys get to keep their toys and over the years, the jumpers using that sort of equipment will become progressively better and better trained/educated. What I don't understand is where the objection to that progression (modeled on other forms of aviation) is coming from. Maybe it's just apathy? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jacketsdb23 45 #386 April 25, 2012 Quote So your answer is to just accept the collateral damage. It's just a cost of jumping HP Canopies??????????? . Simply? Yes. There is collateral damage to skydiving and there is collateral damage to jumping HP canopies. This is the lifestyle we choose to accept. Lets not sugarcoat it. We'd be kidding ourselves if we tried to say HP canopies can be jumped with no injury or death.Losers make excuses, Winners make it happen God is Good Beer is Great Swoopers are crazy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,379 #387 April 25, 2012 >Well then what do you propose? You are talking about banning hp canopies. How about banning HP canopies for a jumper only until the jumper: 1) completes a course appropriate to the loading they want to jump 2) passes a skills test for that loading Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jacketsdb23 45 #388 April 25, 2012 I'm OK with, and perhaps in favor of, implementing skill assessment verifications to jump highly loaded xbrace canopies. That being said you can't eliminate the highly experienced, highly skilled, injuries or deaths associated with human error from those who are qualified. This statement is more directed at those who feel HP canopies should be outright banned because people get hurt or die with them. Yes - people are moving to elliptical and xbrace canopies too quickly. If we find a way to make a verification process that works well, i'm in favor of it. Hell, anything might be better than the wild west we live in today. I'm tired of seeing people with less than stellar canopy piloting experience on Expert canopies.Losers make excuses, Winners make it happen God is Good Beer is Great Swoopers are crazy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Marisan 0 #389 April 26, 2012 Quote Some day skydivers are going to realize that shit doesn’t just happen. There is a cause and effect for every incident. The most common cause is something the jumper did do or something the jumper didn’t do. By saying “shit happens” you put your head in the sand and say there is nothing that can be done. And that is wrong. That's only wrong when you rush to that conclusion without a full investigation of the incident. On that case, you're short-changing yourself and the sport in general. However, accidents do happen, and sometimes the result of an investigation is that it was indeed an accident, with the only lesson to learn being a simple 'be careful'. In that case, there's nothing wrong with calling an accident, an accident. I've had a riser slip through my hand before. I've missed a grab at a riser. I've had a toggle 'slip' through part of my hand (but not all). The point is that things do 'happen', and things do go wrong. We've all tripped or dropped things 'by accident', and there's no reason that the same can't happen in skydiving. So what is being said above is that , if you are a low time swooper the cause is lack of training. If you are a high time swooper the cause is " Shit Happens" Sorry guys, you can't have it both ways!!!!!!! It's either low time swoopers or LETHAL CANOPIES. If the injuries and fatalities were all sub 1000 jump swoopers I could accept the call for more training. But when 5,000-10,000 jump swoopers are going in at almost equal rates there is only one common denominator between the two groups. It's the LETHAL LITTLE CANOPIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Dave Lepka: I accept your skills (Note, Not Mad Skillz) but I wonder why are you still alive and several very experienced swoopers have died lately? Is it because your skills are so much better than theirs or just that your appointment to meet the reaper hasn't occurred yet! It's either one or the other! Bon chance mes ami's Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites davelepka 4 #390 April 26, 2012 QuoteSo what is being said above is that , if you are a low time swooper the cause is lack of training. If you are a high time swooper the cause is " Shit Happens" Sorry guys, you can't have it both ways!!!!!!! First off, nobody excluded low time jumpers from having 'shit happen' as well. Not every incident involving low time jumpers could have been avoided, things break and people make mistakes. However, when it comes to an area like swooping, where experience plays such a vital role, it's only natural to find a greater occurance of 'shit happens' with higher time jumpers than with lower time jumpers. It's not that 'shit' doesn't happen to lower time jumpers, it's just that when it comes to low time jumpers and swooping, they make far more legitimate errors in technique or judgement, that the majority of their incidents do have direct causes, and do contain significant learning points. Take the stats that offered a 50/50 split between low and high time jumpers involved in canopy fatalities. Out of 15 deaths from high time jumpers, maybe 10 of them were accidents, and 5 were easily preventable, dumb mistakes. The 15 deaths for low time jumpers might be distributed with 10 being dumb mistakes that could have been avoided, and 5 that were 'accidents'. Is it that hard to understand that experienced, high time jumpers are less likely to make an error when comapared to low time jumpers? I think even outside of swooping, you'll find more actual 'accidents' among high time jumpers, and more 'easily-preventable incidents' with low time jumpers. There's no reason it can't work both ways. One eventuality in one incident doesn't preclude another eventuality in a different incident. No two incidents have to be connected or related in any way. QuoteI wonder why are you still alive and several very experienced swoopers have died lately? Is it because your skills are so much better than theirs or just that your appointment to meet the reaper hasn't occurred yet! Again, you're trying to lump incidents together. Any analysis would have to be taken on a case by case basis. I see other swoopers doing things that I believe to be mistakes in their technique, mistakes that I have provided for in my technique or procedures. If one of those mistakes led to an incident, in that case I would suggest that it was my superior skill (or planning) that protected me from the same fate as the involved jumper. I also see incidents that just add up to bad luck. Sometimes the 'perfect storm' occurs at the least perfect time, and your number is just up. It can happen on a DZ, in traffic, or on a ski slope. What about Sunny Bono? He skied into a tree and was dead on the spot, while millions of others have hit trees and lived. QuoteIt's either one or the other! Which is exactly what I'm saying, but you miss the point that this is on a case by case basis. It might be one answer for one case, and the other answer for another case. One night you want a burger, and another night you want pizza. Rarely do they co-exist on a single night, but it's not hard to imagine burgers on Friday and pizza on Saturday. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Marisan 0 #391 April 26, 2012 Hi Dave My point is that we can understand (not condone) what happens to low number jumpers but it is very hard to understand what happened to jumpers of your skill level that died or ended up in a wheelchair for life and there is many of them! It goes back to what I have said time after time. There is NO MARGIN FOR ERROR and it is only a matter of time before YOU are a fraction of a second out and YOU end up on the incident list. (I really don't want to see that) No Margin for error means you have to be perfect on EVERY JUMP! Are you really THAT GOOD? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Marisan 0 #392 April 26, 2012 And if you super experienced swoopers are killing yourselves who is going to teach the newbies? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites obelixtim 100 #393 April 26, 2012 Quote That’s almost a dead heat with the over 1000 crowd coming on strong the last 3 years. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Are those US fatalities alone?. If not, I'm sure the world wide figures would paint a slightly different picture.... And the figure for "maimed" would I'm sure would show the inexperienced dominating. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What makes you say that? Stats are stats. If you want to talk about them, don't assume. Just go look them up. It was just a guess...because I just don't think the stats are out there......Well there are some stats, but they are far from comprehensive, especially with regard to the maimings. I suspect if there were, they wouldn't make pretty reading. Perhaps if there was an accurate figure to go on, something positive may have been in the pipeline a long time ago....My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites popsjumper 2 #394 April 26, 2012 QuoteI've had a riser slip through my hand before. I've missed a grab at a riser. I've had a toggle 'slip' through part of my hand (but not all). The point is that things do 'happen', and things do go wrong. We've all tripped or dropped things 'by accident', and there's no reason that the same can't happen in skydiving. The quote seems to indicated a severe lack of accepting responsibility for one's own actions. Sounds like, "It wasn't my fault! Shit happens! It was an accident!"My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites davelepka 4 #395 April 26, 2012 QuoteI've had a riser slip through my hand before. I've missed a grab at a riser. I've had a toggle 'slip' through part of my hand (but not all). The point is that things do 'happen', and things do go wrong. We've all tripped or dropped things 'by accident', and there's no reason that the same can't happen in skydiving. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The quote seems to indicated a severe lack of accepting responsibility for one's own actions. Sounds like, "It wasn't my fault! Shit happens! It was an accident!" Sometimes it is. Despite what you might think, there are humans involved in skydiving, and along with that comes human error. Have you ever tripped over anything? Or dropped something valuable or breakable? I'm guessing yes. Now if you tripped because you were running without looking where you were going, and your shoes were untied, then there are lessons to learn from that. If you werer properly equipped and paying attention, but still tripped, then it was an 'accident', with the lesson being to simply 'be more careful'. If you dropped your Ming vase because you were playing catch with it after covering your hands in Crisco, again, we can learn a few things. If you dropped it under more 'conventional' circumstances, again it comes to simply 'being more careful'. The suggestion is that every incident is due a full investigation, to make sure that we're not missing any key factors or learning points, but just because it's an incident doesn't mean that there are any significant causes or learning points beyond, 'be more careful'. It's a valid conclusion to come to, with the slippery slope being that you don't come to that conclusion too quickly. As far as, 'it's not my fault', we all accept responsibility for our actions, or the outcome of the jump, the moment we leave the plane. Like it or not, once you jump, it is your fault, whatever happens. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites chuckakers 369 #396 April 26, 2012 Quote Quote Some day skydivers are going to realize that shit doesn’t just happen. There is a cause and effect for every incident. The most common cause is something the jumper did do or something the jumper didn’t do. By saying “shit happens” you put your head in the sand and say there is nothing that can be done. And that is wrong. That's only wrong when you rush to that conclusion without a full investigation of the incident. On that case, you're short-changing yourself and the sport in general. However, accidents do happen, and sometimes the result of an investigation is that it was indeed an accident, with the only lesson to learn being a simple 'be careful'. In that case, there's nothing wrong with calling an accident, an accident. I've had a riser slip through my hand before. I've missed a grab at a riser. I've had a toggle 'slip' through part of my hand (but not all). The point is that things do 'happen', and things do go wrong. We've all tripped or dropped things 'by accident', and there's no reason that the same can't happen in skydiving. So what is being said above is that , if you are a low time swooper the cause is lack of training. If you are a high time swooper the cause is " Shit Happens" Sorry guys, you can't have it both ways!!!!!!! It's either low time swoopers or LETHAL CANOPIES. If the injuries and fatalities were all sub 1000 jump swoopers I could accept the call for more training. But when 5,000-10,000 jump swoopers are going in at almost equal rates there is only one common denominator between the two groups. It's the LETHAL LITTLE CANOPIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Dave Lepka: I accept your skills (Note, Not Mad Skillz) but I wonder why are you still alive and several very experienced swoopers have died lately? Is it because your skills are so much better than theirs or just that your appointment to meet the reaper hasn't occurred yet! It's either one or the other! Bon chance mes ami's As I pointed out earlier, all canopies are lethal when improperly handled. Pilots don't get hurt because their little canopy just flew them into the ground on its own. When a pilot smacks the ground hard it's because of something they did or didn't do. It is not the canopy's fault. It's the pilot's.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites airtwardo 6 #397 April 26, 2012 It is not the canopy's fault. It's the pilot's. Quote I agree Chuck, but another point to ponder is ~ have the capabilities of the machine outpaced the human element and it's abilities to control it consistently? It seems more & more that the margin of error grows increasingly smaller as the canopy size decreases and the wing loading goes up. That's nothing new to aviation, ya don't see a lotta X-15's toolin' around the boonies...damn tough to land 'em. As I mention in one of these threads, I think if there was a full accounting available of not only the fatalities but also of the life altering injuries caused by pilot error on the HP canopies, the situation would be given a lot more scrutiny than it is even now. I would also like to add, it looks to me like things ARE changing a bit. There have been numerous threads of this type over the last several years, some less productive than others. It's seems to my untrained eye anyway that the discussion has been turning more toward acknowledgement of a problem and and finding workable solutions that ever before in the past. That's a good thing, this isn't a battle between swoopers and non, it's a crisis in the sport that needs to be dealt with by all. It's a 'process' arriving at a safe middle ground, it's unfortunate that it takes us so long to get the wheels rolling, especially when lives are at risk. I keep thinking about the Y mod and the speed at which it was implemented...a couple people died because the gear though safe when utilized properly, 'could' be unsafe if 'human error' was allowed into the equation in a small measure. What was it...a couple weeks and that whole end of the sport was changed forever...surely there is SOMETHING we can do to slow the HP canopy carnage? ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites davelepka 4 #398 April 26, 2012 Quotehave the capabilities of the machine outpaced the human element and it's abilities to control it consistently? I would vote no, and I would base this on the success of the majority of HP canopy pilots. Consdier for a minute that while you might see a dozen fatalities of experienced jumpers on HP canopies, the vast number of pilots who jump them regularly without incident. Add to that the idea that many HP pilots do hop n pops in order to train for swooping, and thus end up making more jumps per day than others. Add to that the idea that each one of those jumps involves a multi-roation, high speed landing, and you can see that the level of risk, and the exposure to that risk is potentially higher than for any other group of jumpers, yet you don't see an unusually high number of incidents related to that group. The reason is simple, and it's because the equipment is sound. It's consistant, reliable, and performs as expected every time, with the variable being the pilot. Take the example of the Penta-thing that collapsed in Dubai. It folded up, and then reinflated, and the jumper landed without incident, however, the collapse itself was huge news to swoopers as that sort of thing is unheard of for the given conditions. For a very good reason, swoopers have become accustomed tot he idea of their canopies working 'as designed'. The problem, is in the pilots, or more specifaclly, the lack of training. The equipment has outpaced that by a mile, and it did it many years ago. We're not to the point that we need a computer to fly our canopies for us like an F-22, but we are to the point that you need a good deal of training and experience to be able to them safely, more along the lines of an Extra 300. Is there anything wrong with an Extra 300? Countless aerobatic competitors will argue no, and would probably go the opposite way and suggest that the airframe is 'brilliant'. At the same time, the inhernt instability, roll rate and high stall speed would add up to more than a handful for a low time pilot, who might view it as a 'death machine'. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jacketsdb23 45 #399 April 26, 2012 QuoteTake the example of the Penta-thing that collapsed in Dubai. It folded up, and then reinflated, and the jumper landed without incident, however, the collapse itself was huge news to swoopers as that sort of thing is unheard of for the given conditions. For a very good reason, swoopers have become accustomed tot he idea of their canopies working 'as designe For the record, he chopped that and was lucky to have a skyhook, IMHO. I shouldn't say lucky, he chose to have a skyhook and it may have saved his life.Losers make excuses, Winners make it happen God is Good Beer is Great Swoopers are crazy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites airtwardo 6 #400 April 26, 2012 The problem, is in the pilots, or more specifically, the lack of training. The equipment has outpaced that by a mile, and it did it many years ago. Quote Dave that statement concisely describes the situation. And as you point out, it's been going on for a while now. I don't swoop and never will, same with proximity B.A.S.E. ~it's just not worth the risk to me at this point. But just because I choose to put limitations on myself, I understand it's not right to assume what's right for 'me' should be the norm. As you stated Dave, it's not as 'sport death' as some on the other extreme seem to believe it is. But it IS at the point where often even the slightest of error has catastrophic results. So I ask, IS that something that can be 'trained' out to a significant enough degree that these increasing numbers reverse and the 'trend' become an occasional anomaly? I mean is it possible to design & maintain a program that will not only address the newer jumper situation but also 'regulate' (I hate that term) the performance requirements & standards for those 'advanced' pilots regarding ongoing education and currency requirements? Sounds like a daunting task to say the least, but without question 'something' needs to change. IF this rate continues we're looking at what, 30plus before the year is out? ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next Page 16 of 19 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
DaVinciflies 0 #385 April 25, 2012 Quote You've had twenty years to stop this little problem and despite all the efforts of those that can be bothered sweet fcuk all has happened. I've said it so many times in this thread: Stop the carnage or someone else will do it for you. Nobody has done it in the past 20 years...what makes you think something has changed now? I don't buy this argument. However, I do agree with the sentiment - that something should be done. In my opinion the answer is to introduce a "type-rating" for canopies with education and training before someone is allowed to jump into a higher performance class of canopy. This way the big boys get to keep their toys and over the years, the jumpers using that sort of equipment will become progressively better and better trained/educated. What I don't understand is where the objection to that progression (modeled on other forms of aviation) is coming from. Maybe it's just apathy? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jacketsdb23 45 #386 April 25, 2012 Quote So your answer is to just accept the collateral damage. It's just a cost of jumping HP Canopies??????????? . Simply? Yes. There is collateral damage to skydiving and there is collateral damage to jumping HP canopies. This is the lifestyle we choose to accept. Lets not sugarcoat it. We'd be kidding ourselves if we tried to say HP canopies can be jumped with no injury or death.Losers make excuses, Winners make it happen God is Good Beer is Great Swoopers are crazy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,379 #387 April 25, 2012 >Well then what do you propose? You are talking about banning hp canopies. How about banning HP canopies for a jumper only until the jumper: 1) completes a course appropriate to the loading they want to jump 2) passes a skills test for that loading Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jacketsdb23 45 #388 April 25, 2012 I'm OK with, and perhaps in favor of, implementing skill assessment verifications to jump highly loaded xbrace canopies. That being said you can't eliminate the highly experienced, highly skilled, injuries or deaths associated with human error from those who are qualified. This statement is more directed at those who feel HP canopies should be outright banned because people get hurt or die with them. Yes - people are moving to elliptical and xbrace canopies too quickly. If we find a way to make a verification process that works well, i'm in favor of it. Hell, anything might be better than the wild west we live in today. I'm tired of seeing people with less than stellar canopy piloting experience on Expert canopies.Losers make excuses, Winners make it happen God is Good Beer is Great Swoopers are crazy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marisan 0 #389 April 26, 2012 Quote Some day skydivers are going to realize that shit doesn’t just happen. There is a cause and effect for every incident. The most common cause is something the jumper did do or something the jumper didn’t do. By saying “shit happens” you put your head in the sand and say there is nothing that can be done. And that is wrong. That's only wrong when you rush to that conclusion without a full investigation of the incident. On that case, you're short-changing yourself and the sport in general. However, accidents do happen, and sometimes the result of an investigation is that it was indeed an accident, with the only lesson to learn being a simple 'be careful'. In that case, there's nothing wrong with calling an accident, an accident. I've had a riser slip through my hand before. I've missed a grab at a riser. I've had a toggle 'slip' through part of my hand (but not all). The point is that things do 'happen', and things do go wrong. We've all tripped or dropped things 'by accident', and there's no reason that the same can't happen in skydiving. So what is being said above is that , if you are a low time swooper the cause is lack of training. If you are a high time swooper the cause is " Shit Happens" Sorry guys, you can't have it both ways!!!!!!! It's either low time swoopers or LETHAL CANOPIES. If the injuries and fatalities were all sub 1000 jump swoopers I could accept the call for more training. But when 5,000-10,000 jump swoopers are going in at almost equal rates there is only one common denominator between the two groups. It's the LETHAL LITTLE CANOPIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Dave Lepka: I accept your skills (Note, Not Mad Skillz) but I wonder why are you still alive and several very experienced swoopers have died lately? Is it because your skills are so much better than theirs or just that your appointment to meet the reaper hasn't occurred yet! It's either one or the other! Bon chance mes ami's Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davelepka 4 #390 April 26, 2012 QuoteSo what is being said above is that , if you are a low time swooper the cause is lack of training. If you are a high time swooper the cause is " Shit Happens" Sorry guys, you can't have it both ways!!!!!!! First off, nobody excluded low time jumpers from having 'shit happen' as well. Not every incident involving low time jumpers could have been avoided, things break and people make mistakes. However, when it comes to an area like swooping, where experience plays such a vital role, it's only natural to find a greater occurance of 'shit happens' with higher time jumpers than with lower time jumpers. It's not that 'shit' doesn't happen to lower time jumpers, it's just that when it comes to low time jumpers and swooping, they make far more legitimate errors in technique or judgement, that the majority of their incidents do have direct causes, and do contain significant learning points. Take the stats that offered a 50/50 split between low and high time jumpers involved in canopy fatalities. Out of 15 deaths from high time jumpers, maybe 10 of them were accidents, and 5 were easily preventable, dumb mistakes. The 15 deaths for low time jumpers might be distributed with 10 being dumb mistakes that could have been avoided, and 5 that were 'accidents'. Is it that hard to understand that experienced, high time jumpers are less likely to make an error when comapared to low time jumpers? I think even outside of swooping, you'll find more actual 'accidents' among high time jumpers, and more 'easily-preventable incidents' with low time jumpers. There's no reason it can't work both ways. One eventuality in one incident doesn't preclude another eventuality in a different incident. No two incidents have to be connected or related in any way. QuoteI wonder why are you still alive and several very experienced swoopers have died lately? Is it because your skills are so much better than theirs or just that your appointment to meet the reaper hasn't occurred yet! Again, you're trying to lump incidents together. Any analysis would have to be taken on a case by case basis. I see other swoopers doing things that I believe to be mistakes in their technique, mistakes that I have provided for in my technique or procedures. If one of those mistakes led to an incident, in that case I would suggest that it was my superior skill (or planning) that protected me from the same fate as the involved jumper. I also see incidents that just add up to bad luck. Sometimes the 'perfect storm' occurs at the least perfect time, and your number is just up. It can happen on a DZ, in traffic, or on a ski slope. What about Sunny Bono? He skied into a tree and was dead on the spot, while millions of others have hit trees and lived. QuoteIt's either one or the other! Which is exactly what I'm saying, but you miss the point that this is on a case by case basis. It might be one answer for one case, and the other answer for another case. One night you want a burger, and another night you want pizza. Rarely do they co-exist on a single night, but it's not hard to imagine burgers on Friday and pizza on Saturday. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marisan 0 #391 April 26, 2012 Hi Dave My point is that we can understand (not condone) what happens to low number jumpers but it is very hard to understand what happened to jumpers of your skill level that died or ended up in a wheelchair for life and there is many of them! It goes back to what I have said time after time. There is NO MARGIN FOR ERROR and it is only a matter of time before YOU are a fraction of a second out and YOU end up on the incident list. (I really don't want to see that) No Margin for error means you have to be perfect on EVERY JUMP! Are you really THAT GOOD? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marisan 0 #392 April 26, 2012 And if you super experienced swoopers are killing yourselves who is going to teach the newbies? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
obelixtim 100 #393 April 26, 2012 Quote That’s almost a dead heat with the over 1000 crowd coming on strong the last 3 years. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Are those US fatalities alone?. If not, I'm sure the world wide figures would paint a slightly different picture.... And the figure for "maimed" would I'm sure would show the inexperienced dominating. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What makes you say that? Stats are stats. If you want to talk about them, don't assume. Just go look them up. It was just a guess...because I just don't think the stats are out there......Well there are some stats, but they are far from comprehensive, especially with regard to the maimings. I suspect if there were, they wouldn't make pretty reading. Perhaps if there was an accurate figure to go on, something positive may have been in the pipeline a long time ago....My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #394 April 26, 2012 QuoteI've had a riser slip through my hand before. I've missed a grab at a riser. I've had a toggle 'slip' through part of my hand (but not all). The point is that things do 'happen', and things do go wrong. We've all tripped or dropped things 'by accident', and there's no reason that the same can't happen in skydiving. The quote seems to indicated a severe lack of accepting responsibility for one's own actions. Sounds like, "It wasn't my fault! Shit happens! It was an accident!"My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davelepka 4 #395 April 26, 2012 QuoteI've had a riser slip through my hand before. I've missed a grab at a riser. I've had a toggle 'slip' through part of my hand (but not all). The point is that things do 'happen', and things do go wrong. We've all tripped or dropped things 'by accident', and there's no reason that the same can't happen in skydiving. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The quote seems to indicated a severe lack of accepting responsibility for one's own actions. Sounds like, "It wasn't my fault! Shit happens! It was an accident!" Sometimes it is. Despite what you might think, there are humans involved in skydiving, and along with that comes human error. Have you ever tripped over anything? Or dropped something valuable or breakable? I'm guessing yes. Now if you tripped because you were running without looking where you were going, and your shoes were untied, then there are lessons to learn from that. If you werer properly equipped and paying attention, but still tripped, then it was an 'accident', with the lesson being to simply 'be more careful'. If you dropped your Ming vase because you were playing catch with it after covering your hands in Crisco, again, we can learn a few things. If you dropped it under more 'conventional' circumstances, again it comes to simply 'being more careful'. The suggestion is that every incident is due a full investigation, to make sure that we're not missing any key factors or learning points, but just because it's an incident doesn't mean that there are any significant causes or learning points beyond, 'be more careful'. It's a valid conclusion to come to, with the slippery slope being that you don't come to that conclusion too quickly. As far as, 'it's not my fault', we all accept responsibility for our actions, or the outcome of the jump, the moment we leave the plane. Like it or not, once you jump, it is your fault, whatever happens. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 369 #396 April 26, 2012 Quote Quote Some day skydivers are going to realize that shit doesn’t just happen. There is a cause and effect for every incident. The most common cause is something the jumper did do or something the jumper didn’t do. By saying “shit happens” you put your head in the sand and say there is nothing that can be done. And that is wrong. That's only wrong when you rush to that conclusion without a full investigation of the incident. On that case, you're short-changing yourself and the sport in general. However, accidents do happen, and sometimes the result of an investigation is that it was indeed an accident, with the only lesson to learn being a simple 'be careful'. In that case, there's nothing wrong with calling an accident, an accident. I've had a riser slip through my hand before. I've missed a grab at a riser. I've had a toggle 'slip' through part of my hand (but not all). The point is that things do 'happen', and things do go wrong. We've all tripped or dropped things 'by accident', and there's no reason that the same can't happen in skydiving. So what is being said above is that , if you are a low time swooper the cause is lack of training. If you are a high time swooper the cause is " Shit Happens" Sorry guys, you can't have it both ways!!!!!!! It's either low time swoopers or LETHAL CANOPIES. If the injuries and fatalities were all sub 1000 jump swoopers I could accept the call for more training. But when 5,000-10,000 jump swoopers are going in at almost equal rates there is only one common denominator between the two groups. It's the LETHAL LITTLE CANOPIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Dave Lepka: I accept your skills (Note, Not Mad Skillz) but I wonder why are you still alive and several very experienced swoopers have died lately? Is it because your skills are so much better than theirs or just that your appointment to meet the reaper hasn't occurred yet! It's either one or the other! Bon chance mes ami's As I pointed out earlier, all canopies are lethal when improperly handled. Pilots don't get hurt because their little canopy just flew them into the ground on its own. When a pilot smacks the ground hard it's because of something they did or didn't do. It is not the canopy's fault. It's the pilot's.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airtwardo 6 #397 April 26, 2012 It is not the canopy's fault. It's the pilot's. Quote I agree Chuck, but another point to ponder is ~ have the capabilities of the machine outpaced the human element and it's abilities to control it consistently? It seems more & more that the margin of error grows increasingly smaller as the canopy size decreases and the wing loading goes up. That's nothing new to aviation, ya don't see a lotta X-15's toolin' around the boonies...damn tough to land 'em. As I mention in one of these threads, I think if there was a full accounting available of not only the fatalities but also of the life altering injuries caused by pilot error on the HP canopies, the situation would be given a lot more scrutiny than it is even now. I would also like to add, it looks to me like things ARE changing a bit. There have been numerous threads of this type over the last several years, some less productive than others. It's seems to my untrained eye anyway that the discussion has been turning more toward acknowledgement of a problem and and finding workable solutions that ever before in the past. That's a good thing, this isn't a battle between swoopers and non, it's a crisis in the sport that needs to be dealt with by all. It's a 'process' arriving at a safe middle ground, it's unfortunate that it takes us so long to get the wheels rolling, especially when lives are at risk. I keep thinking about the Y mod and the speed at which it was implemented...a couple people died because the gear though safe when utilized properly, 'could' be unsafe if 'human error' was allowed into the equation in a small measure. What was it...a couple weeks and that whole end of the sport was changed forever...surely there is SOMETHING we can do to slow the HP canopy carnage? ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites davelepka 4 #398 April 26, 2012 Quotehave the capabilities of the machine outpaced the human element and it's abilities to control it consistently? I would vote no, and I would base this on the success of the majority of HP canopy pilots. Consdier for a minute that while you might see a dozen fatalities of experienced jumpers on HP canopies, the vast number of pilots who jump them regularly without incident. Add to that the idea that many HP pilots do hop n pops in order to train for swooping, and thus end up making more jumps per day than others. Add to that the idea that each one of those jumps involves a multi-roation, high speed landing, and you can see that the level of risk, and the exposure to that risk is potentially higher than for any other group of jumpers, yet you don't see an unusually high number of incidents related to that group. The reason is simple, and it's because the equipment is sound. It's consistant, reliable, and performs as expected every time, with the variable being the pilot. Take the example of the Penta-thing that collapsed in Dubai. It folded up, and then reinflated, and the jumper landed without incident, however, the collapse itself was huge news to swoopers as that sort of thing is unheard of for the given conditions. For a very good reason, swoopers have become accustomed tot he idea of their canopies working 'as designed'. The problem, is in the pilots, or more specifaclly, the lack of training. The equipment has outpaced that by a mile, and it did it many years ago. We're not to the point that we need a computer to fly our canopies for us like an F-22, but we are to the point that you need a good deal of training and experience to be able to them safely, more along the lines of an Extra 300. Is there anything wrong with an Extra 300? Countless aerobatic competitors will argue no, and would probably go the opposite way and suggest that the airframe is 'brilliant'. At the same time, the inhernt instability, roll rate and high stall speed would add up to more than a handful for a low time pilot, who might view it as a 'death machine'. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jacketsdb23 45 #399 April 26, 2012 QuoteTake the example of the Penta-thing that collapsed in Dubai. It folded up, and then reinflated, and the jumper landed without incident, however, the collapse itself was huge news to swoopers as that sort of thing is unheard of for the given conditions. For a very good reason, swoopers have become accustomed tot he idea of their canopies working 'as designe For the record, he chopped that and was lucky to have a skyhook, IMHO. I shouldn't say lucky, he chose to have a skyhook and it may have saved his life.Losers make excuses, Winners make it happen God is Good Beer is Great Swoopers are crazy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites airtwardo 6 #400 April 26, 2012 The problem, is in the pilots, or more specifically, the lack of training. The equipment has outpaced that by a mile, and it did it many years ago. Quote Dave that statement concisely describes the situation. And as you point out, it's been going on for a while now. I don't swoop and never will, same with proximity B.A.S.E. ~it's just not worth the risk to me at this point. But just because I choose to put limitations on myself, I understand it's not right to assume what's right for 'me' should be the norm. As you stated Dave, it's not as 'sport death' as some on the other extreme seem to believe it is. But it IS at the point where often even the slightest of error has catastrophic results. So I ask, IS that something that can be 'trained' out to a significant enough degree that these increasing numbers reverse and the 'trend' become an occasional anomaly? I mean is it possible to design & maintain a program that will not only address the newer jumper situation but also 'regulate' (I hate that term) the performance requirements & standards for those 'advanced' pilots regarding ongoing education and currency requirements? Sounds like a daunting task to say the least, but without question 'something' needs to change. IF this rate continues we're looking at what, 30plus before the year is out? ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next Page 16 of 19 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
davelepka 4 #398 April 26, 2012 Quotehave the capabilities of the machine outpaced the human element and it's abilities to control it consistently? I would vote no, and I would base this on the success of the majority of HP canopy pilots. Consdier for a minute that while you might see a dozen fatalities of experienced jumpers on HP canopies, the vast number of pilots who jump them regularly without incident. Add to that the idea that many HP pilots do hop n pops in order to train for swooping, and thus end up making more jumps per day than others. Add to that the idea that each one of those jumps involves a multi-roation, high speed landing, and you can see that the level of risk, and the exposure to that risk is potentially higher than for any other group of jumpers, yet you don't see an unusually high number of incidents related to that group. The reason is simple, and it's because the equipment is sound. It's consistant, reliable, and performs as expected every time, with the variable being the pilot. Take the example of the Penta-thing that collapsed in Dubai. It folded up, and then reinflated, and the jumper landed without incident, however, the collapse itself was huge news to swoopers as that sort of thing is unheard of for the given conditions. For a very good reason, swoopers have become accustomed tot he idea of their canopies working 'as designed'. The problem, is in the pilots, or more specifaclly, the lack of training. The equipment has outpaced that by a mile, and it did it many years ago. We're not to the point that we need a computer to fly our canopies for us like an F-22, but we are to the point that you need a good deal of training and experience to be able to them safely, more along the lines of an Extra 300. Is there anything wrong with an Extra 300? Countless aerobatic competitors will argue no, and would probably go the opposite way and suggest that the airframe is 'brilliant'. At the same time, the inhernt instability, roll rate and high stall speed would add up to more than a handful for a low time pilot, who might view it as a 'death machine'. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jacketsdb23 45 #399 April 26, 2012 QuoteTake the example of the Penta-thing that collapsed in Dubai. It folded up, and then reinflated, and the jumper landed without incident, however, the collapse itself was huge news to swoopers as that sort of thing is unheard of for the given conditions. For a very good reason, swoopers have become accustomed tot he idea of their canopies working 'as designe For the record, he chopped that and was lucky to have a skyhook, IMHO. I shouldn't say lucky, he chose to have a skyhook and it may have saved his life.Losers make excuses, Winners make it happen God is Good Beer is Great Swoopers are crazy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airtwardo 6 #400 April 26, 2012 The problem, is in the pilots, or more specifically, the lack of training. The equipment has outpaced that by a mile, and it did it many years ago. Quote Dave that statement concisely describes the situation. And as you point out, it's been going on for a while now. I don't swoop and never will, same with proximity B.A.S.E. ~it's just not worth the risk to me at this point. But just because I choose to put limitations on myself, I understand it's not right to assume what's right for 'me' should be the norm. As you stated Dave, it's not as 'sport death' as some on the other extreme seem to believe it is. But it IS at the point where often even the slightest of error has catastrophic results. So I ask, IS that something that can be 'trained' out to a significant enough degree that these increasing numbers reverse and the 'trend' become an occasional anomaly? I mean is it possible to design & maintain a program that will not only address the newer jumper situation but also 'regulate' (I hate that term) the performance requirements & standards for those 'advanced' pilots regarding ongoing education and currency requirements? Sounds like a daunting task to say the least, but without question 'something' needs to change. IF this rate continues we're looking at what, 30plus before the year is out? ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
