0
Marisan

HP From an Old Fart

Recommended Posts

Quote

VirginBurner et al



uhm, are you sayin i should have to take a canopy class? i've done two so far, both out of my own free will.. just sayin'. planning to go for my 3rd next season. considering this will be my 5th year in the sport, i think that's a pretty good rate.
“Some may never live, but the crazy never die.”
-Hunter S. Thompson
"No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try."
-Yoda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

So, Ron, what is your solution to the problem of jumpers that can't keep up with their canopy killing or injuring themselves?



You can start by reading these:
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=search_results&search_forum=all&search_string=WL+BSR&search_type=AND&search_fields=sb&search_time=&search_user_username=Ron&sb=score&mh=25

If you have any questions about my thoughts after reading all or even just a few of those... Feel free to ask for clarification.

My issue is your post was full of blame for the CANOPY and not the pilot. With the exception of the G-Lock example EVERY one of your other examples was the failure of the PILOT, not the equipment.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

So, Ron, what is your solution to the problem of jumpers that can't keep up with their canopy killing or injuring themselves?



You can start by reading these:
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=search_results&search_forum=all&search_string=WL+BSR&search_type=AND&search_fields=sb&search_time=&search_user_username=Ron&sb=score&mh=25

If you have any questions about my thoughts after reading all or even just a few of those... Feel free to ask for clarification.

My issue is your post was full of blame for the CANOPY and not the pilot. With the exception of the G-Lock example EVERY one of your other examples was the failure of the PILOT, not the equipment.



Failure of the pilot, or the system that is allowing these pilots to fly these canopies?? :)
Birdshit & Fools Productions

"Son, only two things fall from the sky."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Failure of the pilot, or the system that is allowing these pilots to fly these canopies??:)



Both.

1. It is a failure of the pilot when they get a canopy that requires more skill and experience than he/she can handle reliably, constantly.

We have to remember that when we fly a HP wing that we must be "on" 100% of the time. It only takes one small error in judgement for us to get in over our heads. We must select a canopy that we can safely land 100% of the time and learn to fly that canopy to its maximum before we get another one.

2. It is ALL of our faults for letting this person jump that canopy.

We have tried to lecture, teach, coerce, beg, arm twist and even yell at these people..... They don't listen.

So it has LONG been past the time that we as an organization should have had a WL BSR that prevents those that only think they have the "mad skills" to handle the wing from getting in over their heads while at the same time having provisions for people that are actually that advanced to be able to advance at a rate that they can safely handle.

I see the failure of the USPA to do anything about this as one of the largest failures of that organization.

I am not saying I have *THE* answer.... .But it is clear that doing nothing is not actually helping and if done correctly the right solution will not hurt anything.

The canopy portion of the ISP was well intended, but poorly executed. The "B" license checkoff is a decent start.

How about:

1. Put five hop n pops in the program BEFORE the "A"? Instead we focused on freefall skills that are not life saving (Sit flying/center point turns).

2. Mandatory canopy classes for the "B".

3. A WL BSR with a stepped progression that can be tested out of with DEMONSTRATED competence.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So Ron, What do you think of Calvin 19's ideas below?
And of course anyone else that's interested.

In Reply To
For all those people that have sent me their ideas by PM.
There are some really good ones.
Can I ask you to post them on this thread so we can get some discussion going.
A simple canopy progression license, required independent of skydiving licenses, but cannot progress to a higher loading until these are demonstrated. They can have the A/B/C/D scale as long as that does not get too confusing. (Canopy Pilot A,B,C, or D[unlimited])

A- up to 1/1 loading: demonstrate full stalls on risers and brakes, full control input porpoising, coordinated wingovers, spirals to recover to a heading, patterns to a spot landing. 100' square must be able to show good judgement in landing patterns and traffic. flight and patterns and landings on rears, etc.

B- up to 1.5/1 loading: All the above (not rear landings) redone at 1.5/1 plus intro to accelerated landings,

C-up to 2/1 loading: All the above at 2/1 loading plus advanced canopy course AND swooping course if wanted. (can't swoop without)

D-2.5/1 to unlimited All above at 2.5/1 loading plus advanced swooping course.


Just my idea, it's incomplete.

And it's also a start:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Failure of the pilot, or the system that is allowing these pilots to fly these canopies??:)



Both.

1. It is a failure of the pilot when they get a canopy that requires more skill and experience than he/she can handle reliably, constantly.

We have to remember that when we fly a HP wing that we must be "on" 100% of the time. It only takes one small error in judgement for us to get in over our heads. We must select a canopy that we can safely land 100% of the time and learn to fly that canopy to its maximum before we get another one.

2. It is ALL of our faults for letting this person jump that canopy.

We have tried to lecture, teach, coerce, beg, arm twist and even yell at these people..... They don't listen.

So it has LONG been past the time that we as an organization should have had a WL BSR that prevents those that only think they have the "mad skills" to handle the wing from getting in over their heads while at the same time having provisions for people that are actually that advanced to be able to advance at a rate that they can safely handle.

I see the failure of the USPA to do anything about this as one of the largest failures of that organization.

I am not saying I have *THE* answer.... .But it is clear that doing nothing is not actually helping and if done correctly the right solution will not hurt anything.

The canopy portion of the ISP was well intended, but poorly executed. The "B" license checkoff is a decent start.

How about:

1. Put five hop n pops in the program BEFORE the "A"? Instead we focused on freefall skills that are not life saving (Sit flying/center point turns).

2. Mandatory canopy classes for the "B".

3. A WL BSR with a stepped progression that can be tested out of with DEMONSTRATED competence.



So Ron, what you are saying here is that anyone with an A License can buy an HP Canopy and have, effectively, no problems in finding a DZ that will let them jump it. That seemed to be the case in the last fatality here in Australia.
If that's not true literally what level canopy could (Could not should) they get away with jumping?
When did the experienced jumpers give away their authority (or have it taken away) to stop newbies making unfortunate choices.

More importantly, how do the experienced jumpers get that authority back?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The canopy portion of the ISP was well intended, but poorly executed. The "B" license checkoff is a decent start.


Quote



First, I haven't done any Instructing of new students in over ten years so I really don't know what all is incorporated into the syllabus these days...

That being said, it seems to me 'one' way to approach curbing the trend would be to somewhat indoctrinate the newcomers with a thorough understanding of the pitfalls & consequences regarding downsizing too early/fast.

Again...I'm not up on what is currently taught, but wouldn't at least setting the stage early and in greater detail be a beneficial beginning?











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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


That being said, it seems to me 'one' way to approach curbing the trend would be to somewhat indoctrinate the newcomers with a thorough understanding of the pitfalls & consequences regarding downsizing too early/fast.

Again...I'm not up on what is currently taught, but wouldn't at least setting the stage early and in greater detail be a beneficial beginning?



Yes. Speaking for myself, it's one of my goals; I try to instill a sense of skydiving safety, including canopy sizing, into my students.

They listen, they learn and they are good to go...until the experienced "regular" jumpers get them and start feeding them that "you need a smaller canopy" and "smaller is more fun" bullshit.

99 times out of 100 it's the swoopers and free-flyers that are doing it to them.....you know, the "cool kids".
[:/]

cases in point:
-dude talks his GF into doing and intentional cutaway to get video of it...on a sport rig. Packs her up with multiple line twists.

-dude takes 15-jump newbie on a 8-way hybrid with 3 "hangers" who have never done it before.

-dude talks 80-jump wonder who had been flying a 200+ sizes into buying a 150.
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

dude talks 80-jump wonder who had been flying a 200+ sizes into buying a 150.



Like this?
Jump wonder: I wanna buy a rig.
Dude: What you have in mind?
Jump wonder: Something smaller, with more flare. Not that boat of 190 that I`m jumping now.
Dude: You could get 170?
Jump wonder: But what if I want to downsize later?
Dude: Oh, I think you`ll be ok on 150 then.
Jump wonder: Really?
Dude: Yeah. Sure. Just land it straight in.
Canopy Nazi: Hey, Jump Wonder can`t land for sh*t. How many times in a row, intentionaly you landed anywhere near gravel pit?
Dude: What are you talking about? Our landing area is huge. Jump Wonder will be ok. No need for accuracy.
Canopy Nazi: What about landing out?
Dude: Nah it`ll be all right.
Canopy Nazi: Last time Jump Wonders were spotting the load by themselves they almost did not make it to the LZ...
Dude: Jump Wonder is just going to be real cerful. Right, Jump Wonder?
Jump wonder: Right.
Dude: Anyway, why do you worry so much Canopy Nazi? It`ll be ok.
Jump Wonder: So I guess it`s 150 then. :)
dudeist skydiver #42

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

dude talks 80-jump wonder who had been flying a 200+ sizes into buying a 150.



Like this?
Jump wonder: I wanna buy a rig.
Dude: What you have in mind?
Jump wonder: Something smaller, with more flare. Not that boat of 190 that I`m jumping now.
Dude: You could get 170?
Jump wonder: But what if I want to downsize later?
Dude: Oh, I think you`ll be ok on 150 then.
Jump wonder: Really?
Dude: Yeah. Sure. Just land it straight in.
Canopy Nazi: Hey, Jump Wonder can`t land for sh*t. How many times in a row, intentionaly you landed anywhere near gravel pit?
Dude: What are you talking about? Our landing area is huge. Jump Wonder will be ok. No need for accuracy.
Canopy Nazi: What about landing out?
Dude: Nah it`ll be all right.
Canopy Nazi: Last time Jump Wonders were spotting the load by themselves they almost did not make it to the LZ...
Dude: Jump Wonder is just going to be real cerful. Right, Jump Wonder?
Jump wonder: Right.
Dude: Anyway, why do you worry so much Canopy Nazi? It`ll be ok.
Jump Wonder: So I guess it`s 150 then.
Canopy Nazi: Damn, now I'm going to have to take another day off work to attend another funeral! :)


Fixed er for ya. :)
Birdshit & Fools Productions

"Son, only two things fall from the sky."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Canopy Nazi: Damn, now I'm going to have to take another day off work to attend another funeral!



I hope not...[:/]

But still, I figure those kind of conversations happen all over DZs. :S

Maybe we should start thread titled: "Why bother? Don`t waste your breath, no one is listening anyway..."
dudeist skydiver #42

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not true, many do listen.
Many do make good decisions because of people making an effort to tell them their opions, both here and at the DZ.
Just because some don't do things exactly the way that you or I think they should, does not discount the many incidents that don't happen because of good advice given at the right time.
I've learned a lot from others, even a few things from dzdotcom. We all have, I'll bet.
So take a moment to appreciate those that do listen, and I'll take one for those that give good advice.
But what do I know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Not true, many do listen.


Yes true. Happens nearly everywhere.

Quote

Many do make good decisions because of people making an effort to tell them their opions, both here and at the DZ.



And thank God for that.

Quote

Just because some don't do things exactly the way that you or I think they should, does not discount the many incidents that don't happen because of good advice given at the right time.



Can you document that? Do you have a cite?

Just kidding.
:D:D

Quote

So take a moment to appreciate those that do listen



Believe me, I do. I also get discouraged when they later go on to listen to the bullshit.
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Maybe we should start thread titled: "Why bother? Don`t waste your breath, no one is listening anyway..."



Well, I'm ashamed to admit that the thought has crossed my mind but I just can't give up. I just can't.

We need help. We need help all across the country. we need help NOW.
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Maybe we should start thread titled: "Why bother? Don`t waste your breath, no one is listening anyway..."



Well, I'm ashamed to admit that the thought has crossed my mind but I just can't give up. I just can't.

We need help. We need help all across the country. we need help NOW.



Some of the personal attacks I have received in this thread and via PM's have astounded me.

So the question is: Who benefits from all this?

It's the bloody manufacturers. Without the downsizing mania they'd be out of business.
Look at it. Downsize from 200 to 150, New container as well, my bigger reserve makes the container look different so I may as well downsize my reserve as well. (The reserve that is my LAST chance) And all for what? I can jump the latest trophy canopy and every thing else matches so I can look fashionable.

What else are they doing for fashion. Mini 3 rings that look good but increase the pull force necessary to cut away especially with the high speed spins that these HP canopies regularly come up with when they mal.
Articulated harnesses that you can fall out of. What do you do about falling out? You put a stupid piece of bungy cord over your arse to keep the leg straps up. Any other industry would have redesigned the harness.
You have a national body that doesn't appear to care about the carnage rate. They won't even recommend training let alone mandate it (Make it COMPULSORY). They merely say it should be available.

So you're left with people like Bill Von and many many others fighting the good fight in their corner of the world whilst being flamed by all the kids that think it can't possibly happen to them.

And all the while the manufacturers are raking the money in.

I haven't seen any manufacturer (or the USPA for that matter) weigh in on this thread (and others) to say what their suggestions are to reduce the carnage. I doubt that I will either. (Excluding Bill Booth who came up with the concept of fashion re mini 3 rings)

If that Petra Canopy in the swooping thread ever hits the market well God Help You All


Jumpers have lost control of the sport and given it to the money men.

Someone WILL take that control back.

If you guys think Randy Babbit wrote that letter to the USPA just because he flew jumpers 40 years ago you are deluded.
The FAA is concerned about the carnage and let you know about that concern in no uncertain terms.
If you think that concern has gone away just because Randy Babbit is no longer head of the FAA you are even more deluded.

One more gross negligence Tandem Fatality (Think students falling out of misadjusted harnesses) or one mad skills swooper taking out members of the public because his skills weren't as good as he thought they were and it's OVER.

So listen to the voices in the wilderness and CLEAN UP YOUR ACT before someone else does it for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>So the question is: Who benefits from all this?

We do. Parachutes are better than they ever have been. They are more reliable, they last longer, they do more with less fabric, they open softer, they pack smaller, they're lighter and they get you back from bad spots. Given a combination of a bad spot, funky moderately strong winds and a tight-ish landing area, I'd actually take my Crossfire2 109 over my first canopy, a Pursuit 215. It gives me higher odds of landing without injury.

But with all that performance comes a new ability to hurt yourself. It is now much easier to get yourself under a parachute that flies a lot faster than your brain can. And while the percentage of people getting killed in this sport has been going steadily down, the percentage of people who have gotten killed under parachutes is going up. As about 90% of the people on the board have mentioned at one time or another, this is indeed an issue.

However the problem is us, it's not a manufacturer or society or USPA that's causing it. We're the problem and we'll be the solution (if we want one.)

>I haven't seen any manufacturer (or the USPA for that matter) weigh in on this thread
>(and others) to say what their suggestions are to reduce the carnage.

For years PD tried to restrict sales of their Stilettos to people with over X jumps (I think it was 500.) They gave up because it was too easy to get around the requirement. Square 1 tries to do the same thing and has more luck than PD did (mainly because they actually see people landing their current canopies) but people at Perris still end up with canopies they shouldn't be under. And again it's not because Square 1 isn't trying, it's because people want what they want and will do whatever it takes to get it.

When I sell canopies I try to make sure that the person buying it can handle it - and it's fucking hard. People lie. They make up jump numbers, lie about the canopy they're jumping now and give vague answers when I ask for a reference (i.e. someone we both know who has seen the guy land.) 75% of the time I end up selling it to someone local or someone I meet on my travels because I can actually talk to them and/or watch them jump - but manufacturers can't do that.

And when you are successful at keeping those canopies out of the hands of people who aren't ready for them? You're a canopy nazi.

So any system you come up with that involves trying to keep people from doing what they want is going to be inherently very hard.

>And all the while the manufacturers are raking the money in.

Most manufacturers make their money on military sales. The sport market is an afterthought, a useful testing ground for the real moneymakers.

>Jumpers have lost control of the sport and given it to the money men.

WE are the money men. The money (at least for sport gear) comes from us. We control what canopies the manufacturers make. And people don't want big Silhouettes (which is a great canopy BTW) - they want tiny Velos. We're not victims of an out-of-control manufacturing conspiracy; we are getting exactly what we ask for. We're in control, no one else.

>One more gross negligence Tandem Fatality (Think students falling out of
>misadjusted harnesses) or one mad skills swooper taking out members of the
>public because his skills weren't as good as he thought they were and it's OVER.

I heard that way before the first passenger fell out of a harness. Way before a wingsuiter flew into a bridge cable and splattered body parts all over John Q. Public. Way before a demo jumper put a woman in a hospital during a demo gone bad. Skydiving is still around.

For better or for worse the FAA just doesn't care about us that much. Many skydivers have this image that the FAA noses through records, determines safety standards for gear manufacturing, sets up training programs etc but it doesn't work that way. When you dig deep enough you discover that the people who wrote the FAA procedures for gear testing (for example) are people like Sandy Reid and Bill Booth. They are perfectly willing to let us kill ourselves, provided we don't take too many other people with us (and historically we don't.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Who benefits from all this?
It's the bloody manufacturers. Without the downsizing mania they'd be out of business.
Jumpers have lost control of the sport and given it to the money men.


Simply not true. Where do you go to come to this conclusion?
Quote

Mini 3 rings that look good but increase the pull force necessary to cut away especially with the high speed spins that these HP canopies regularly come up with when they mal.
Articulated harnesses that you can fall out of. What do you do about falling out? You put a stupid piece of bungy cord over your arse to keep the leg straps up. Any other industry would have redesigned the harness.
You have a national body that doesn't appear to care about the carnage rate. They won't even recommend training let alone mandate it (Make it COMPULSORY). They merely say it should be available.


yeah... I don't think of any of those as being huge problems of todays gear. Anyone falling out of a harness is a matter of complacency, not harness design. Mini 3 rings work great, increased pull force and all.
Quote


If that Petra Canopy in the swooping thread ever hits the market well God Help You All


Here is a good example of how I think Marisan may be a little detached. If/when the Petra is released it will be treated just like any other competition swooping canopy. People flying these canopies are adults, they know and accept the risks they are taking. Flying the canopy became more fun than falling like a rag doll and then guiding a parachute to a square. For better or worse, skydiving changed from thrill seekers falling through the sky to thrill seekers falling from the sky then flying a canopy. Compromises were made, safety was considered and no less than it ever was. Fatalities per jump have decreased and will continue to decrease. The disproportional amount of landing fatalities is being addressed, there exists a USPA canopy proficiency card. This may not be enough and many of the drop zones may ignore it. I tossed out an idea, and we are open to MORE information being MORE available to students. Canopy education will increase. The balance will return. What I think Marisan has not realized is the fulcrum has shifted for the better since his time, though he may not see it that way.
Quote


The FAA is concerned about the carnage and let you know about that concern in no uncertain terms.
Someone WILL take that control back.


I'll say again, It is highly unlikely that the Feds will impose significant further regulation on individual skydivers. The letter from the FAA was dealing mostly if not totally with the rash of canopy collisions and deaths in CA.

-SPACE-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Speaking for myself, it's one of my goals; I try to instill a sense of skydiving safety, including canopy sizing, into my students.

They listen, they learn and they are good to go...until the experienced "regular" jumpers get them and start feeding them that "you need a smaller canopy" and "smaller is more fun" bullshit.

99 times out of 100 it's the swoopers and free-flyers that are doing it to them.....you know, the "cool kids".
[:/]

cases in point:
-dude talks his GF into doing and intentional cutaway to get video of it...on a sport rig. Packs her up with multiple line twists.

-dude takes 15-jump newbie on a 8-way hybrid with 3 "hangers" who have never done it before.

-dude talks 80-jump wonder who had been flying a 200+ sizes into buying a 150.



I don't know, but I'm guessing that all three of your 'cases in point' have something to do with the 'Dude' getting into the pants of the newbie...

As for the last one, that will start me off on a rant of my own.
I keep hearing the argument that tiny wee girls should fly tiny wee canopies (150, 135, 120) asap, because they are "underloading the big student canopies" and "aren't in control/have no say in where they're going" and "cannot flare such boats".

I don't buy it. Even with my exit weight of 220 I have a WL of .8 under a Manta. A couple of hundreds of jumps ago, you'd hear experienced jumpers talk about Manta's as "they flare like a baglock". I don't know, but I have seen students make perfect tippety toe landings under lightly loaded Mantas...and indeed did so myself when I re-enacted my first jump for the occasion of making my 300th jump. Point is, Manta's (and other student canopies) just don't flare the way experienced jumpers are used to, but they DO flare just fine - if you know how to do it.

So why not put "tiny wee girls" under a 210 or 190 at the smallest for their first couple of hundreds of jumps? Can't penetrate into the winds then either sit it out, or learn to spot.

As to the flaring issues, I'm guessing that an 80-pound girl simply lacks the arm strength to flare *any* canopy. Perhaps she should work out?

Rant over, flame on.
"That formation-stuff in freefall is just fun and games but with an open parachute it's starting to sound like, you know, an extreme sport."
~mom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
in reply to The disproportional amount of landing fatalities is being addressed, there exists a USPA canopy proficiency card. This may not be enough and many of the drop zones may ignore it. I tossed out an idea, and we are open to MORE information being MORE available to students. Canopy education will increase. The balance will return. What I think Marisan has not realized is the fulcrum has shifted for the better since his time, though he may not see it that way. "
................................................

Yep those old guys did a lot for us.
They tested a whole range of equipment that hadn't been proven like our modern gear.
They found the edge . Our reserves still reflect a direct influence with canopies from 30years ago.
Our reserves are like old mains.

They gave some of us a balanced risk minimisation /fun factor mindset
They gave us so much it wouldn't fit in a very large collection of books. (what's a book? :D)

Little kids are taught to tell the difference between opinion and fact not long after they can run without banging into things all the time.
We as adults still have to use these skills learnt in the playground.

If HP newbies was a group in the playground , who would want to go anywhere near them? psycho kid?.
Can't you see the bodies scattered all around them?
They're learning, but THEY"RE stupid.

The smart kids are playing with slower more long term toys , they skin their knee instead of losing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
in reply to "Some of the personal attacks I have received in this thread and via PM's have astounded me. "
......................................................

Hi Marisan, thanks for caring about us.
I noticed an increase in abusive behaviour after 'Point Break ' brought a heap of bozo surfers into skydiving world.

These territorial surfy misfits brought their behaviour patterns from that sport into our sport.
They didn't and don't care what it was like before they arrived.
In their minds they know better than anyone else and have very little respect for mature authority.
These "too cool for old schools" are actually allowed to teach people.
Its all about freeflying , angles and stuff , VERY little discipline, no real form to the skydives so no-one makes mistakes , a phuck up just looks like fun and they will laugh at it rather than recognise it as a dangerous warning sign.

I've watched them die like flies ..... and not just under HP canopies.

We're all getting to see their learning process as they wander around trying to work out what you Marisan and your mates , already knew and still know .
eg skydiving is dangerous. Skydiving with fools makes it MORE dangerous.

Last surfie dude leading the skydiving pack I saw was a freeflyer a couple of weeks ago, his van was covered in surfy stickers with a couple of skydiving ones scatterred about. well he was a hero, when he turned up and guess what? apart from my goil, his chicky babe attachment , was the ONLY female on the DZ ..... go figure.:ph34r:

I've got a new conclusion
HP is scaring the girls away.
.....then its just everyman for himself.:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>I keep hearing the argument that tiny wee girls should fly tiny wee canopies (150, 135,
> 120) asap, because they are "underloading the big student canopies" and "aren't in
>control/have no say in where they're going" and "cannot flare such boats".

I definitely agree that small women should not be put on "tiny wee canopies" but they also should not be put on seriously underloaded canopies. We used to keep a few smaller canopies (190, 170) for smaller women, both to have a smaller rig/harness and to give them a canopy that flew better at more reasonable loadings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>I keep hearing the argument that tiny wee girls should fly tiny wee canopies (150, 135,
> 120) asap, because they are "underloading the big student canopies" and "aren't in
>control/have no say in where they're going" and "cannot flare such boats".

I definitely agree that small women should not be put on "tiny wee canopies" but they also should not be put on seriously underloaded canopies. We used to keep a few smaller canopies (190, 170) for smaller women, both to have a smaller rig/harness and to give them a canopy that flew better at more reasonable loadings.



Question for you Bill.
How have STUDENT Canopies changed over the last 20 years. ie: how does a modern student canopy copare to a Comet for example?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>I keep hearing the argument that tiny wee girls should fly tiny wee canopies (150, 135,
> 120) asap, because they are "underloading the big student canopies" and "aren't in
>control/have no say in where they're going" and "cannot flare such boats".

I definitely agree that small women should not be put on "tiny wee canopies" but they also should not be put on seriously underloaded canopies. We used to keep a few smaller canopies (190, 170) for smaller women, both to have a smaller rig/harness and to give them a canopy that flew better at more reasonable loadings.



190 and 170(for the very light people) are fine, but such canopies are referred to as 'boats' by some people. Fortunately they are a very small minority.
"That formation-stuff in freefall is just fun and games but with an open parachute it's starting to sound like, you know, an extreme sport."
~mom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>I keep hearing the argument that tiny wee girls should fly tiny wee canopies (150, 135,
> 120) asap, because they are "underloading the big student canopies" and "aren't in
>control/have no say in where they're going" and "cannot flare such boats".

I definitely agree that small women should not be put on "tiny wee canopies" but they also should not be put on seriously underloaded canopies. We used to keep a few smaller canopies (190, 170) for smaller women, both to have a smaller rig/harness and to give them a canopy that flew better at more reasonable loadings.



Back in "The Day" when we first bought in squares for first jump students they were a 370 square foot ex military canopy (It was light blue, someone else should be able to come up with the model number)

I can't remember anyone that couldn't flare that boat (Probably should call it an " Ocean Liner")

However, they were still treated as dangerous and a large amount of the first jump course was spent on how to safely fly them.

What are you guys doing now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
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.

0