Should Canopy Coaching be #1 route to take to not Femur?

[NWFlyer 2]

Quote

Quote

I took some "local" advice on modifications to my brake lines that has only worsened my landings, ...

Care to elaborate? Not mentioning names of course.

Ended up with brake lines that were too short for me to properly flare/control the canopy on landing.

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

[johnny1488 1]

Have you ever tried to talk to the S&TA at yor dz? Not an accuzation, just a question.

I don't think I am in favor of a cc rating. Just more Things for uspa to get involved in that I dont think will work.

Also there are several articles on PD's website that can give you a good bit of knowledge. The info in there would have tought you how to guage the proper length of your brake lines without someones out side opinion.

And I am almost certain on what the advice you received sounded like. I have heard it all too many times from people who should know better. "If you cant flare then you need to take a wrap or shorten your steering lines."

Thats why I am a fan of people educating themselves. Or at least starting with the motivation to. To many people who are already in a teaching position have zero knowledge of canopy control.

Johnny
--"This ain't no book club, we're all gonna die!"
Mike Rome

[NWFlyer 2]

Yep, that's one of the reasons I don't blame anyone. Ultimately, I made the decision, and made it with incomplete information and could have and should have done better research on my own. I've educated myself since, and know that it was the wrong decision (and before I left, I had riggers at Eloy put the brake lines back to PD spec, which is how they were when I bought the canopy, fresh off a PD reline).

[selbbub78 0]

Quote

Were you under your 126 when you broke it?

no i wasn't. I was on a larger canopy at the time.

CReW Skies,

"Women fake orgasms - men fake whole relationships" – Sharon Stone
"The world is my dropzone" (wise crewdog quote)
"The light dims, until full darkness pierces into the world."-KDM

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

Unfortunately it's difficult to define too radical of a turn until you've exceeded that threashold.

"Too radical" is the one that will kill you. That would be just about any turn over 200 degrees less than 800 feet on a canopy that can exceed the speed of the jumper’s ability to think.

Quote

How would you teach that?

Have the student read the fatalities from the past ten years and notice that turning too radical too close to the ground will kill you without regard to jump numbers, CC attended or how cool you look.

What you are asking is how do you teach common sense. I guess maybe you can’t and those that refuse to learn from the past will be a lesson in the future.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[CrazyL 0]

Good going on getting the riggers at Eloy to assist you. I'd keep it up, when it comes to your gear, use a rigger. Have seen the result of a toggles coming off at the worst time from ill rigging ,mainly by the jumper. Seems easy to attach a toggle, is also easy to mess up. ( just an example of why to ask/use a rigger for all gear needs)

[billvon 2,395]

>To many people who are already in a teaching position have zero
>knowledge of canopy control.

I agree. We need more people who know how to teach canopy control. Which is why I disagree with the idea that "we don't need a canopy coach rating."

How many AFF-I's do you know who have zero knowledge of how to teach students to skydive? I'm sure they exist, but they are greatly in the minority. Most AFF-I's do a good job teaching people how to safely exit an aircraft, freefall for a while then open their parachutes. We could get a similar level of competence in the canopy coach rating.

[johnny1488 1]

I think canopy control is more of a part of skydiving than freefall is. The fact that the current instructors cant teach it or even dont know anything about it is pathetic.

Again we are talking about putting band aids on a severed limb instead of fixing the problem at it's source.

That being said I dont have an answer yet on how to fix it, but am working on it.

Johnny
--"This ain't no book club, we're all gonna die!"
Mike Rome

[CrazyL 0]

I agree. 1st 6 jumps static line. Much of groundschool was canopy mals and flying/landing parachute. Freefall was less emphasized. Spotting/PLF/Mals/Flying/Landing strongly taught. AFF much freefall. Although AFF program is a well constructed taught program, still think it is too much going for some to be really good at flying the canopy vs. static line.

[freeryde13 0]

well KIM..... i took a canopy class and learned alot of good shit and people have given me alot of advice too . i'm kind of allright with the canopy , but i think maybe if they taught more canopy control stuff as part of the a license requirements that it would help alot .

_________________________________________

people see me as a challenge to their balance

[NWFlyer 2]

Quote

I think canopy control is more of a part of skydiving than freefall is. The fact that the current instructors cant teach it or even dont know anything about it is pathetic.

Again we are talking about putting band aids on a severed limb instead of fixing the problem at it's source.

That being said I dont have an answer yet on how to fix it, but am working on it.

While the lack of teaching/ability to teach canopy control to students may be a problem, aren't we really talking about a different set of skydivers here? Those who already have their A license, and are jumping sport gear, whether it be "docile" or "aggressive" and who need/want to learn more about canopy control? While many do still have good, close relationships with their instructors, those instructors aren't necessarily the "go-to" people (due to availability or other factors) once a jumper has a license *and* has new gear to play with/learn with. Some of the canopy control techniques that people use with sport canopies don't really lend themselves to teaching well on a student canopy. Ever try to do front risers or harness turns on a 290? Sure, you can practice them but they're not usually the most meaningful inputs on a student canopy. So, even if they are taught (and I can remember doing front riser and rear riser turns as a student, since it *is* on the A license card) how much do you really learn till you start using them on your sport canopy?

[johnny1488 1]

it doesnt necessarily have to be front riser or harness turns that are focused on. Rear riser and flat brakes turns are more important to a newer jumper. The dynamics of a flare is something that everyone needs to know but most students just think its some sort of magic.

Why drastic toggle turns close to the ground can put you in a world of trouble. Not just that they do, but why they do and what you can do to avoid them but still be in control of your canopy.

I know students have it tough with bigger canopies, but we can lay a much better foundation than we currently do.

Johnny
--"This ain't no book club, we're all gonna die!"
Mike Rome

[NWFlyer 2]

I was just using those as examples. My point was more that there are *some* techniques that you are more likely to learn/use effectively once you are off student gear. Just pointing out the "post-student" gap in canopy learning/training.

And I agree, there is a gap in student training, as well. Flat turns/braked turns are something I'd learned a bit about as a student, but I learned a lot more by reading and in Brian Germain's course.

There also can be a gap in the transition from student to sport gear. I'm lucky in that I transitioned to my own gear prior to finishing my A license, so I had some folks working with me to understand the different flare dynamics of a Spectre vs. a Skymaster. Not everyone gets that help.

[johnny1488 1]

I personally see this gap filled at my DZ by the gear store. The owner is a world class canopy pilot and takes the time with each and every new student to teach them about the new gear (sabre2/safire2/pilot) and the differences from student gear. Not coaching, but a familiarization.

And there is a gap from student world to expierienced jumper. But if the seed were planted that would encourage the jumper to seek out knowledge and an understanding on how little they actually know. Something that would drive them to seek out information via books/internet/ mentors or coaches.

There is always room for more information in a jumpers progression.

Johnny
--"This ain't no book club, we're all gonna die!"
Mike Rome

[KillerKimmy 0]

USPA wrote me back on this comment about Femuring having canopy coaching as #1 on the list. Here it is.

Hi Kim,
USPA looked at a lot of incident and fatality report data, and met with many of the industry leaders
in canopy design, flight, and coaching in an effort to reduce the number of canopy related
fatalities and injuries we are seeing each year. The ad you have seen in Parachutist is the first
part of a long term project aimed at improving the knowledge and training our members receive in
canopy control and landing. While we did number the points, each point should be taken on its own
merit. "Get professional canopy training" does not necessarily mean that you should go to a school
and pay money for coaching, as much as it means learn all you can about canopy flight and landings
from someone who knows what they are talking about. In essence you are getting professional training
when you seek the advice of an S&TA or instructor, read incident reports, stay open to learning,
etc.

USPA
is continuing to work on improving canopy control, and you will see a lot more work in this area
from the USPA in the coming years. We hate to see so many members being injured or killed each year,
especially under a good parachute.
Please keep the input coming! We could use more from everyone!
Let me know if you have any questions and I will be glad to help however I can.
Regards,

Jim Crouch
Director of Safety and Training
United States Parachute Association

[dharma1976 0]

Quote

I personally see this gap filled at my DZ by the gear store. The owner is a world class canopy pilot and takes the time with each and every new student to teach them about the new gear (sabre2/safire2/pilot) and the differences from student gear. Not coaching, but a familiarization.

And there is a gap from student world to expierienced jumper. But if the seed were planted that would encourage the jumper to seek out knowledge and an understanding on how little they actually know. Something that would drive them to seek out information via books/internet/ mentors or coaches.

There is always room for more information in a jumpers progression.

and by you and dont you forget that mister!

Dave

http://www.skyjunky.com

CSpenceFLY - I can't believe the number of people willing to bet their life on someone else doing the right thing.

[OATSF14 0]

Quote

Every dropzone has those people, but the few people out there that have chosen to hang a shingle and make money off the information are the ones that Parachutist seem to mention all the time. Don't believe for a second that you have to pay for that training.

Well said and very true.

[FOF 6]

If you want to avoid being injured under canopy you definitely do not have to pay a professional canopy coach. Some people have an easy time learning to fly a canopy. They are able to master basic skills, and sometimes even advanced ones, without getting professional coaching or suffering serious injury. And there are certainly experienced, knowledgeable canopy pilots at some DZ's who are willing to provide good advice and guidance free of charge.

Many people are not that fortunate, though. With all due respect to Chuck Blue, you will not find qualified people willing to provide good, free canopy coaching at every DZ. A lot of DZ's only provide minimal canopy control instruction to their students, and help is even harder to find after a jumper finishes student training.

Even if someone is able to get additional training from people at their home DZ, it doesn't always help. Teaching, like canopy piloting, is a skill that must be learned and developed. Not every good canopy pilot has learned to become a good teacher. It's also very common for people to receive advice that is questionable, at best. I don't believe anyone intentionally gives bad advice, but a lot of misconceptions have been accepted as fact in this sport for many years. There are some very competent canopy pilots who have been exposed to this misinformation, have never questioned it, and freely pass it on to others. It's also common for people to get drastically conflicting information, leaving them unsure what to believe.

The reality in our sport today is that many people want and need help with canopy flight but are not able to get it. They end up feeling nervous and uncertain under canopy, and have a difficult time mastering even basic piloting skills. They sometimes continue struggling for hundreds of jumps, or simply get frustrated and quit the sport. If these people have the opportunity to get help from an experienced, professional canopy coach then they should not be discouraged from doing so.

The best canopy pilots at some DZ's are sometimes the strongest advocates of professional coaching. Even if they themselves are capable of providing good advice, they recognize that our sport has become very diverse, and it's difficult to master every aspect of it. Just as some people have dedicated time and energy to becoming good freeflyers or 4-way competitors, others have focused their efforts on canopy flight instruction. If someone is providing a good service for a fair price, many expert pilots will be the first to recommend that people take advantage of it.

Should everything cost money? Absolutely not. Passing on what we have learned simply for the sake of helping others is a long-standing and noble tradition in this sport. That does not mean that professional instruction has no place or value in skydiving. We should be grateful for the people who spend their free time mentoring less experienced jumpers and ask for nothing in return. We should also recognize that people who have dedicated time and effort to developing a thorough curriculum, who are willing to spend the entire day teaching, and who teach four, five, or six days a week might be able to provide an even higher level of service. Unfortunately, they might not be able to devote this much time to teaching if they didn't charge for their services. Many people who make a living from skydiving truly understand the importance of giving back to the sport. The amount of time they have dedicated to skydiving enables them to provide some of the best free advice. The amount of time they spend at the drop zone helps them recognize the importance of doing so.

As with any profession, not every coach provides the same quality of service. If you've attended a canopy course and feel it was not worth the money you paid, you are certainly entitled to tell others your opinion of that particular course or instructor. Hopefully you will also tell the person who taught the course! But unless you have received canopy coaching from every single person offering this service, or at least a significant number of them, is it really fair to make broad, derogatory statements about the value of professional coaching? Please remember that some people seek professional coaching because they have not been able to get help from other sources, and many people have actually found this type of instruction to be tremendously beneficial. Your statements might discourage someone from getting the help he or she really needs. As I've learned from personal experience, the shotgun approach is not always the best way to make your point.

In an ideal world, everyone would receive proper canopy instruction starting from the very first jump. There would also be competent, informed canopy pilots at every DZ providing good advice and additional guidance. People would be willing to stay under conservative canopies, developing their skills at their own pace instead being in a rush to downsize. Some of us are working toward that goal, but we don't live in that world yet. For now, some of the canopy courses being taught by professional coaches are helping to fill the gap. Many people who take these courses are benefiting from them tremendously. They are making better decisions about the canopies the fly and the way they fly them. They are also sharing what they've learned with others and are helping to spread better information throughout the sport. They are becoming the new generation of instructors who are capable of providing better training for students. That is why USPA is promoting professional coaching at the present time.

- Scott Miller

[Liemberg 0]

Quote

In an ideal world, everyone would receive proper canopy instruction starting from the very first jump.

Well then, what can I say other than 'sometimes they don't, but sometimes they do' - and since you asked ("you are certainly entitled to tell others your opinion of that particular course or instructor. Hopefully you will also tell the person who taught the course!"), here goes:

Although I didn't attend one of your courses as such, I attended a lecture you gave several years ago to the Dutch instructors during their annual meet.

I know this isn't completely fair, since the nature of a lecture in a classroom before an audience of 40+ foreign instructors is a whole different ballgame than spending a whole day with a presumably smaller group, filming their landings and giving them one on one critique, but it was presented to us as 'sort of' the outline of the courses you give. It is certainly possible that what you do has evolved since that time, in which case I urge you not to take offense in what I'm about to say.

Now what is it what I remember as the most striking feature of that lecture?

I distinctly remember that three quarters of the lecture you told us basic stuff that I teach on an almost weekly basis during static line instruction at my own place.

You even showed a picture with a wind line, a holding area and a landing pattern that looked "extremely familiar"... (It is in the course book my students get during their first jump course...)

In short: the package is shining, but the content is not (or shouldn't be) new.

In that same course book that my students get there's a diagram of the forces involved and the difference in behavior of a parachute in straight flight versus a parachute in a radical turn. Believe me when I say that I'm almost religious when it comes to explaining this 'piece of valuable information' to my students... (Can you say "ad nauseam"?). My static-line students are told from jump one that at any given height ("H") they will lose that height at a faster pace when turning and when that loss of height is called "Lr" for "loss of height in radical turn" and "Lb" for "loss of height in braked turn" for the same height, weight, canopy and weather conditions the following is always true: Lr > Lb and H - Lr < H - Lb.

(Verbalized: "You will always lose more of your height in a radical turn than in a braked turn...")

But now ("here comes trouble") after a couple of jumps and "watching the big boys" my students want the know "the secret formula" which is aimed at finding point P.
Point P?
Point P is situated at that exact height above the ground where H - Lr = 1,5 meter (they want to go screaming through the electronic gate, after making a radical turn...)

Point P however is somewhat elusive. Rumor has it that it only reveals itself after 1000+ jumps, at different places in different weather and even than, experts have been known to miss it and increasingly smaller canopies complicate the search...

The consequences of perceiving point P at *true P-3 meters* and finding out about the miscalculation after the fact need not to be explained here, nor the influence that smaller canopies and higher wing loads usually have on the grim outcome.

Though through no fault of you or any other canopy coach, it is a fact that some students are under the illusion that attending a canopy course will speed up the learning curve so much that it installs in them the ‘esoteric knowledge’ they need to find point P and land a 2.2 loaded Velocity screaming through the electronic gate after a 270 degree turn with only 100 jumps to their credit.

I and other instructors should recognize their accomplishments. They took a canopy course and got a certificate to prove it!

Well then, excuse me for being cautious, but I doubt very much that your course (or any others) has such a beneficial effect. They still will have to make the 1000+ jumps to practice, practice and practice - where the pursuit of safely finding point P ALL THE TIME could benefit a whole lot more, safety-wise, if it were only conducted over a large body of water...

And here, from a safety point of view, the canopy course even becomes counterproductive IMHO if we end up with people who lack the practical experience but feel safe since they attended a course... At these forums here we end up with students discussing the 'famous life saving braked turn' (*cough*) and the fact that canopy coach A said to go to half brakes and lift one toggle 10 percent while canopy coach B proclaimed that you should go to 40 percent brakes and push down one toggle slightly - which is true? What do the experts say?


Recent history meanwhile shows us once again that turning too radical too close to the ground can kill you, even on static line jump number 2...

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

[skybytch 259]

Counterpoint from someone who took Scott's basic skills course at 950+ jumps...

Quote

I distinctly remember that three quarters of the lecture you told us basic stuff that I teach on an almost weekly basis during static line instruction at my own place.

At the end of the day how many of us remembered even half of what we were taught in the FJC? Even as brief as the standard FJC is there is too much information being presented for the average person to retain all of it. While some instructors make a point of repeating some of this information before each successive student jump, it doesn't always happen. Time constraints exist and an instructor must pick and choose what they feel is most important to emphasize prior to the next jump; sometimes things like basic canopy control topics are passed over in favor of things like emergency procedures - hey, this student landed fine last time, didn't he?

I think what a basic skills course like Scott's does best is reinforce what we "should" already know and force us to go up and practice it. It's valuable for those with fresh ink on their A licenses; it's also valuable for those of us who've been jumping awhile and perhaps become a bit complacent.

Quote

Though through no fault of you or any other canopy coach, it is a fact that some students are under the illusion that attending a canopy course will speed up the learning curve so much that it installs in them the ‘esoteric knowledge’ they need to find point P and land a 2.2 loaded Velocity screaming through the electronic gate after a 270 degree turn with only 100 jumps to their credit.

That's a failure on the part of the individual who thinks that taking any course will magically make them that good. These individuals exist in every sport...

Quote

At these forums here we end up with students discussing the 'famous life saving braked turn' (*cough*) and the fact that canopy coach A said to go to half brakes and lift one toggle 10 percent while canopy coach B proclaimed that you should go to 40 percent brakes and push down one toggle slightly - which is true? What do the experts say?

I recall Scott giving us several methods of performing braked turns and then telling us to try them all so we could find out what works best for us.

I strongly feel that the $75 I paid for that course was the best money I have ever spent in skydiving (except for what I spent on my first jump, of course). I went from standing up less than half my landings to standing up nearly every one. I went from being happy when I landed in the right field to not being happy if I didn't hit the peas. I learned the importance of flying a pattern, both for accuracy and for predictability under canopy. I learned how to space myself in the traffic pattern to avoid collisions. While some of this may have been covered in the FJC I took, it wasn't information that I retained long term.

I'd like to take the basic course again; I'm sure I'd pick up on things I missed the first time.

[Liemberg 0]

Quote

At the end of the day how many of us remembered even half of what we were taught in the FJC?

That's why I happily repeat it free of charge again and again, especially for those who appear to have missed it, the first time around.

Quote

That's a failure on the part of the individual who thinks that taking any course will magically make them that good. These individuals exist in every sport...

Yes, they do and when golf is their favorite pastime, their misconception can't kill them.

In skydiving, it can.

Of course, there are other sports that are as unforgiving as ours, but as they say 'few and far between'. For most sports where you can supposedly improve your performance with further coaching, the coaching is aimed at getting better results: jumping higher, skating faster etc. It is only f.i. when you think that an introduction into rock climbing + a weekend in the classroom with sir Edmund Hillary makes you qualified for conquering the North Face of the Eiger on your own that you can get into trouble...
When after paying money for coaching you still can't play golf or tennis significantly better there is no harm done and when you do get better it's a nice bonus...

But when after taking a load of canopy courses you still have no depth perception to speak of and stink at consistently landing parachutes without hurting yourself, yet can't wait to make a name for yourself and get a place in a factory team, disaster is imminent.

Quote

I went from standing up less than half my landings to standing up nearly every one.

At 950+ jumps? All those jumps without a clear understanding of the obvious? (namely, that whatever happens during the skydive, if you jump out of the airplane you will land...)

Quote

I'd like to take the basic course again; I'm sure I'd pick up on things I missed the first time.

Slow learner eh?...

(But, by all means indulge yourself... It is not the fact that people take courses which bothers me; I only dislike the situation I perceive on the horizon - "I should be fine with this new canopy for I had coaching and have scheduled the advance class next month" - with me as the bearer of unwanted news...then again, I'm quite sure that any canopy coach worth his salt will bring 'the news' in his beginners class.)

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

[skybytch 259]

Quote

At 950+ jumps? All those jumps without a clear understanding of the obvious? (namely, that whatever happens during the skydive, if you jump out of the airplane you will land...)

All those jumps without being able to consistently land parachutes loaded at 1.1 or less accurately or even standing up. Note that I didn't say I couldn't land safely; PLF's are a wonderful thing.

And all those people who could have worked with me to help me learn how to stand up my landings, fly a pattern and in general be a safer skydiver (i.e. informal coaching) instead preferred to laugh at me, my landings, my dirty gear and my dirty, torn up jumpsuit. Much like you appear to be doing.

I'm not alone. Anybody can see jumpers like me on any dropzone. We range from just off student status to thousands of jumps, although most of us get tired of rolling in the dirt and quit jumping long before we reach 500. Many of us are female - perhaps that alone says something since most instructors are male (and/or "got it" right off the bat)? I'm not even going to get into these who never "got it" but were told by those we respected to buy/fly canopies loaded over 1.0.

The information that all jumpers should be learning in their student program is either not being taught, not being taught in a way that the student can grasp or it's being forgotten shortly after it's learned because it's not reinforced through repetition post-student status.

The concept of informal coaching is not working in the real world. Formal structured coaching does work in the real world. I'm not saying that formal coaching needs to cost money - anybody is free to not charge for their time and effort. I am saying that the coaching needs to be structured for it to have the greatest effect.

Quote

Slow learner eh?...

No, smart learner. I know the value of hearing the same information more than once. And I know the value of having someone who knows something debriefing me when I'm practicing new skills.

[FOF 6]

Quote

I attended a lecture you gave several years ago to the Dutch instructors during their annual meet... I distinctly remember that three quarters of the lecture you told us basic stuff that I teach on an almost weekly basis...

I apologize if I made the wrong decisions when choosing the information I presented to you and you colleagues. Although many instructors thoroughly understand basic canopy skills, they are not always able to teach these skills in a clear, effective manner that their students can easily understand and apply. This is not just my own observation: it is what instructors themselves have told me. Instructors do not always attend a lecture or canopy course to learn groundbreaking new information. Some just want to know what is important and what is not, and how to present what they know more effectively. Of course, a lecture geared toward that goal may not satisfy everyone.

Quote

I know this isn't completely fair, since the nature of a lecture in a classroom before an audience of 40+ foreign instructors is a whole different ballgame than spending a whole day with a presumably smaller group, filming their landings and giving them one on one critique...

The two are definitely different. Many people find their understanding of "basic" skills is not as thorough as they believe when they are asked to demonstrate those skills under canopy, or demonstrate them in a manner they are not accustomed to. A course environment also makes it easier to challenge what each individual expects from his or her own performance, and possibly raise those expectations.

Quote

...from a safety point of view, the canopy course even becomes counterproductive IMHO if we end up with people who lack the practical experience but feel safe since they attended a course...

That is unfortunately true in some cases. We need confidence in ourselves to function effectively in a high-risk environment like skydiving, but overconfidence causes us to take excessive and unnecessary risks. Experience and good judgment helps us know the difference, but they are things that can not be taught. As instructors we can only stress their importance. We should also make it clear that what people learn from us is not nearly as important as their commitment to practicing what they have learned and their willingness to continue learning. I believe that far more people walk away from good instruction understanding these points rather than ignoring them.

Thank you for your feedback.

- Scott

[NWFlyer 2]

Quote

And all those people who could have worked with me to help me learn how to stand up my landings, fly a pattern and in general be a safer skydiver (i.e. informal coaching) instead preferred to laugh at me, my landings, my dirty gear and my dirty, torn up jumpsuit. Much like you appear to be doing.

Thank you, thank you, thank you for posting this, Lisa. I've really related to everything you've posted in this thread so far.

While I *have* received offers for informal coaching (with, as I said earlier, very mixed results and some outright incorrect info), I have also gotten the same type of reaction you've gotten from many folks. Digs about the dirty jumpsuit, the "what the hell did you drag your rig through?" reactions, the people who say "well, just start standing them up, okay?" and (thoughtful but somehow still annoying) "Are you okay?" when I do a nice, safe PLF.

There *is* a level of arrogance in this sport about people who aren't naturals at one or more parts of the sport. I feel like I'm getting judged by others... "Well, damn you've got over 200 jumps, shouldn't all this be clicking by now?"

It took me 37 jumps to get my A license, and it took me till well after 50 or 60 jumps to even feel comfortable in the air with other people. I knew from the start that nothing was going to come easy.

My landings have been less than pretty, but (at least until I started listening to people who told me I needed to shorten my brake lines) they have been safe. I can set myself down with a good PLF. I don't cut other people off in the pattern. I know how to make smart decisions throughout my skydive and under canopy and how to keep myself out of trouble zones. I'm still learning and refining all of that, of course.

Quote

No, smart learner. I know the value of hearing the same information more than once. And I know the value of having someone who knows something debriefing me when I'm practicing new skills.

This is worth repeating. We all learn in different ways and at different paces. I'm finding the hodge-podge of informal information is actually making things worse; that's why I'm trying to identify the next possible/practical opportunity for me to get some more formal training (and even some more informal training... skybytch has graciously offered to video my landings when I'm at Davis this weekend so I have something to work with in diagnosing my issues). That's me, that's how I learn. Others can be successful with different approaches.

[mattjw916 2]

_One_ problem that I see with a lot of new skydivers is that they plain don't want to put in the effort to learn how to fly their canopies. I agree with what many others have said here that the information is out there whether it be here, other websites, in print, canopy courses, seminars, or around the bonfire (for DZs that actually have them).

As someone who "got it" faster than others I have on many many occasions offered to help people that had "problems" with their landings. I may not be joe-shit-hot freeflyer but I guarantee I can land my canopy on target every time without any drama or that pesky clear-air turbulence at 20ft that so many people seem to blame.

More often than not, after suggesting some dedicated hop and pops with some video, most people rather just go freefly or flatfly instead of taking a day or so to dedicate to what is arguably the most important aspect of skydiving, landing safely. Most people really don't want to take time out from "fun-jumping" to learn, even when it's free.

I wasn't granted some magical skill to swoop at birth and I don't even think I stood up a landing until like jump 12 or so. What I _did_ do was take some time off from those "cool" skydives to work over and over again at the skills that are suggested by the likes of Billvon, Brian Germaine, Bryan Burke, and my local swoop-god friends.

What I also see a lot of is when Joe or Jane skydiver isn't nailing their landings right away their instructors just tell them to buy a Spectre loaded at 1:1 and don't worry about it. These are the people that most often need the extra work, but because they "don't want to swoop" never take a canopy course or try to enhance their canopy skills and often go around parroting the "the canopy is just there to save your life" speech.

For the record, I have never paid for canopy coaching but I have attended seminars, read everything I could, and even asked my friends to video my landings on several occasions. Total monetary investment in canopy coaching is limited to the cost of Dan Poynter and Brian Germaine's respective books.

Also for the record, I have on several occasions had someone ridicule me for the size of my canopy. I found it mostly funny though for various reasons. Wingload is a personal decision IMO based on what you want out of your canopy. Personally I know I can get more speed out of my wing without sacrificing square footage plus I'd rather practice landing with rears on something that probably won't power-slam me into the ground when I screw up.

NSCR-2376, SCR-15080