obelixtim 100 #126 May 28, 2012 QuoteThat is quite simply naive. Business exists to create and satisfy the needs of the consumer. Not always the case...especially when we are talking about a specialised product with a specialist market. The manufacturers can pretty much tailor their product in whatever way they like, and not give the consumer a choice. Limiting small reserves would not mean the end of skydiving. People would continue to jump what was available. And the manufacturer could be found liable in a court of law if he made a product (like cigarettes) which normal use would likely result in serious injury or death, and he was cognisant of that fact. You cannot legislate against stupidity, but you could possibly legislate against some other link in the chain where people are killed or seriously injured. And small canopies are an easily identifiable, common factor, in the chain of injury and death... Skydiving is somewhat unique, because as an aviation activity, it is subject to several levels of control that motorcycles as an example, are not. Skydiving is a relatively soft target for hard ball legislators....and we simply don`t have the numbers (or votes) to put up much of a defense.....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
hokierower 0 #127 May 28, 2012 QuoteQuoteThat is quite simply naive. Business exists to create and satisfy the needs of the consumer. Not always the case...especially when we are talking about a specialised product with a specialist market. The manufacturers can pretty much tailor their product in whatever way they like, and not give the consumer a choice. Limiting small reserves would not mean the end of skydiving. People would continue to jump what was available. And the manufacturer could be found liable in a court of law if he made a product (like cigarettes) which normal use would likely result in serious injury or death, and he was cognisant of that fact. Pray tell, how would they be found liable when from FJC to the day the jumper quits/bounces the importance of wing-loading and canopy flying are drilled into them. Section 6.10 in the SIM discusses "advanced equipment", downsizing progression, design progression, and wing loading. PD's website (since everyone seems to pick on them because they're the biggest) has a detailed wing loading chart for EVERY canopy & size, as well as a link to the interpretations of those wing loadings and THEN they also have a dedicated document describing how the canopy flies and reacts to inputs. When an individual purchases a PD canopy there is no way that they can say that there was no information readily available that could explain to them how the canopy would fly. You cannot legislate against stupidity, but you could possibly legislate against some other link in the chain where people are killed or seriously injured. And that is why the USPA is in place, to lobby for the skydiving community (at least in the USA) to prevent these kinds of legislation from becoming law. Would you care to give an example of said link, since you, like Marisan, like to speak without offering solutions? And small canopies are an easily identifiable, common factor, in the chain of injury and death... 5 deaths caused by low turns in 2011 out of 25. Not to be callous, but in the grand scheme of things currently going on in this country, 5 isn't even a number worth thinking about for the idiots on Capitol Hill. Skydiving is somewhat unique, because as an aviation activity, it is subject to several levels of control that motorcycles as an example, are not. Bullshit. The DZ's might have several levels of control to worry about when it comes to operating the aircraft, but for a skydiver and their gear, there is only one level, the TSO for containers. The FAA stopped out at Orange on May 5th. They inspected the aircraft and it's logbooks (Level 1 for the DZ) and the reserve cards of the jumpers (Level 1 for the Jumper). That's it. Motorcycles on the other hand require licensing & insurance. There are no extra layers that skydiving is subjected to. Skydiving is a relatively soft target for hard ball legislators....and we simply don`t have the numbers (or votes) to put up much of a defense..... If we're such a soft target, why hasn't it been done? Provide answers rather than questions, at least that way it won't look like you're talking out of your ass. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #128 May 28, 2012 >And the manufacturer could be found liable in a court of law if he made a >product (like cigarettes) which normal use would likely result in serious >injury or death, and he was cognisant of that fact. Nope. You can't be held liable for products that function as advertised. Cigarettes are designed to put smoke in your lungs. If it could be shown that the company falsely advertised that their products were safe, or took steps to make them more dangerous without warning people, then you might have a case. Likewise, if PD advertised that their reserves will land you safely at any loading, you would have a case against them. But they don't do that; in fact they do the opposite, and use very clear language to describe the risks in using their products. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
robinheid 0 #129 May 29, 2012 Quote Quote Safety should come before brand loyalty. Where UPT or Sunpath won't make some one a container mixing a fun-sized main and safe-sized reserve they should take their business to Sunrise, Mirage, Jump Shack, or some one else that will do the deed. If a person can safely jump a main of x sq ft, they should be totally fine under a 7-cell square reserve if x or more sq ft. If not, the main is TOO FUCKING SMALL. This is not the fault of anyone but the jumper (except very new guys who get bad advice from others). Respectfully disagree. While you may indeed be able to handle a highly loaded main, your reserve is an EMRGENCY LIFESAVING DEVICE for when your main turns to poop -- OR (drum roll, please) you are partially or totally incapacitated for some reason. Landing under a highly loaded reserve when you are unconscious or unable to steer or flare it is probably going to kill or severely injure you, regardless of what a hotshot pilot you are when you are awake and all your body parts are working properly. That is what's so psychotically silly about the gods sporting all these de facto one-parachute rigs; if for some reason they can't function at 100 percent, they're basically dead whether the reserve opens or not. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinciflies 0 #130 May 29, 2012 I totally agree with you about the incapacitated/unconscious jumper but I tend to view that as an unlikely event. In that case the risk:benefit ratio of having a smaller reserve is something each individual has to weigh up (in the same way that we all weigh up the risk of skydiving and the risk of other activities such as swooping or jumping on big ways). I have a 143 reserve and am not going to ever go any smaller. I have no doubt that a no flare landing with the brakes stowed on that is going to leave a mark! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #131 May 29, 2012 QuoteQuotePD gives 1.4 pounds/square foot as the recommended "expert" wingloading on their reserves the way they measure; or about 1.3 pounds/square foot the way other people do. Do you have a link to this? PD lists maximum weight for combinations of experience level and canopy size on their web site. Katana: http://www.performancedesigns.com/products.asp?product=ka You can do the math to get wingloading. 107 expert limit 192 pounds, 192/107 = 1.8 pounds/square foot. PD Reserve : http://www.performancedesigns.com/products.asp?product=pr 143 expert limit 200 pounds, 192/143 = 1.4. PIA's TS-104 attachment 1 has the measurements of various PD143 reserves with the smallest 148 square feet and the largest 154. http://www.pia.com/piapubs/TSDocuments/TS-104CanopyVolume.pdf Throwing out the high, low, and rounding to 150 square feet seems reasonable (149, 150, 151 square feet). 200/150 = 1.3. Quote “You should also be aware that the maximum limit for a reserve canopy is, in fact, a legal limit based on FAA certification requirements.” Sparky Legal and smart are separate issues. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scrumpot 1 #132 May 29, 2012 QuoteLegal and smart are separate issues. Quote“You should also be aware that the maximum limit for a reserve canopy is, in fact, a legal limit based on FAA certification requirements.” Sparky Hmmmm... Wonder if any FAA inspectors, when they show up and pull Reserve Packing Data Cards (as was mentioned in a previous post, as if a "who cares") - would ever consider asserting their authority on this? I would presume that(at least for now - otherwise I would think we'd of heard of it happening) - other than packing cycles being evidenced as "in date", that's pretty much all they with those, were even considering/looking for. Wouldn't it be something though, if they also when pulling those cards, obtained the owners/jumpers weight, and then considered / cited for violations (or worse, took "stop" / confiscation measures) there too? Far fetched? - I dunno. Maybe.coitus non circum - Moab Stone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnMitchell 14 #133 May 29, 2012 Quote Where UPT or Sunpath won't make some one a container mixing a fun-sized main and safe-sized reserve they should take their business to Sunrise, Mirage, Jump Shack, or some one else that will do the deed. Call Gail @ Infinity. They've always sized their containers separately for the customer's main and reserve. My Infinity holds a 150 main and a 200 reserve perfectly. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 3 #134 May 29, 2012 I doubt that there would come a situation where this would be an issue. It’s just something to think about. Reserve canopies are tested to 120% of their maximum operating weight. These tests are done with a “test dummy”. If you are loading your reserve at or above these weights you are the dummy. When free flying was in its infancy there were at least 2 cases of premature reserve deployment where the canopy failed due to the speed and unusual body postion. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnMitchell 14 #135 May 29, 2012 QuoteI totally agree with you about the incapacitated/unconscious jumper but I tend to view that as an unlikely event. I lost a friend that way. A bigger reserve might have helped. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
obelixtim 100 #136 May 30, 2012 QuotePray tell, how would they be found liable Do you understand the word "COULD". Its the one I used. It is different to "WOULD". The one you used. Do you also understand that people file lawsuits despite the fact that they have clearly been advised that the manufacturer is NOT liable. It doesn't stop ambulance chasing lawyers trying, and sometimes succeeding. QuoteAnd that is why the USPA is in place, to lobby for the skydiving community (at least in the USA) to prevent these kinds of legislation from becoming law. Would you care to give an example of said link, since you , like Marisan, like to speak without offering solutions? Again you fail to read my post properly. I used the word "POSSIBLY" in the context of legislation. If you investigate any accident you will find what is commonly called a "chain" of events/circumstances that put together contribute to said accident. Remove one link from that chain of events/circumstances, and you will likely prevent such an occurrence. As a DZO, thats what you try to do every single day on the DZ...identifythose links and correct or eliminate them. As for solutions, I've said my piece many times. My main solution would be for DZO's to be vigilant and do their job properly. Its an easy solution. You tell me why it seems to fall in the "too difficult" basket. There are no quick fix solutions. A simple one would be to prevent the use of small canopies altogether. Will that happen....probably not. You cannot argue though that it doesn't fall under the umbrella of "solutions", whether you like it or not. You have to consider all solutions, and then adopt or reject the ones that are relevant/irrelevant. QuoteAnd small canopies are an easily identifiable, common factor, in the chain of injury and death... 5 deaths caused by low turns in 2011 out of 25. Not to be callous, but in the grand scheme of things currently going on in this country, 5 isn't even a number worth thinking about for the idiots on Capitol Hill. And you think that the US is the only place people skydive and die???. QuoteSkydiving is somewhat unique, because as an aviation activity, it is subject to several levels of control that motorcycles as an example, are not. Bullshit. The DZ's might have several levels of control to worry about when it comes to operating the aircraft, but for a skydiver and their gear, there is only one level, the TSO for containers. The FAA stopped out at Orange on May 5th. They inspected the aircraft and it's logbooks (Level 1 for the DZ) and the reserve cards of the jumpers (Level 1 for the Jumper). That's it. Motorcycles on the other hand require licensing & insurance. There are no extra layers that skydiving is subjected to. So you say that skydivers are subject to absolutely no control at all?. So the licences and rating we hold, the training syllabus we adhere (or not) to, our DZO's, safety officers, instructors, experienced peers, pilots as a small immediate example of the people who take responsibility for safety on the DZ have no control over what happens?. Neither do airport authorities, city councils, local police and the legal system..... And then we get to state and federal authorities... In my experience.....all can directly affect whether we skydive or not....if they choose to make things difficult for us... On my DZ, all my experienced skydivers are part of my control mechanism, they are my eyes and ears, and have my permission to take action if they see something they know I would react to, if it meant preventing an incident. We ARE a soft target..and it has been done before....and it can happen again.....skydiving doesn't, and hasn't "just happened". Its a result of a lot of hard work by dedicated individuals, throughout our history. Skydiving has been banned before.... Hang around for 30 or 40 years and you may see similar things happen. It might also help if you read and understand a post carefully before jumping in with six guns and spraying bullets all over the place......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
obelixtim 100 #137 May 30, 2012 QuoteNope. You can't be held liable for products that function as advertised. Cigarettes are designed to put smoke in your lungs. If it could be shown that the company falsely advertised that their products were safe, or took steps to make them more dangerous without warning people, then you might have a case. Likewise, if PD advertised that their reserves will land you safely at any loading, you would have a case against them. But they don't do that; in fact they do the opposite, and use very clear language to describe the risks in using their products. As I said to Hokie....it COULD happen....and as you well know, waivers and the like have never stopped smart lawyers trying it on....Even successfully defending such a lawsuit can break an organisation financially....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
billvon 2,400 #138 May 30, 2012 >As I said to Hokie....it COULD happen....and as you well know, waivers and >the like have never stopped smart lawyers trying it on....Even successfully >defending such a lawsuit can break an organisation financially.... Of course. But since such lawsuits can happen no matter what size the reserve is, it is not a factor in companies that might decide to limit sizes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
