Wow, we had a really safe year

[craigbey 0]

Looks to me like the heading changes almost all the way to impact. Doesn't really matter, though. The damage was done due to operator error. There is no mystery why he was injured.

He was on a Safire2 129 @ ~1.3 w/l.

So if this incident sends a cold chill down someone's spine, perhaps they should pursue banning Safires. That canopy is clearly way too dangerous.

[Marisan 0]

Quote

Looks to me like the heading changes almost all the way to impact. Doesn't really matter, though. The damage was done due to operator error. There is no mystery why he was injured.

He was on a Safire2 129 @ ~1.3 w/l.

So if this incident sends a cold chill down someone's spine, perhaps they should pursue banning Safires. That canopy is clearly way too dangerous.

So CraigBOY, You've never stuffed up an approach have you?
In fact Craig, you've never made a mistake? Is that what you are trying to tell us?

My position is (Now) that the margins for error on these canopies is too small.

Unless your Mad Skills are such that gravity doesn't affect you.

Spare a thought for those that don't have your Mad Skillz!

[Martini 0]

You aren't allowing for the way people grow and advance in canopy flight just as in any muscle/brain trained sport. When I moved from a Stiletto 150 to a 135 the speed and reflex change was a huge challenge. Anymore I'd have zero interest in jumping a canopy that large even though I'm a pretty mediocre canopy pilot. Accepting the increased risk that goes along with faster canopies is a personal choice. I don't expect to change your mind, only hope you adopt a less radical point of view. You may find that taking a less aggressive approach will improve your credibility.

Sometimes you eat the bear..............

[Marisan 0]

Quote

You aren't allowing for the way people grow and advance in canopy flight just as in any muscle/brain trained sport. When I moved from a Stiletto 150 to a 135 the speed and reflex change was a huge challenge. Anymore I'd have zero interest in jumping a canopy that large even though I'm a pretty mediocre canopy pilot. Accepting the increased risk that goes along with faster canopies is a personal choice. I don't expect to change your mind, only hope you adopt a less radical point of view. You may find that taking a less aggressive approach will improve your credibility.

Hi Martini,
Craigbey has been following me around these forums and harrassing me wherever I go. Pity as he has some good ideas.

Now, I've learnt a lot since I started talking about HP Canopies.

I still believe that a lot of people would be uninjured or alive if the lethal little bastards had never been marketed but take that as nostalgia from an old fart.
The problem seems to be aggressive downsizing without the requisite skills to go with it.

So the question is: How do you downscale the downsizing or upscale the skills?

Well I can think of a couple of ways:
1/ Take the dangerous toys away from those that don't have the skills (I know, that's not going to happen, too much money and ego invested in them)
2/ Mandatory (MANDATORY) training before anyone downsizes.

# 2 will work but, with the exception of a few lonely voices in the wilderness, no one is offering it. Perris seems to have taken an easier way in this but it remains to be seen how that will work. In fact people seem to take great pleasure in pointing in pointing out that MANDATORY training won't work.

Well if training won't work, what will?

I'll leave you with the thought that there are big boys within aviation looking at the skydiving communities reaction to this problem with great interest.

[DaVinciflies 0]

Quote

My position is (Now) that the margins for error on these canopies is too small.

There is no doubt that the margin for error (including not reacting fast enough or over-controlling the wing) does increase with more aggressive planforms and higher WL, but it does not have to be too small.

There are ways to approach HP landings that are designed to maximize the margin for error, such as using front risers vs. toggles, carving turn vs. whips, being prepared to abort, starting from zero after every downsize to re-calibrate to the new wing's performance envelope and recovery arc.

A major part of the problem (as you acknowledge in your later post) is that many people either don't know about this stuff or don't take the time to learn/apply it.

HP canopies are fun to fly and I think it would be a shame to ban them, but they need to be treated with respect and learned carefully with dedicated canopy jumps.

[craigbey 0]

Quote

You've never stuffed up an approach have you?
In fact Craig, you've never made a mistake? Is that what you are trying to tell us?

My position is (Now) that the margins for error on these canopies is too small.

Unless your Mad Skills are such that gravity doesn't affect you.

Spare a thought for those that don't have your Mad Skillz!

Swing and a miss.

There are many who have taken the time to learn everything they could about their canopies before downsizing or attempting HP flight. But you're not going to see or recognize that.

You've certainly missed most of the other obvious clues regarding my experience and efforts to sowly and safely progress. The slow and deliberate progression is what proves I don't have -- nor do I think that I have -- Mad Skillz.

Sangi's accident was partly due to his perception of his Mad Skillz. Even though he had returned to the Safire after briefly jumping a Katana, he still pounded in. The mistake he made was very clear and was not caused by some mysterious burst of gravity.

Or are you suggesting that the Safire has such a small margin for error that it deserves the attention of 'the big boys in aviation'?

[Marisan 0]

Quote

Quote

My position is (Now) that the margins for error on these canopies is too small.

There is no doubt that the margin for error (including not reacting fast enough or over-controlling the wing) does increase with more aggressive planforms and higher WL, but it does not have to be too small.

There are ways to approach HP landings that are designed to maximize the margin for error, such as using front risers vs. toggles, carving turn vs. whips, being prepared to abort, starting from zero after every downsize to re-calibrate to the new wing's performance envelope and recovery arc.

A major part of the problem (as you acknowledge in your later post) is that many people either don't know about this stuff or don't take the time to learn/apply it.

HP canopies are fun to fly and I think it would be a shame to ban them, but they need to be treated with respect and learned carefully with dedicated canopy jumps.

One of the problems as I see it is that, if you don't have the training and experience, by the time you realise that you are in the shit you don't have time to get out of it.

[DaVinciflies 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

My position is (Now) that the margins for error on these canopies is too small.

There is no doubt that the margin for error (including not reacting fast enough or over-controlling the wing) does increase with more aggressive planforms and higher WL, but it does not have to be too small.

There are ways to approach HP landings that are designed to maximize the margin for error, such as using front risers vs. toggles, carving turn vs. whips, being prepared to abort, starting from zero after every downsize to re-calibrate to the new wing's performance envelope and recovery arc.

A major part of the problem (as you acknowledge in your later post) is that many people either don't know about this stuff or don't take the time to learn/apply it.

HP canopies are fun to fly and I think it would be a shame to ban them, but they need to be treated with respect and learned carefully with dedicated canopy jumps.

One of the problems as I see it is that, if you don't have the training and experience, by the time you realise that you are in the shit you don't have time to get out of it.

We're on the same page.