0
mjosparky

Dying under a good canopy.

Recommended Posts

Quote

I just want to throw out something that I haven't heard mentioned and may or may not be applicable to the issue. Mixed discipline loads.

Let me use an extreme example to illustrate what I mean. Take a load that has two ten ways. One group is Belly and the other is freeflying. The belly group is flying canopies in the range of 150-210 with lighter wing loadings(.8-1.4). The freefly group is flying canopies in the range of 90-120 with heavier wing loadings (1.6-2.0). The freefly group gives plenty of separation, but they open just a tad after the belly jumpers and at the same altitude. It's highly likely that the freeflyiers will overtake the belly fliers and if the timing is bad it will be near the landing area.

This may or may not be valid to the issue, but I thought I would throw it out there.



That is a very valid point, and one I have been trying to make for a while now.

And at a very busy DZ someone from the second aircraft might be the first one down. Another reason FMD doesn't work very well.

If we split up LZ's, we will have to look at jump run directions, groups first out, seperation and wingloadings. It's common sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I just want to throw out something that I haven't heard mentioned and may or may not be applicable to the issue. Mixed discipline loads.

Let me use an extreme example to illustrate what I mean. Take a load that has two ten ways. One group is Belly and the other is freeflying. The belly group is flying canopies in the range of 150-210 with lighter wing loadings(.8-1.4). The freefly group is flying canopies in the range of 90-120 with heavier wing loadings (1.6-2.0). The freefly group gives plenty of separation, but they open just a tad after the belly jumpers and at the same altitude. It's highly likely that the freeflyiers will overtake the belly fliers and if the timing is bad it will be near the landing area.

This may or may not be valid to the issue, but I thought I would throw it out there.



and that is why the freefliers exit BEFORE the belly-guys.. at least that's how we deal with that at my dz.. :)
“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

Quote

I find it hard to understand how education has slacked off so much that people are nowadays getting as far into the sport as they are and still not knowing what they are doing.



That's easy. Since the coaches program has been put in place most people on the DZ expect the knowledge to come from a coach instead of all of the experienced jumpers on the DZ. Most of the coaches got their rating to get their jumps paid for and have no business teaching anyone anything. Couple that with the self centered/it's not my job attitude of most people today and, Whala,huge gap in the educational process.



FWIW, this makes perfect sense to me, Chris.
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

I just want to throw out something that I haven't heard mentioned and may or may not be applicable to the issue. Mixed discipline loads.

Let me use an extreme example to illustrate what I mean. Take a load that has two ten ways. One group is Belly and the other is freeflying. The belly group is flying canopies in the range of 150-210 with lighter wing loadings(.8-1.4). The freefly group is flying canopies in the range of 90-120 with heavier wing loadings (1.6-2.0). The freefly group gives plenty of separation, but they open just a tad after the belly jumpers and at the same altitude. It's highly likely that the freeflyiers will overtake the belly fliers and if the timing is bad it will be near the landing area.

This may or may not be valid to the issue, but I thought I would throw it out there.



and that is why the freefliers exit BEFORE the belly-guys.. at least that's how we deal with that at my dz.. :)


So, just a tad (meaning not much) later opening, at the same altitude. why would that lead to the conclusion that FF should go before RW groups?

Also, are you saying that FF jumpers always have higher wingloads? Perhaps that is nearly aways true, I'm not so sure, as a lot of fairly new jumpers (with what should be low WL) start freeflying before they can fly flat well.
People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We are being distracted from the real issue here, which is not canopy collisions at opening altitudes but CCs in the pattern. If there really is a big WL difference and they are opening at around the same altitude then there is plenty of time to CREATE separation before landing IF people think about it.

i.e hotshots get down first and leave the old farts to land later while grumbling how things were not like this in their day.
"The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls."

~ CanuckInUSA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

That's easy. Since the coaches program has been put in place most people on the DZ expect the knowledge to come from a coach instead of all of the experienced jumpers on the DZ. Most of the coaches got their rating to get their jumps paid for and have no business teaching anyone anything. Couple that with the self centered/it's not my job attitude of most people today and, Whala,huge gap in the educational process.



Also add the 200 jump wonder jumping a heavily loaded Katana who manages to survive and goes on to become a coach and/or instructor. Then teaches new jumpers that it is perfectly fine to jump HP canopies they are not ready for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sebinoslo

Quote

Statistics always have different ways to look at it.



And I was only looking at “people dying under good canopies”. Regardless of the total number that % keeps going up. Understand.

Virgin-burner

Quote

majority of those that die under a good canopy seem be what you would call (very) experienced skydivers



2 years, 30 years, 500 jumps or 10,000 jumps they are still dead after deploying a good canopy.

MarkBolton

Quote

Sparky, people are gonna die every year in skydiving from something.



I agree with you but this “something” are just plain stupid and preventable.

Wickedone513

Quote

Do you think high performance landings have caused these numbers to increase.



Yes.

NWFlyer

Quote

I'm curious how much the increase in average traffic in the pattern has influenced the likelihood of open canopy incidents.



I am sure this is a contributing factor. But I also think it is only one of many reasons.

Jlmirade

Quote

The problem is, like POP touched on, the entitlement generation. They think its just fine to downsize and fly like idiots cause they paid for the jump just like you did. The don't care if they fly their own special pattern and screw over others trying to land safely or spiral down over the top of the LZ or many of the other stupid things the entitlement generation feels they are entitled to do.



Agreed, and immaturity and selfishness fit right in there.

DocPop

Quote

I think you're getting your demographics wrong.

It is the higher jump number pilots that are involved in a lot of these incidents.



Jump # don’t always equate to experience when maturity is lacking.

Skydivesq

Quote

Sometimes people still get hurt due to a bad choice but at least I know I'm doing what I can. Are you?



You can and should be proud of what you have done. If more DZ’s would follow your example it would go a long way in reducing a senseless lose of life.
But what steps are is your dz taking to decrease the carnage next Saturday before the education kicks in?

Sparky
My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Wendy (and other old-schoolers) - do you think some of the increase is also due to the fact that in today's skydiving world, there are more dropzones that have bigger planes (and sometimes more than one larger plane) than 20-30 years ago?



There where plenty of dropzones with big planes in the 90's and there was no where near this many canopy collisions. Though people where still slamming in and killing themselves under their Sabres and Stilettos, but you did not have this many canopy collisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I am really new to the sport, and this is just a question. Do you think high performance landings have caused these numbers to increase. With the push of more people getting into "swooping" do you think you see less experienced jumpers pushing the envelope faster to get smaller shoots faster and preform the more aggressive landings. Just a question on what people think.



Yes a good part of the problem is a generational/cultural thing and new jumpers are being influenced by HP landings/ the canopy piloting discipline.
New jumpers are transitioning and downsizing to HP canopies much quicker. Then you have experienced jumpers continually downsizing too very extreme wing loadings. Also a good number of average everyday skydivers are now jumping canopies that would be considered a HP hotrod 15 years ago. This has been the trend over the last 10+ years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Be interesting to see a world wide stat, because its happening everywhere.

Such a stupid and pointless way to die.....



I have attached a list of deaths under a good canopy worldwide for the years of 2009 and 2010. It was taken from dz.com’s data base only. I found and allowed for one mistake in the data base which listed one fatality twice.

To everyone, I am not trying to use statistics to prove a point. This simply gives the total number of deaths in each year and how many died after deploying a good canopy. I have posted this quote before but it bears repeating.

"It is tragic to become a statistic because of some new set of circumstances, but it is unforgivable if it has occurred before." Dan Poynter 1971

We haven't learned much since then.

Sparky
My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Also, are you saying that FF jumpers always have higher wingloads? Perhaps that is nearly aways true, I'm not so sure, as a lot of fairly new jumpers (with what should be low WL) start freeflying before they can fly flat well.



Guys on a RW 10-way can be in the 100+ jump range while i doubt people doing FF 10-way have such low jump numbers hence the potential overall higher WL in the FF group :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

We are being distracted from the real issue here, which is not canopy collisions at opening altitudes but CCs in the pattern. If there really is a big WL difference and they are opening at around the same altitude then there is plenty of time to CREATE separation before landing IF people think about it.

i.e hotshots get down first and leave the old farts to land later while grumbling how things were not like this in their day.



The issue is not just canopy collisions. Read the subject line.

Sparky
My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

We are being distracted from the real issue here, which is not canopy collisions at opening altitudes but CCs in the pattern.



What part of deaths under open canopies do you not understand.

Hook turns kill a lot more than collisions.

They are all bad....and unnecessary.

Edit...Sparky beat me to it.
My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

I find it hard to understand how education has slacked off so much that people are nowadays getting as far into the sport as they are and still not knowing what they are doing.



That's easy. Since the coaches program has been put in place most people on the DZ expect the knowledge to come from a coach instead of all of the experienced jumpers on the DZ. Most of the coaches got their rating to get their jumps paid for and have no business teaching anyone anything. Couple that with the self centered/it's not my job attitude of most people today and, Whala,huge gap in the educational process.



FWIW, this makes perfect sense to me, Chris.



I think it is a general problem in society. We have become to "nice" and everything comes easy. Once you realise that the problem is broader than skydiving alone I think it changes the potential solutions. As much as I hate the potential solution I can only think that enforced regulation is the only option that will work. We all hate the "nanny state" but when we are not able to effectively self discipline, I don't see any other option. About 30 years ago during any sort of "training" it was not uncommon to be treated to punishments that are now classified as bullying or abuse. During the early part of my work career (~20 years ago) there was a very strong drive to stamp out this so called "abuse".
Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

We are being distracted from the real issue here, which is not canopy collisions at opening altitudes but CCs in the pattern. If there really is a big WL difference and they are opening at around the same altitude then there is plenty of time to CREATE separation before landing IF people think about it.

i.e hotshots get down first and leave the old farts to land later while grumbling how things were not like this in their day.



The issue is not just canopy collisions. Read the subject line.

Sparky



You are right - I got my threads mixed up.

But even so, exit order is going to do even less to stop people hooking themselves in!
"The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls."

~ CanuckInUSA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


What part of deaths under open canopies do you not understand.

Hook turns kill a lot more than collisions.

They are all bad....and unnecessary.



Deaths due to low turns are always going to be a part of swooping. That's the nature of the discipline. Just as deaths will always be present in other skydiving disciplines - including deaths under good canopies.

Just because you don't accept the risk does not mean that swoopers should be ostracized unless they are killing others. I get a sub-text from you of "it wasn't like this in my day so it must be wrong". The fatalities per thousand jumpers have come down drastically since "your day".

By all means find we should find ways to reduce deaths, but let's do it in a way that lets the sport exist.

The argument of "it's killing too many people - we should ban it" is not going to get you very far. How many is too many? Do you want zero deaths? In that case skydiving itself needs to be banned.

I've said it before - we need solutions that are achievable and realistic. Many of them have been brought up and yet you continue to beat this extremist drum if banning swooping/hook turns/small canopies.

Let's work together on this. The last thing we need is to set factions of our small community against each other.
"The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls."

~ CanuckInUSA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

exit order is going to do even less to stop people hooking themselves in!



Right. People jumping canopies that are appropriate to their weight and experience will do far more to stop it.

I'm not talking in generalizations here, I'm speaking directly to you. I have watched you voice your opinions in all these canopy related threads, but you're the poster child for everything wrong with the canopy situation, and need to look in the mirror before looking at everyone else.

You jump a canopy at a loading that you have no business being on, and insist that you'll be fine, and that you 'know' the danger, but you don't know. You can't know for the same reason you shouldn't be jumping what you are, no experience.

You'll argue that you're careful, and that it's the 'higher time' jumpers that hook themselves in, and sometimes it is, but I've news for you, that doesn't mean 10 or 15 years in the sport. Even at 5 years in it's not uncommon for guys to have 1000's of jumps, and with only 5 seaons in, it's still only so much exposure to the sport.

How do you know if you should be flying high performance canopies? You spend an appricciable amount of time flying low performance canopies, you get good at it, and you learn how to exist under canopy. Then you take that PROVEN ability, and the good judgement you needed to get there and transition it to high performance canopies.

Want to know how to fuck it up, push yourself, not develop a good base of skill and experience? Read your logbook, it's all in there.

The one problem we can all agree on is people who are clearly not 'on program', be it in the pattern or with canopy selection, and nobody calling them out on their bullshit. So here's my contibution to the collective good for today, I'm calling you on your bullshit. Get yourself back 'on program' or shut the fuck up. Nobody gives two shits about your opinion when you turn around and go to the DZ only to perpetuate the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Nobody gives two shits about your opinion when you turn around and go to the DZ only to perpetuate the problem.



What problem am I perpetuating?

I'm not dead. I have not hit anyone under canopy nor have I cut anyone off.

You are right that I am well above recommendations, but that doesn't make my opinion any less valid than anyone elses. Are you really trying to curtail my freedom of speech?

You're part of the problem here, too, to according to the crowd that want HP canopies and swooping banned. You often provide abrasive, confrontational feedback here which I think could be phrased much better, but I don't pop up and tell you to zip the lip.

You and others have posted about my choices. I understand that you think I am out of control. I disagree, and until someone challenges me for flying in a dangerous way I will continue to use the equipment I am on now.
"The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls."

~ CanuckInUSA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's no justification for what you do, and I'm not going to entertain it any longer. If you wait until after you do something dangerous and are spoken to about it to change your behavior, you (or worse, someone else) might already be dead. Make good choices BEFORE you jump, not after.

You are part of the problem, and you continue to perpetuate it. Your attitude is what we need less of in skydiving. I'm not talking about your attitude in terms of your tone or word choice, but your attitude toward the equipment and the choices you make.

My bad attitude might hurt someones feelings, your bad attitude might hurt their ability to breathe, or walk upright. Take your pick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Just because you don't accept the risk does not mean that swoopers should be ostracized unless they are killing others. I get a sub-text from you of "it wasn't like this in my day so it must be wrong".



And there you go.

I've never said swoopers should be ostracised, unless you classify swoopers amongst the people I've said should be ostracised....the stupid, the idiots, the careless and foolish. What are you trying to say here?.

The sub text should read..."it wasn't like this in my day, so we are DOING something wrong".

Can you deny that?.

Quote

The argument of "it's killing too many people - we should ban it" is not going to get you very far. How many is too many? Do you want zero deaths? In that case skydiving itself needs to be banned.



If swooping can be done safely I'm all for it.

Too many is a relative term.....in this case people killing themselves under open canopies that have already saved them from death, is absolutely too many. Especially when the same mistakes are made, over and over, and the use of the equipment allows no margin for error.

I do think if people show a careless disregard for themselves and others they should pay a penalty for that. If it takes a ban, so be it.

Quote

Do you want zero deaths?



Zero deaths under open canopies should be a realistic goal (if not actually achievable. We've always been in danger from water, electricity, obstacles).

"Parachute" literally means "safe fall", and the idea that a parachute would save you from death is the reason they were invented.

If what we have now kills you, instead of saving you, then it is no longer a parachute. I've been advocating a step back to a parachute that won't kill you for a small error. I don't think that is unreasonable.

Quote

In that case skydiving itself needs to be banned.



I'm getting tired of hearing this....the comparison is NOT the same.

Quote

I've said it before - we need solutions that are achievable and realistic. Many of them have been brought up and yet you continue to beat this extremist drum if banning swooping/hook turns/small canopies.



Sometimes the extremist drum needs to be banged to get serious attention, because up till now no one has taken this seriously. Its provoking some useful thought and discussion.

Or would you rather the status quo to continue for another 20 years?.

If officialdom gets involved (which I hope it doesn't) then you'll really have something to squeal about.

And you cannot deny it...logically, a return to larger slower canopies WOULD see deaths under open canopies fall. It might not suit you or the swooping fraternity, but deaths would fall for sure.

Find a way that makes it happen and retains your fun....I'm all for it.
My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


"Parachute" literally means "safe fall", and the idea that a parachute would save you from death is the reason they were invented.



Sorry to be nitpicking, but as you use the definition in your reasonning, "Parachute" means "Free fall Stopper" and not "Safe fall".
;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


My bad attitude might hurt someones feelings, your bad attitude might hurt their ability to breathe, or walk upright. Take your pick.



+1

Hence Seperate Loads or get out LOW. "DocPop" may be better that Roger Nelson, Danny Page ect,ect. I'm not being a smart ass. He may be. HE should have the chance to fly what he wants WITH people who accept what he is doing. The key is to put the group in the air that wants to do what they are doing. I believe they will self regulate better and it would be easier.

We DON'T HAVE TO MIX the groups. It's easy and it will work.
Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

We are being distracted from the real issue here, which is not canopy collisions at opening altitudes but CCs in the pattern. If there really is a big WL difference and they are opening at around the same altitude then there is plenty of time to CREATE separation before landing IF people think about it.

i.e hotshots get down first and leave the old farts to land later while grumbling how things were not like this in their day.



"Distracted".....really? The two groups would not open in the same area. That's the whole point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

What problem am I perpetuating?

I'm not dead. I have not hit anyone under canopy nor have I cut anyone off.



And that can only be chalked up to luck because at 50 jumps a year you have not developed the skills to safely a 135 Katana. For you to claim that you can is just your ego writing a check your ass can’t cover. I believe I asked you this before but you blew it off. You say you are being “mentored” by some very good people. Name one, just one experienced HP canopy pilot or canopy coach that endorses you flying that canopy.

Quote

but that doesn't make my opinion any less valid than anyone elses.



You can have any opinion you wish but it loses it’s validly when you have limited experience on the subject.

Quote


I disagree, and until someone challenges me for flying in a dangerous way I will continue to use the equipment I am on now.




It is my hope that you never get “challenged” for dangerous flying. That first time could be your last skydive or even worse some else’s last dive.
In the mean time you a danger to those around every time you fly that canopy.

Sparky
My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

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