Ron 7 #51 July 12, 2011 QuoteNot necessarily...someone with 1,000 jumps is likely capable of a downsize for this sort of situation. Most likely, someone with 1,000 jumps would be ready to downsize anyway."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jumpah 0 #52 July 13, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuote There is a common misconception that you need to "downsize for safety". Not disagreeing with you, just adding that I think forward penetration is often misused as an excuse to downsize. Skydivers need to think locally...a jumper on a square with a 1:1 loading at a DZ with 15 - 20mph and surrounded by soy beans is one thing...going backwards and landing off is not likely to be a big deal. That same jumper and conditions at a DZ surrounded by trees, buildings, powerlines, and bull fields with only a couple of outs is where more penetration can be helpful to give the jumper more options of where they can land. ....and there is always the option to stay on the ground. People often discuss the merits of downsizing or not, but rarely do I see it summed up as "a smaller canopy gives the pilot a smaller margin for error". To me that is what it comes down to. Whether we are talking about being able to fly a precise pattern, get enough landing separation or to survive a low turn or a no-flare landing, it's all going to be easier on a larger, slower canopy. Just this weekend I saw a whole bunch of landings where jumpers flared asymmetrically. No great problem on a Navigator loaded at 0.75, but potentially career ending on a Velocity @ 2.7. Smaller canopies can be more fun, but they bite much harder and faster. Absolutely! When I say downsize, I mean a sensible downsize. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
