to downsize or not to downsize

[billeisele 122]

Quote

Quote

or that the content of the rule should be changed from jump numbers to demonstrated skills or whatever?

Yes to this.

Not everyone sucks at flying their canopies, not everyone has to PLF on every landing cause after 50-100 jumps they still haven't figured out how to flare..

Not everyone sucks at multitasking and others actually do turn on, forget about the cam and focus on the jump instead..

Not everyone sucks at tracking and all the general skills involved in a controlled 3D horizontal flight.

All of this should be based on a persons abilities, not jump numbers, a 200 year old book that you have called the "SIM" and fossils from the 70's who's egos can't stand evolution..

so I'll agree that decisions could be based on skill level, in the absence of adequate "evaluators" of skill, jump numbers have been used, this is possibly worse than a skill evaluation, the challenge is that the jumper wants to self-evaluate and that never works

in one of your posts you spoke of taking away someones "fun", an individuals unfetered access to fun stops when their fun possibly infringes on my fun, when one of these types hits the ground, injures another jumper, etc., the cops, FAA, news media, etc. take away everyone's fun, so it is simply not "fair" for an individual to be an inconsiderate, selfish, idiot and do stuff that they are not capable of doing safely, if a low timer wants to downsize, camera jump, wingsuit jump, Mr. Bill, tube, etc. I'll help them get there

of course this excludes those with mad skillz because they already know everything that you are going to tell them

Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws.

[Zlew 0]

Quote

> So to use your example, it's like replacing a station wagon with good brakes with a Corvette with only the right front wheel brake working.

I don't think that is a fair/accurate example.
Sorry for hijacking this thread anymore than it has been already. My point is pretty simple. I advocate for responsible skydiving just like you do. I have lost friends and spent way too much time visiting people in the hospital. I know what the risks are. Canopy flight can be as much fun (more fun for some) as freefall. The main point for me is you can increase your wing loading responsibly and not be on this razor edge of dying all the time. Take the right steps. Make sure you have the right skills, be responsible and it's not so bad.

The "nothing is as safe as bigger canopies" argument might be true. But I'm glad we are not all jumping de-tuned Man-O-Wars, pulling at 6K feet, only doing solo jumps, and shutting down at 10mph winds. That would make us much "safer". Like most things, we should try to be reasonable such that we can enjoy life but not live in a plastic bubble or padded room. If we were looking for the safest sport...skydiving probably isn't your best pick. You must agree to some extent since your profile says you are jumping a 108. You would be safer under a 230...but i bet you don't feel like you are cheating death every time you deploy. I bet you took the right steps, have the right skills, and are comfortable with you skill and safety under your 108.

Skydiving is a high energy and risky sport by it's nature. It attracts people who like to go fast and push the limits. We are not playing checkers here. Be smart about what you do, enjoy this badass sport we are a part of.

[Amazon 7]

Ya know..the more some people post, the more I am willing to take the recommendation to have 200 jumps before even thinking about putting a camera helmet on and scrap it. Hell at this point I think it should be a requirement to wear multiple cameras from the time someone gets their A license.

With the development of mad skillz on the rise at least we could get a lot more cool video to watch and pass along to others who are developing mad skillz at 25 jumps.

[Master_Yoda 0]

I like your metaphor using cars instead of parachutes. Nice.

Couple observations I have from reading all the latest about the new breed of canopies and how they're different from what I'm used to.

To continue the car metaphor, it seems to me that mixing a load with some guys jumping "Divot Maker 75s" with guys jumping.... Mantas, is similar to being on a 5 lane freeway where guys on motorcycles are doing 175, guys in corvettes are doing 150, guys in station wagons are driving 70 and a little old man in a hat is putting by the center lane at 50. Hello canopy collision! And it could be anyone's fault. Could be "shit-hot Johnny" trying to impress the hotty wuffo with a blazing swoop or the clueless student who didn't know he shouldn't sashay back and forth in front of the pea gravel. Stuff happens.

It also seems kinda silly, to me at least, to use a tiny eliptical for skydives when you end up having to pull high to allow for a 1000 ft snivel. Call me crazy but it seems having something with a relatively soft but positive opening that allows you to have container opening at 2 and therefore a longer time in freefall, is better. Just my limited perspective. Not a judgement on modern skydiving culture or any individuals. It was just something I was thinking about while on campus today.

[Zlew 0]

Softer opening gear has been the trend for at least the last 10 years or so, and isn't limited to small elliptical. My canopy opens usually in 6-800 feet and is nice. Some of the 7 cells out there make my openings look snappy. There are lots of options these days in all sizes and canopy styles that are known to open from "snappy" to "is this a snivel or a streamer?"
this is a pretty typical opening for me. Very comfortable, and doesn't eat too much altitude.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvjfcby_bgI

[Airman1270 0]

I think the main issue is: Give us information, but otherwise leave us alone. If we must err in judgement, let it be in the direction of liberty & freedom. Let the DZO provide information & leadership, but allow customers to make informed choices. If he provides the agreed service (airplane ride, place to land, free beer, etc.) he should not have to deal with lawsuits because something didn't go as planned.

Cheers,
Jon S.

[Master_Yoda 0]

Quote

I think the main issue is: Give us information, but otherwise leave us alone. If we must err in judgement, let it be in the direction of liberty & freedom. Let the DZO provide information & leadership, but allow customers to make informed choices. If he provides the agreed service (airplane ride, place to land, free beer, etc.) he should not have to deal with lawsuits because something didn't go as planned.

Cheers,
Jon S.

AMEN, brother!

[Master_Yoda 0]

Quote

this is a pretty typical opening for me. Very comfortable, and doesn't eat too much altitude.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvjfcby_bgI

My kinda opening. Soft but positive! Opening that at 2K = no problem.

[Sangi 0]

Quote

he should not have to deal with lawsuits because something didn't go as planned.

That's a problem for you americans, suing everyone and anyone for every little fart done in the wrong place..

That's not the case for the rest of the world..

"Dream as you'll live forever, live as you'll die today." James Dean

[davelepka 4]

Quote

Call me crazy but it seems having something with a relatively soft but positive opening that allows you to have container opening at 2 and therefore a longer time in freefall, is better. Just my limited perspective. Not a judgement on modern skydiving culture or any individuals. It was just something I was thinking about while on campus today.

That's where 20 years off creates a disconnect. The priority for many jumpers is either not on the freefall, or equally split between freefall and canopy flight. Older canopies were not that exciing to fly, and didn't hold much appeal compared to turning points, but things have changed.

If all it takes is 10 seconds less of freefall to allow me the altitude to jump and swoop a high performance canopy, it's well worth it. You get the majority of the freefall time and the swoop for the sake of a point or two off the bottom end of the jump. Many swoopers or swoopers-in-training will do hop n pops, just for the sake of making the landing. They cut out the freefall all together just to knock out another jump and log another landing, so when you put them in freefall, you can see how a few seconds here or there is of no consequence.

None of this is mentioning that pulling at 2k is a bare minimum and it leaves you very little time for a mal, cutaway and a reserve deployment. Even with more moderate performance canopies at lower WL (by todays standards) will lose altitude quickly in the case of a mal, so dumping at the bare minimum altitude is pushing it. If you should encoutner any delay from a hard cutraway or reserve pull, or just fumbling for handles, pulling at 2k with a modern canopy puts you very low by the time you get a reserve out.

Even if you're not going to swoop, dumping 500 ft higher automaticaly buys you a lot of time between you and the ground only giving up 3 seconds of freefall.

If you have any lower time jumpers on your jump, the break off will be higher anyway, so you can dump higher with no problems.

If you're jumping in a bigger group, the break off will be higher, so you can dump higher with no problems.

If you're jumping with a small group of experienced jumpers, you should all know better and set the break off high enough for a reasonable pull altitude.

[Master_Yoda 0]

Quote

Quote

Call me crazy but it seems having something with a relatively soft but positive opening that allows you to have container opening at 2 and therefore a longer time in freefall, is better. Just my limited perspective. Not a judgement on modern skydiving culture or any individuals. It was just something I was thinking about while on campus today.

That's where 20 years off creates a disconnect. The priority for many jumpers is either not on the freefall, or equally split between freefall and canopy flight. Older canopies were not that exciing to fly, and didn't hold much appeal compared to turning points, but things have changed.

Oh yeah, absolutely. The sport has progressed in every way. Now there are canopies as fun to fly as it is to be in freefall. I get that. And making jumps at 4.5 with them makes total sense. It's using them on skydives that doesn't really jive with my own values or ideas of what is important to have fun and be safe on a jump.

Quote

If all it takes is 10 seconds less of freefall to allow me the altitude to jump and swoop a high performance canopy, it's well worth it. You get the majority of the freefall time and the swoop for the sake of a point or two off the bottom end of the jump.

This is where I kinda think the trade-off isn't worth it. I'd rather have the extra 6 extra seconds in freefall and an extra point or two. Again, it's priorities. Six seconds times 10 jumps is one minute is freefall... times 60 jumps and there's an hour. Jumps are expensive. Twice as much as when I started. ($1 per 1000 ft plus $1 or $2) That freefall time is precious!

Quote

Many swoopers or swoopers-in-training will do hop n pops, just for the sake of making the landing. They cut out the freefall all together just to knock out another jump and log another landing, so when you put them in freefall, you can see how a few seconds here or there is of no consequence.

None of this is mentioning that pulling at 2k is a bare minimum and it leaves you very little time for a mal, cutaway and a reserve deployment. Even with more moderate performance canopies at lower WL (by todays standards) will lose altitude quickly in the case of a mal, so dumping at the bare minimum altitude is pushing it. If you should encoutner any delay from a hard cutraway or reserve pull, or just fumbling for handles, pulling at 2k with a modern canopy puts you very low by the time you get a reserve out.

Yup. No doubt about it. Which is why I prefer a 500'-600' opening over a 1000' opening for skydives. Of course now I have arthritis in my neck so I may change my mind about that! lol

Let's say a jumper is on a big-way and is tracking away after break-off but someone is above him. So he smokes it on down to 2 to be safe and clear the airspace. Now he's got a 1000 ft snivel... or streamer to deal with.
At 1k he decides its a streamer and begins emergency procedures. That small canopy is now falling out the sky FAST. Much faster than something loaded at 1:1. Now he's chopping it at 750 ft but going too slow for the AAD to fire. I think you can see where I'm going with this.

I'm not saying the BSRs should state little canopies should be reserved for C&Ps at 4.5. Or that I wouldn't jump with someone who has one. Only that using one for RW or FF is a less safe choice than say... wearing a frap hat instead of a hard helmet.

There is also the issue of mixing ultra-fast and relatively slow canopies in the sky at the same time. Which is a recipe for disaster.

Quote

Even if you're not going to swoop, dumping 500 ft higher automaticaly buys you a lot of time between you and the ground only giving up 3 seconds of freefall.

If you have any lower time jumpers on your jump, the break off will be higher anyway, so you can dump higher with no problems.

If you're jumping in a bigger group, the break off will be higher, so you can dump higher with no problems.

If you're jumping with a small group of experienced jumpers, you should all know better and set the break off high enough for a reasonable pull altitude.

Absolutely!

Were kinda debating minutiae here. I think we agree on what could happen. It's a question of perspective, priorities and what an individual feels safe with. My perspective is 20 years old. So I'm looking at the sport today thru a different set of goggles. Not exactly inexperienced but not current either.

In the 70's when guys were jumping rounds, they were deploying at 1000k as a norm. When guys started opening at 2k for added safety it was considered quite high.

[billvon 2,391]

>Give us information, but otherwise leave us alone.

That's true the other direction as well. While you may have a right to kill yourself, you do not have the right to kill others - and sadly, HP canopy pilots do that with some regularity.

Your right to jump whatever canopy you want ends at the other jumper's lines.

[Sangi 0]

Quote

Your right to jump whatever canopy you want ends at the other jumper's lines.

Cool, so when I feel uncomfortable with someone I can just ground them anytime I want right?

"Dream as you'll live forever, live as you'll die today." James Dean

[billvon 2,391]

>Cool, so when I feel uncomfortable with someone I can just ground them
>anytime I want right?

No, that's reserved for someone with recognized good judgment. We call these people S+TA's.

[Airman1270 0]

Quote

Quote

he should not have to deal with lawsuits because something didn't go as planned.

That's a problem for you americans, suing everyone and anyone for every little fart done in the wrong place..
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Two reasons for this:

1) Despite the fact that the legal profession is well saturated, many people want to become lawyers even though there's no demand for their services. Each year brings thousands of new law school graduates with bills to pay. Their only chance at earning income involves creative new ways to justify lawsuits.

2) Jury selection. Much effort goes into weeding out the majority of "normal" people who do not believe such lawsuits are justified. Lawyers instead go for the kind of people who watch daytime TV, the ignorant, clueless among us who don't pay attention to what's going on in the world around them and can be persuaded that evil defendant "X" is responsible
for failing to prevent an unfortunate incident from occurring.

If a guy decides to become a carpenter, even though his community already has plenty of carpenters, he can try, but will struggle to find work. A carpenter will not show up at your home out of the blue, build you an $8000 deck you never wanted in the first place, and demand you rearrange your life so as to make this project your first priority. But a lawyer can do this to you, in the absence of any wrongdoing on your part.

Cheers,
Jon

• Quote

[billvon 2,391]

>Much effort goes into weeding out the majority of "normal" people who do
> not believe such lawsuits are justified.

Right. For every such case, there are _two_ lawyers. One who tries to weed out the people who do not believe such lawsuits are justified - the other who tries to remove people who DO think that lawsuits are a great way to make money.

[Baksteen 84]

Quote

Quote

I was thinking to downsize to maybe a 170 spectre or 170 storm.

A 170 Spectre does not fly the way a 170 Storm does. The Storm is more of a high performance canopy.

Since you jump a Sabre2 190, a Storm 190 will still dive and turn faster. If I were you, I'd go with a Spectre 170 instead. You'll leave more of a margin for error if you fuck up a little.

JMO

Long answer:
I fly a Storm 190 and have demoed a Spectre 190 for about twenty jumps. The Storm turns and dives a lot faster than a Spectre 190, but on the other hand, it is very well behaved in serious line twists, (rear riser) stalls etc. Openings are comfortably slow but a little shorter than a Spectre. OTOH, a brake fire during opening will start you spinning very quickly - but for me it did not result in line twists.
The canopy is still rather forgiving; last week I fucked up during the landing (the low panic turn I vowed never to make) but I'm still walking.
All in all I'd say the storm is an excellent all round canopy. Perhaps the OP might even find a lot of satisfaction in a storm 190, removing the necessity to downsize and increasing the margin for error even more.

Short answer:
Demo demo demo...

"That formation-stuff in freefall is just fun and games but with an open parachute it's starting to sound like, you know, an extreme sport."
~mom

[stitch 0]

Upsizing is the new black.

"No cookies for you"- GFD
"I don't think I like the sound of that" ~ MB65
Don't be a "Racer Hater"