High WLs, Low Experience.. Where Are the S&TAs?

[JumpRu 14]

That was on 1.1 WL canopy. I know couple other guys who has similar experience with light WL. One might say that this is just few cases, but personally for me one incident like this was more then enough. I downsized week after that.
This is well known fact that small canopies perform much better in turbulence. Why do you think experience jumpers prefer to use them?
Anyway you and I may have different views on the subject and that is ok. We were allowed to have our opinion... I just want all new jumpers have this opportunity to make decisions like this for them self.

[billvon 2,406]

>Beginner + low wingloading may = very bad.

This is one of the biggest pieces of bullshit I've seen on this forum in a while. Light loadings for students do work well and have for decades, no matter what anecdotal experiences you've had.

[BillyVance 34]

Quote

>Beginner + low wingloading may = very bad.

This is one of the biggest pieces of bullshit I've seen on this forum in a while. Light loadings for students do work well and have for decades,

And always will! As long as there are instructors and S&TAs to advise when to stay on the ground during squirrelly or high winds, and beginners are able to listen and heed said advice, they will be perfectly fine with lightly loaded canopies.

If I had listened to people back when I had 50 jumps, I wouldn't have jumped my lightly loaded 235 in 20+ mph winds and gotten blown a mile past the DZ, after getting out 3 miles upwind of it!

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[peek 20]

Quote

...there are a lot of old schoolers out there who have thousands of jumps, .... who have really bad habits...

And what would those be?

[BillyVance 34]

Quote

Quote

...there are a lot of old schoolers out there who have thousands of jumps, .... who have really bad habits...

And what would those be?

Yeah, I'd like to know... what could be so bad that they're still jumping and not hurting or killing themselves?

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[peek 20]

Quote

>Beginner + low wingloading may = very bad.
This is one of the biggest pieces of bullshit...

Bill, before you get too excited, the word "may" (I think) had a lot to do with their statement.

A low wingloading on certain high performance canopies can cause trouble in some wind/turbulence conditions, (as we have discussed before.)

Of course, this should not be used as an excuse to use a higher wing loading.

(It's good that you point that out though, because some people might take it wrong.)

[Remster 24]

Quote

A low wingloading on certain high performance canopies can cause trouble in some wind/turbulence conditions, (as we have discussed before.)

And why would a beginner be on such a HP canopy?

Remster

[pilotdave 0]

I have 1200+ jumps at a loading of about 1.1 or less (ok maybe a little higher these days). I don't buy it for a second that there's anything dangerous about that kind of loading. ANY canopy can collapse in the right (or wrong?) conditions. Experienced jumpers tend to choose higher loadings for reasons other than how they fly in turbulence. That could be one factor, but I believe it is a bit of a myth. If the conditions are so bad that they cause a canopy to collapse, I think I'd want as much fabric over my head as possible.

Dave

[peek 20]

Quote

And why would a beginner be on such a HP canopy?

The original Sabre is a high performance canopy, and that is a likely canopy to be used (at a low wing loading) for someone with few jumps.

[JumpRu 14]

>Beginner + low wingloading may = very bad.

This is one of the biggest pieces of bullshit I've seen on this forum in a while. Light loadings for students do work well and have for decades, no matter what anecdotal experiences you've had.

Anecdotal? It sure was not funny… At least not for me.

[crashtested 0]

Quote

Quote

the high risk group of people have between 300 - 500 jumps, they need to be targeted first as they are the ones dying at present.

Do you have data to support that claim?

Just go through the fatality page, I realise that people "may" just be getting broken instead of killed, however.,,, the deaths are there in larger than life detail, I'll not list peoples deaths. Just have a read

Jumpers name
Jumpers canopy
Died in low turn - Downwinder - spinning main etc etc
Jump no; 300

What it does not have a lot of is, Cat A or b jumper
died whilst loading a canopy up with a 1.3 wl

[crashtested 0]

Quote

Quote

...there are a lot of old schoolers out there who have thousands of jumps, .... who have really bad habits...

And what would those be?

Maybe i should have put it differently, how many people with low jump numbers sub 100 have you seen and thought, jeez that was a close call, he really had to dig that out.

or

He thought he could make the advanced landing area and hit the building or trees.

Just my obsevations, but i seen more high jump number guys and girls come nearer to death than sub 100's under canopy.

[MagicGuy 0]

Actually, I have seen that happen more times than I would like to, at various dropzones. Stabbing it out at the last minute, wrong patterns, downwinders and close call collisions with other jumpers.. I've seen 100 times more than with experienced jumpers.

[billvon 2,406]

>A low wingloading on certain high performance canopies can cause
> trouble in some wind/turbulence conditions . . .

Yes, just as a two-out can be a VERY big problem for a new jumper.

Still, I would consider the statement "Beginner + AAD may = very bad" to be inaccurate and misleading as well.

[beowulf 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

...there are a lot of old schoolers out there who have thousands of jumps, .... who have really bad habits...

And what would those be?

Maybe i should have put it differently, how many people with low jump numbers sub 100 have you seen and thought, jeez that was a close call, he really had to dig that out.

or

He thought he could make the advanced landing area and hit the building or trees.

Just my obsevations, but i seen more high jump number guys and girls come nearer to death than sub 100's under canopy.

I don't think you have enough time in the sport to really have seen enough to make these kind of statements. I have seen many more low jump number people (sub 100 jumps) get hurt or come very close to getting hurt then > 100 jump people. Talk to the people who have been in the sport 10 years or more. They are the ones who have a much better perspective then you.

[JohnDeere 0]

Just my obsevations, but i seen more high jump number guys and girls come nearer to death than sub 100's under canopy.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
And you are about to have over 100 jumps, your attitude and your WL conpliment each other nicelly

Nothing opens like a Deere!

You ignorant fool! Checks are for workers!

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

Quote

Quote

the high risk group of people have between 300 - 500 jumps, they need to be targeted first as they are the ones dying at present.

Do you have data to support that claim?

Just go through the fatality page, I realise that people "may" just be getting broken instead of killed, however.,,, the deaths are there in larger than life detail, I'll not list peoples deaths. Just have a read

I have, and the numbers do not seem to support your claim.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

Actually, I have seen that happen more times than I would like to, at various dropzones. Stabbing it out at the last minute, wrong patterns, downwinders and close call collisions with other jumpers.. I've seen 100 times more than with experienced jumpers.

That must compute to a remarkable number of near accidents to see for someone with only 1 year in the sport.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[MagicGuy 0]

Quote

Quote

Actually, I have seen that happen more times than I would like to, at various dropzones. Stabbing it out at the last minute, wrong patterns, downwinders and close call collisions with other jumpers.. I've seen 100 times more than with experienced jumpers.

That must compute to a remarkable number of near accidents to see for someone with only 1 year in the sport.

Going on two years in a few months. 2 years of living and working on a dropzone for 4-7 days out of the week. Sorry if my 100 times comment was exaggerating. I was trying to make a point.

Really, what is your point in all of this? All of your posts are just about looking for the evidence, the data, the "numbers".

Do you not agree that a faster canopy = less room for error which = bad for someone that is new to this sport? What is there not to comprehend? I'm really curious to see why you are the only one that is going against the grain here.

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Actually, I have seen that happen more times than I would like to, at various dropzones. Stabbing it out at the last minute, wrong patterns, downwinders and close call collisions with other jumpers.. I've seen 100 times more than with experienced jumpers.

That must compute to a remarkable number of near accidents to see for someone with only 1 year in the sport.

Going on two years in a few months. 2 years of living and working on a dropzone for 4-7 days out of the week. Sorry if my 100 times comment was exaggerating. I was trying to make a point.

Really, what is your point in all of this? All of your posts are just about looking for the evidence, the data, the "numbers".

Do you not agree that a faster canopy = less room for error which = bad for someone that is new to this sport? What is there not to comprehend? I'm really curious to see why you are the only one that is going against the grain here.

Having to exaggerate to make your point actually makes the opposite point.

Do you think we should make rules without any evidence in support besides someone's feelings? I don't. Most people thought it obvious that the Earth was flat, until a few skeptics started making measurements.

People have been jumping "HP" canopies for 15+ years now. If there were a problem with inexperienced jumpers under canopies YOU think are inappropriate for them, it would be reflected in their accident statistics when compared to other jumpers. So far you haven't shown any such thing.

Several posters claimed that these inexperienced jumpers are a risk to others, but every time when challenged, they are unable to produce any evidence to support their claims.

Do your homework BEFORE proposing new restrictions. If you have a case substantiated by actual data, I will support it.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[pilotdave 0]

Do you have a reliable source for injury statistics? How about "unsafe flying that didn't cause any accidents" statistics?

Do you think your life would have been horrible if someone told you to stick with a Sabre for a while when you had 40 jumps? Would you have felt oppressed?

One more question. Do you think there are people out there that SHOULD be advised to jump a bigger canopy?

Dave

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

Do you have a reliable source for injury statistics? How about "unsafe flying that didn't cause any accidents" statistics?

If that's all you have to make a case, it's not very good, is it?

Quote

Do you think your life would have been horrible if someone told you to stick with a Sabre for a while when you had 40 jumps? Would you have felt oppressed?

What does it matter if it's 40, 400, 0r 4,000? You haven't yet demonstrated the need for restrictions with any actual data.

Quote

One more question. Do you think there are people out there that SHOULD be advised to jump a bigger canopy?

Dave

Yes. And it is fairly independent of jump numbers. However, if they are informed of the risks to themselves and are not a risk to other people, it's really their (and the DZO's) decision to make. If they are a hazard to others the DZO should ground them, like he or she would ground any dangerous individuals regardless of experience level.

No skydive is without risk. We all have a risk tolerance, and a line we won't cross. Your line is not drawn in the same place as mine or anyone else's.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[crashtested 0]

Quote

Just my obsevations, but i seen more high jump number guys and girls come nearer to death than sub 100's under canopy.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
And you are about to have over 100 jumps, your attitude and your WL conpliment each other nicelly

i'm excited about it to

My attitude is pretty good mister,

I have always listened to people with more experiance than me, as i don't want to die or end up in a chair, being spoon fed.

I have also posted on here looking for more advice, if i still have questions, but the advice i get from here is from faceless wonders, who may have 2500 jumps, or may not, its hard to tell who is bullshiting and who is telling the truth. they may have 6000 jumps but last jumped on a round in 89, you just never know. You take some advice you leave the rest.

So my attitude may not quite be to your standed, you may think of me as reckless, or a statistic waiting to happen, or that you bought my #98 in bounce bingo. But, and this is a praise be to god or allah or who ever, i get to live or die way, on my terms, and with a big smile on my face.
I can pretty much guarenttee that it'll be on a motorbike, but hey #98 may be your lucky number!!

[davelepka 4]

Quote

So my attitude may not quite be to your standed, you may think of me as reckless, or a statistic waiting to happen, or that you bought my #98 in bounce bingo. But, and this is a praise be to god or allah or who ever, i get to live or die way, on my terms, and with a big smile on my face.

Go do solos on your own jumprun, and you can do things on your own terms.

In another thread, about the guy who was paralyzed in a frefall collision and filmed his limp body being saved by his Cypres, you freely admit that you were just involved in a similar collision, but you were lucky to escape the same fate.

You're not alone up there. You may have been lucky this time, but what about the other half of your collision? It does take two to collide. Hopefully he's OK too, but can you see how your action could put a guy in a wheelchair?

Did you ask the other guy if he jumped a Cypres? If he wasn't paralyzed, maybe he just gets knocked out. Either way, no Cypres means he's going in clean. Game over.

[crashtested 0]

The other guy was my coach, yes to cypress.. i guess we were both lucky.

With regards to my actions, i was getting coaching to improve my skills, ( i realise you did not know i was having a coaching jump, but thought i'd mention it b4 getting flamed)

These were jump numbers 56 and onwards.

The guy who was paralysed in that thread was also coaching(from the threads i read), Its a very scary thought for people who are willing to coach and how they could end up, i don't really know what to say on the subject, better seperation?? but at 200mph things happen v quick, and reactions sometimes are not quick enough to avoid hits.

there were other things during my training jumps that i saw as well which had danger written all over them>. But that i have learned from

My clothing was riding up my body, ( so i bought myself a ff suit)
My tracking exits were a little wobbly. (Practiced for next 10 jumps)
my Alti awerness became shocking(bought a ditter)
My knee flying rules (i was Meant to be sit flying though)
I need to lose my tummy (puked my food up)

I'll post the vid here, there are a lot of bad things happening, i guess i got lucky
let the flaming begin