Is your Wingloading within the WNE Chart?

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Do you believe the limits of, say, a test pilot are in the same place as the limits of, say, a couch potato with 20/180 vision?

We have test pilots and couch potatos within the ranks of skydivers.

With the greatest respect to Brian G., one number does not fit all.

And blanket statements about people's personal limits doesn't cover all as well.

Mike Gahan is one of the best pilots in the houston/austin/central texas area. He hooked himself into the ground at 400 jumps jumping a vengence 120 loaded at 1.9. His comment a bit before that was "a wing is a wing and I can fly it."



So explain that Kallend, explain why you feel that your method is a safer way to teach students and coach low time jumpers with?

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[larsrulz 0]

Oh, and I'm 1.22 at 250 jumps on a samurai 150, but it's elliptical airlocked, so I figure the airlocks cancel one of the elliptical points and the fact that it was designed by Brian cancels the other, right?

I could do everything that BillVon recommended on both a sabre2 170 and sabre2 150, but I still don't think that makes it a good canopy choice for someone in my situation.

I got a strong urge to fly, but I got no where to fly to. -PF

[kallend 1,853]

Quote

Quote

With the greatest respect to Brian G., one number does not fit all.

But the original poster explicitely stated that Brian Germain's book gave a recommended maximum wingloading. I'm sure Brian does not consider his one chart the end all, be all of the issue, but it is certainly excellent information to be out there. .

Recommended for whom? The test pilot or the couch potato?

...

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

[billvon 2,772]

>Recommended for whom? The test pilot or the couch potato?

The test pilot, of course. All skydivers consider themselves test pilots. Couch potatos are - well, home on the couch. So given that, what set of loadings would you recommend?

[FrancoR 0]

Quote

Recommended for whom? The test pilot or the couch potato?

Well, WNE stands for Wingloading never exceed. So i guess never means in any case or for anyone. Not such a bad idea to recommend an ultimate limit. Nonetheless i don't think it will improve fatality statistics much.

Franco

If it does not cost anything you are the product.

[Fast 0]

I used to be outside that limit, but am not anymore. This was due to jump number increase not a canopy change. I may go outside that chart again with my next canopy change which will probally come sometime next year but I am still not sure what I want my next canopy to be (Other than higher performance than my saber2 170)

~D
Where troubles melt like lemon drops Away above the chimney tops That's where you'll find me.
Swooping is taking one last poke at the bear before escaping it's cave - davelepka

[PhreeZone 15]

>Other than higher performance than my saber2 170

Flown properly that can be a very impressive canopy. A Sabre2 at 1.2 or above can be flow and swooped very well.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[Reginald 0]

Jumps 89-316 (and probably until about 375) WL 1.1
Ordered new canopy (expected to arrive at about Jump 375) WL 1.3

So yes, I‘m within the limits. I plan on jumping the new canopy at least a season so I’ll be under the recommended level for at least another year, at which point I’ll probably continue to be under it for sometime.

"We've been looking for the enemy for some time now. We've finally found him. We're surrounded. That simplifies things." CP

[kallend 1,853]

Quote

>Recommended for whom? The test pilot or the couch potato?

The test pilot, of course. All skydivers consider themselves test pilots. Couch potatos are - well, home on the couch. So given that, what set of loadings would you recommend?

Whatever the specific individual's canopy instructor recommends.

...

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

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Whatever the specific individual's canopy instructor recommends.

Sort of like the BSRs were created for a reason, thus are wingloading suggestions. To give a guideline since not everyone will use a canopy coach.

I had an elliptical canopy at just under 200 jumps loaded at a hair under 1.7:1, my S&TA and canopy coach of sorts (same guy) thought I would be fine and do well. I did.

We also spent a LONG time discussing how, what, when, where, why about jumping something like that. Why? Because even though it was a 170sq ft canopy, it would still haul ass and it was still quite capable of killing me (infact it almost did when I lost altitude awareness under spinning linetwists when I had a bit over 300 jumps...search for the story, I posted it).

Was I and am I a better canopy pilot then everyone else? HELL NO, I just had an opportunity to learn at a smaller DZ with a more "hands on" approach.

Do I still think that overall a general guideline such as Germains is a good thing? Yup, I believe that 100% would I hesitate to advise someone at my own DZ otherwise? Possibly, it all depends on the person.

However, this isn't dealing with the individual, its dealing with the community as a whole. Since as a whole, the community should really stick to these guidelines. Extra coaching and other things can advance the progression, however, when dealing with low time/student jumpers in a position of an instructor, its a different story.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[billvon 2,772]

>Whatever the specific individual's canopy instructor recommends.

Who would that be? If the only guy on the DZ who has a 2:1 loaded canopy is someone with 100 jumps (and he fancies himself a canopy instructor) should he be the one to determine what loading limits new jumpers should have?

[Squeak 17]

Quote

>Recommended for whom? The test pilot or the couch potato?

The test pilot, of course. All skydivers consider themselves test pilots. Couch potatos are - well, home on the couch. So given that, what set of loadings would you recommend?

I don't, I consider myself to be barely an intermediate pilot. But would never say I'm a test pilot. I just came from a boogie where loads of people were demoing canopies, NOT me, I a chicken. But I'm a live healthy chicken

You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky)
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?

[mjosparky 4]

Brian Germain has spent a great deal of time learning what makes a ram air canopy tic. I think it would be safe to say he is one of the most knowledgeable canopy pilots around today.

But 52% of the jumpers that responded to your poll are at or above his recommended wingloading. And I bet they all think they are ready and can handle it.

Lets have another poll in 1 year, have the same people respond, and see how many can still walk. (dead would fall under the "can't walk category)

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[psuCory 0]

To start off with, let me make this clear: this post is not a rejection of Brian's WNE chart. He has much more experience in canopy flight, canopy design, aerodynamics, human physiology in flight, and human psychology in flight. And of course, I am viewing this through my own "rose colored glasses". But, and of course there is a but. There is a critical flaw in this poll. Actually there are two but's:

1) We are forced to make the assumption that the WNE as it stands applies to all people (i.e. everyone is equal). Sorry, umm, reality talking... we aren't all equal. Maybe in the Orwellian sense we are all equal... but some are more equal than others. We are not all equal (when in comes to physical things). Anyone care to debate this?

While the WNE may be a good (great?) reference point... we need to know upon which criteria it was based prior to making a fully informed decision. The "chart" accounts for #jumps, wingloading, and elevation. There are many more, easily considered factors that should be assessed. For example, currency, nobody will dispute the fact that currency is a huge factors in the ability to "survive"smaller canopies. Somebody with 1000 jumps (the defacto standard for jumping at 2.0) who has been jumping for 8 years (125 jumps per year) officially qualifies. Would anybody want a 125 jump per year person jumping a canopy loaded at 2.0? I wouldn't be that comfortable with it. What about somebody who has 600 jumps in the past year? With an eye, and mentor, on progression? 500 jumps is definitely extreme to be at 2.0, but I would feel more comfortable with the 1 year 600 jump guy than the 8 year 1000 jump guy at this level.

Should we add .1 for every 300 jumps in the last year? Given the second example above this would be 1.5 (for 500 jumps) + .2 for 600 jumps in the last year, which = 1.8. How about we add .1 for every 200 in the past year, which results in a 1.9 for our guy with 600 jumps in his first year.

What we are getting at here is that the "average" or "mean" person is not everybody. You have seen those around us with MANY MANY jumps that would not be proficient, much less safe at the WNE, even if their jump numbers were divided by four! Granted they are not average, but they do exist. Yes I realize that the WNE is reference for a MAXIMUM, but a maximum for whom? Everyone? Sorry, no. I'm not buying that one either. So to exist those that are "gifted", be it a great self awareness of elevation, or extremely quick reflexes.

2) The second flaw of this evaluation: Even with the full load of information it is incredibly hard to make a fully informed decision about themselves (be it self fulfilling prophecy or failure to realize failure). Anybody with more than 200 jumps that says, "I never surprised myself/overestimated my abilities" is, frankly, full of shit. For all of you that think you are "above the average" (which by definition is 49% of you) please realize that about half of those in the 49% below average group... think that they are average or better... and they don't realize they are fucked.

What does this all mean? Why did I actually type out all this? It's because you have to think and ask questions! Damnit. You can not evaluate yourself dispationatly! You need outside evaluation by someone who knows what they are talking about when it comes to canopy flight. Don't ask someone on a message board, that has never seen you land! And sometimes you can't trust those around you with "thousands of jumps"! Find a professional that knows how to TEACH (YES TEACH) canopy flight, and get an expert opinion!

What does this mean? If you are still reading... then you are probably of the group that is above average and want's to learn how to do things properly, so do it, just do it.

If you are still sitting there reading, thinking, "I'm definitely in the upper 49%".

Are you that sure you are special? Read up a few paragraphs... "Anybody with more than 200 jumps that says, "I never surprised myself/overestimated my abilities" is, frankly, full of shit."

I mean that.

[NWPoul 1]

1-53 jumps PD Navigator (mostly 220 WL=1.01)
54-64 jumps PD Spectre 170 WL 1.27

P/S During my AFF, the most confident/soft landings were under 220-th canopy (worst landing under 260)

Why drink and drive, if you can smoke and fly?

[Ron 10]

Good post.

The problems are that almost everyone thinks they are special.

A few of those folks died thinking that.

Now there ARE some gifted folks. And they should not be held back.

So thats why I always have proposed a "Test to exceed the WL chart".

If you can pass the test you could then go up one level.

I though it was a win/win. But the "Think they are special" group didn't like it.

I told them if they were so special it should be easy to pass. They didn't like that.

Problem with skydiving is NOONE thinks they are gonna be the next to die/get hurt. But ALL the dead/hurt jumpers thought the same thing.

We can't all be the best.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[kallend 1,853]

Quote

>Whatever the specific individual's canopy instructor recommends.

Who would that be? If the only guy on the DZ who has a 2:1 loaded canopy is someone with 100 jumps (and he fancies himself a canopy instructor) should he be the one to determine what loading limits new jumpers should have?

How many times has it been written on rec dot and DZ.com "Ask your instructor, he's the one that knows you"?

That's why we have instructors.

Is there a gap right now with respect to canopy instruction? Yes, but our efforts should be addressed to fixing that problem.

There are already canopy flight courses being offered around the country.

...

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

[larsrulz 0]

Quote

How many times has it been written on rec dot and DZ.com "Ask your instructor, he's the one that knows you"?

That's why we have instructors.

Is there a gap right now with respect to canopy instruction? Yes, but our efforts should be addressed to fixing that problem.

There are already canopy flight courses being offered around the country.

You can't be suggesting that in the mean time, while we are trying to fix the canopy instruction problem, we shouldn't bother to recommend such things as jump number requirements to fly a wing suit or fly a sub-100 crossbraced. Guidelines at least help people to make intelligent decisions and realize when recommendations are not as intelligent.

Not everyone can afford (money or time wise) to get professional canopy instruction, let along go to canopy flight courses, so for those who can't, it is an excellent idea to provide recommendations.

I got a strong urge to fly, but I got no where to fly to. -PF

[mjosparky 4]

Quote

You can't be suggesting that in the mean time, while we are trying to fix the canopy instruction problem, we shouldn't bother to recommend such things as jump number requirements to fly a wing suit or fly a sub-100 crossbraced. Guidelines at least help people to make intelligent decisions and realize when recommendations are not as intelligent.

He does it all the time, why should this topic be any different?

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

How many times has it been written on rec dot and DZ.com "Ask your instructor, he's the one that knows you"?

Funny, last time I was on rec-dot the only things I saw really going on was a serious flame war about nothing by folks that don't even jump anymore...

It started by a newbie asking a question, they started flaming him then turned on each other.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[Fast 0]

Quote

>Other than higher performance than my saber2 170

Flown properly that can be a very impressive canopy. A Sabre2 at 1.2 or above can be flow and swooped very well.

Your right, I don't disagree with you. A friend of mine flew a Saber1 150 ~1.3wl till well through 700 jumps and could swoop the shit out of it, he then progressed ST120, CF119, Velo103.

I am also losing weight which both sucks and is a good thing

~D
Where troubles melt like lemon drops Away above the chimney tops That's where you'll find me.
Swooping is taking one last poke at the bear before escaping it's cave - davelepka

[billvon 2,772]

>How many times has it been written on rec dot and DZ.com "Ask
>your instructor, he's the one that knows you"?

That's the problem. If you are on student status, and you have a question about forward movement, it is clear who to ask. If you have 200 jumps, and are one of the more experienced people at your DZ, and you want to jump a Xaos 98, who do you ask? The DZO who jumps a Triathalon 190? The S+TA who has a Spectre 150? Or the guy with 100 jumps who can't land his Xaos?

In a situation like that, all the choices are bad. Therefore he should wait until he can learn on his own, and that involves not downsizing so rapidly. And thus we are back to the premise of the original post, which is that an 'artificial' restriction can help jumpers who (for whatever reason) cannot get canopy training.

>There are already canopy flight courses being offered around the country.

Agreed - but at most places there aren't. I'm not concerned about what loading Scott Miller's students are jumping; I am concerned about what students of no one are jumping.

[kallend 1,853]

Quote

>How many times has it been written on rec dot and DZ.com "Ask
>your instructor, he's the one that knows you"?

That's the problem. If you are on student status, and you have a question about forward movement, it is clear who to ask. If you have 200 jumps, and are one of the more experienced people at your DZ, and you want to jump a Xaos 98, who do you ask? The DZO who jumps a Triathalon 190? The S+TA who has a Spectre 150? Or the guy with 100 jumps who can't land his Xaos?

In a situation like that, all the choices are bad. Therefore he should wait until he can learn on his own, and that involves not downsizing so rapidly. And thus we are back to the premise of the original post, which is that an 'artificial' restriction can help jumpers who (for whatever reason) cannot get canopy training.

>There are already canopy flight courses being offered around the country.

Agreed - but at most places there aren't. I'm not concerned about what loading Scott Miller's students are jumping; I am concerned about what students of no one are jumping.

"WNE stands for Wingloading never exceed. So I guess never means in any case or for anyone."

So you would exclude from "anyone" Scott's graduates?

...

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

[pilotdave 0]

Brian Germain wrote the book. Why don't you ask him what he meant by it. Maybe he would never recommend exceeding the listed wingloadings to anyone for any reason. Maybe he'd make exceptions. But since you're all worried about his wording, ask him!

The airspeed indicator of your plane has a never exceed speed marked on it. But to be certified, it's gotta be exceeded by 10%. Should they rename it "V_never exceed unless you're a certification test pilot"?

Why are you so worried about exceptional jumpers exceeding some "arbitrary" limit? They're exceptional, not average. They can handle it, right? It's just wording...

Dave

[billvon 2,772]

>So you would exclude from "anyone" Scott's graduates?

See previous post.