Is your Wingloading within the WNE Chart?

[mjosparky 4]

Quote

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

See previous post.

Lets exclude argument for the sake of argument from the forums.

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[kallend 1,853]

So it seems we are agreed there can be legitimate exceptions.

...

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

[pilotdave 0]

We don't agree that Brian Germain believes there can be exceptions, which is the only thing that matters since he came up with the chart. Neither of us know what he believes.

You're talking about exceptions to one guy's idea of wingloading limits. This isn't law. My opinion on the matter is irrelevant. I never said those limits are never to be exceeded. Now if you're asking if I think there are people that can safely exceed the limits on the chart, well, I have no clue. I don't have nearly enough experience to know that. My gut feeling is sure... I know of a student pilot that soloed a pitts special at age 16. He had exactly 0 hours of pilot in command time when he soloed the pitts. But was that exceptional skill? No, it was training. You don't solo a pitts when you've had all your instruction in a 152. You don't solo a pitts until you have enough hours to fly a pitts. But I bet if you trained in a pitts from day one, you'll be ready to solo a pitts with fewer hours in it.

But we don't train for canopy flight by doing tandems. Everybody is at least to some degree self taught. What are the indicators that a person is ready to jump a particular canopy? Does an instructor always know, just by watching a bunch of well executed landings? Does a jumper know just by performing a bunch of well executed landings? How does somebody know that he or she won't screw up in a tense situation, where a lower wingloading might be more forgiving?

Ron says test them. Make them prove that they can flat turn, flare turn, blah blah blah. Makes sense to me. But what you're really asking in this thread is, is that ok with Brian Germain. Only he can tell you that.

Dave

[kallend 1,853]

Quote

We don't agree that Brian Germain believes there can be exceptions, which is the only thing that matters since he came up with the chart. Neither of us know what he believes.

You're talking about exceptions to one guy's idea of wingloading limits. This isn't law. My opinion on the matter is irrelevant. I never said those limits are never to be exceeded. Now if you're asking if I think there are people that can safely exceed the limits on the chart, well, I have no clue. I don't have nearly enough experience to know that. My gut feeling is sure... I know of a student pilot that soloed a pitts special at age 16. He had exactly 0 hours of pilot in command time when he soloed the pitts. But was that exceptional skill? No, it was training. You don't solo a pitts when you've had all your instruction in a 152. You don't solo a pitts until you have enough hours to fly a pitts. But I bet if you trained in a pitts from day one, you'll be ready to solo a pitts with fewer hours in it.

But we don't train for canopy flight by doing tandems. Everybody is at least to some degree self taught. What are the indicators that a person is ready to jump a particular canopy? Does an instructor always know, just by watching a bunch of well executed landings? Does a jumper know just by performing a bunch of well executed landings? How does somebody know that he or she won't screw up in a tense situation, where a lower wingloading might be more forgiving?

Ron says test them. Make them prove that they can flat turn, flare turn, blah blah blah. Makes sense to me. But what you're really asking in this thread is, is that ok with Brian Germain. Only he can tell you that.

Dave

There wouldn't be a thread if the chart were the final answer that everyone agrees on.

I think the chart is an excellent guideline for someone that doesn't have advanced training beyond AFF or ISP. I do not agree that it is a "never exceed under any circumstances" rule.

...

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

[pccoder 0]

I was just looking at the stats for the people who have voted. I wonder if the fact that 70% of those who voted are under or at the maximum has any direct relationship to the fact that they are alive to vote?

PcCoder.net

[mattjw916 2]

The poll should really have differentiated between those who are fractionally over Brian's recommendations and those that are waaaay over. A couple extra sq ft probably aren't going to make a big difference if you do something retarded. Now if you are talking about 40 extra sq ft, that's a bigger difference that could potentially save your life.

Technically I am over esp since my vintage '99 Safire is actually more like a 175 than a 189 due to Precision's measuring method at the time (which I didn't discover until after I had ~30 jumps on the canopy). But, I have never once had any of the canopy gurus tell me I am "unsafe" or that I need to "slow down". Quite the opposite in fact.

My $0.02.

edit: oops!

NSCR-2376, SCR-15080

[SkydiveNFlorida 0]

Quote

I was just looking at the stats for the people who have voted. I wonder if the fact that 70% of those who voted are under or at the maximum has any direct relationship to the fact that they are alive to vote?

I doubt that. There have been quite a few deaths at or below the recommended wingloadings on that chart. And, there have been many deaths of people that have over 1000 jumps as well.

I am over the recommended on that chart. It is certainly not the end-all-be-all, it is a guideline. Just like it'd be stupid for someone to load a canopy at 1.0 for 500 jumps then all of a sudden switch to 1.5, there are certainly ways to exceed this chart safely, with training and guidance from those who have experience.

jmo,
-A

[kallend 1,853]

Quote

I was just looking at the stats for the people who have voted. I wonder if the fact that 70% of those who voted are under or at the maximum has any direct relationship to the fact that they are alive to vote?

Answer your own question. How many dz.com potential voters have died under an undersized canopy? What % change in the poll outcome would that produce?

...

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

[phoenixlpr 0]

Ok. Check my profile. I fly a Pilot150 @WL~1.3

[mattjw916 2]

OMFG!!! You're gunna diiiiieeeee!!!

NSCR-2376, SCR-15080

[pccoder 0]

That's exactly the point I am making. Without doing the research (at work now), I imagine that the numbers might equal out alot more if they were here to vote.

...or I could be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time.

PcCoder.net

[pilotdave 0]

Right now, there are 72 more people that have voted that they are at or below the max wingloading according to the chart. How many people do you think have ever died due to jumping a canopy loaded above their experience level? How many would you estimate were on dropzone.com?

It happens, but come on... it's not THAT common!

Dave

[BlindBrick 0]

I'd be somewhere in the gray area loading at 1.19 with 138 jumps, but I guess I get docked points for being at a higher altitude. But by that logic, I'd be flying a .8 which seems kind of silly.

-Blind

"If you end up in an alligator's jaws, naked, you probably did something to deserve it."

[mjosparky 4]

Quote

Right now, there are 72 more people that have voted that they are at or below the max wingloading according to the chart. How many people do you think have ever died due to jumping a canopy loaded above their experience level? How many would you estimate were on dropzone.com?

It happens, but come on... it's not THAT common!

Dave

If it was you or one of your friends, would you think it was THAT common?

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[DancingFlame 0]

Quote

OMFG!!! You're gunna diiiiieeeee!!!

Yeah, and I'm going too.
With a Safire-139 (actually a 129 loaded ~1.37). Though, never had a problem with the canopy. Canopy coaching rocks!

[phoenixlpr 0]

Yes, I know. Tell me something new too. None has ever survived this life....

[pccoder 0]

72 more..or whatever, the percentage is what counts in this type of comparison, not the actual number. If 72 more out of 1000 were being counted, well that would be pretty even, but that's not the case.

2004 Deaths (data from dropzone.com)
Collisions 13%
Landings 35%
No Pulls 5%
Malfunctions 23%
Reserve Problems 5%
Other 17%

I'd imagine, since we all hear about low turns, hard landings, added danger with high wing loadings, that a great deal of the landings and probably some of those other categories were involving high wing loading.

I stand here today ALIVE due to the fact that my crash landing 3 weeks ago was on a Sabre2 170 wingloaded at less than 1.1 instead of something having me loaded higher. And, my problem was target fixation; which had I been killed would have fallen into the "Landings" category and could have still been possibly attributed to wingloading.

I am trying to say that perhaps we should all step back and say to ourselves that the rush and fun associated with the fast landings and the roller coaster ride we have under our canopies just might not be worth the consequences when we could have flown a larger, safer canopy and still have the fun associated with the skydive. At my DZ I never see anyone flying big 200+ sq feet canopies except for students. And I see where we are being almost rushed into gear that we just plain do not need in order to have a fun and safe jump.

When I get back, and it will be months, I am going to fly differently. I will seek professional advice and assistance, and I will strive for the ultimate goal on each landing, which is to safely get to the ground so I can jump again.

Now that I am off my soap box, my point is simple. Wingloading is critical to surviving when something does not go according to plan. Sure, it helps also under ideal circumstances; but you'll never know just how much it meant until you smack your back into the ground at 30+ mph (like I did) and get the wake up call of a lifetime.

PcCoder.net

[pccoder 0]

Quote

Ok. Check my profile. I fly a Pilot150 @WL~1.3

Dale Earnhart had been in plenty of races. Just because you think you are safe doesn't mean you are.

PcCoder.net

[phoenixlpr 0]

I don`t feel so safe yet. I have a lot to learn with that. I had only 9 jumps with it. My mentors think that I can handle it. WNE is not enforced here, we have different limits.

[pilotdave 0]

Quote

If it was you or one of your friends, would you think it was THAT common?

Not sure what you mean by that. Whether or not I've known anyone that has been killed jumping a canopy loaded higher than Brian Germain's WNE chart has nothing to do with how many people are killed that way. I was just saying that I really doubt enough people have been killed for that reason in the history of skydiving to substantially affect the results of a dropzone.com poll on the subject. It'd be a more emotional subject for me if I had known people that had been killed jumping canopies that they shouldn't have been, but it wouldn't change the numbers.

Dave

[mattjw916 2]

Dude, you can take ANY canopy and fly it straight into the ground or target fixate and wad yourself up around a telephone pole or similarly unflinching object.

...and how on earth did you slam your back onto the ground at 30mph under such a "mellow" w/l?

edit: FWIW currency should play a much bigger role in canopy choices as well IMO.

NSCR-2376, SCR-15080

[pccoder 0]

Quote

...and how on earth did you slam your back onto the ground at 30mph under such a "mellow" w/l?

180 degree hook turn followed by double front riser approach and meeting the ground prior to coming fully out of swoop. Read my other post "Crash Landing - Very Lucky" in this same forum.

Quote

Dude, you can take ANY canopy and fly it straight into the ground

But when it's higher wingloaded the possibility or should I say probability for an unhappy ending is much higher.

PcCoder.net

[mattjw916 2]

Quote

180 degree hook turn followed by double front riser approach and meeting the ground prior to coming fully out of swoop.

There was your first problem... waaay too agressive of an approach IMHO.

Quote

...for an unhappy ending is much higher.

Define "much" that sounds very arbitrary to me. My loading is marginally higher, we have similar experience levels, but the most I do is double-front approaches. I'm not trying to start an argument at all but wouldn't you agree that your accident was more a function of poor judgement than w/l?

Q: for the learned folks:
Obviously I'm no canopy expert, but doesn't a higher w/l mean potentially a longer recovery arc therby giving you more of a chance to level off with rears or toggles should you find yourself "in the corner" because you could've started your approach at a higher altitude? Granted you would have more airspeed with the higher w/l, but that equates more lift, hence more flare power? (sorry for the run-on sentence )

edit: typo

NSCR-2376, SCR-15080

[pccoder 0]

[replyThere was your first problem... waaay too agressive of an approach IMHO. ...but wouldn't you agree that your accident was more a function of poor judgement than w/l?

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

...and how on earth did you slam your back onto the ground at 30mph under such a "mellow" w/l?

?!?!?!?!?

You can kill yourself under ANY canopy.

Do not fall into the mistake of thinking you can't seriously get mangled under lighter wingloadings.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.