Please comment on this months Parachutist profile

[ChrisL 2]

My recent copy of Parachutist did a profile on skydiver Chris Salcone.

First, please let me state unequivically that this commentary is NOT intended as any kind of slight or insult to Chris, who I am certain is a very cool person and exellent skydiver, or to Parachutist magazine which is an exellent publication with great articles. I enjoy it thoroughly every month.

My commentary is about what I percieve to be a possibly confusing message that the profile might convey and I'm interested in hearing peoples responses to this commentary from any point of view. Agreement or disagreement.

First, let me state the area that I consider to be potentially misleading.
This is semantics, but nonetheless I think it could possibly give an incorrect impression.

The sematic point is about the difference between "conservative canopy progression" and "conservative canopy choice"

The article states that Chris believs in a conservative canopy progression
and backs this with the fact that he stuck with his first canopy for 1000 jumps before downsizing.

I think everyone will agree that that is most definitely a conservative progression.

The confusion stems from the fact that the two things (choice or progression) are easily confused , especially for a novice jumper.

Chris's stated weight is 155 lbs. and his first canopy according to the article was a Sabre 135

If we tack on 25 lbs for gear, his exit weight was 180 lbs. This put his wing loading at approximately 1.33 for his very first canopy as a novice jumper.

I think most people would also agree that while Chris progression was conservative, his canopy choice was actually fairly agressive for a novice jumper.

In the end Chris says that he has never had an accident or injury under canopy in thousands of jumps.

I want to reiterate that there is nothing in the article even remotely wrong
or intentionally misleading. Chris says he had a conservative canopy progression and that appears to be 100% true.

The possible confusing message is that a wing loading of 1.33 is conservative ("progression" confused with "choice") and therefore appropriate for a novice, and this is bourne out by the fact that he has never had any kind of problem under canopy in
thousands of jumps.

I do not believe that this is what the article is saying.

Not at all.

I do fear that its possible to misinterpret it because of the way its worded and the way the facts are presented.

Comments?

__

My mighty steed

[karenmeal 0]

I would be pretty surprised if Chris's first canopy was a wingloading that high. There is probably some explanation.

"Life is a temporary victory over the causes which induce death." - Sylvester Graham

[slotperfect 7]

Quote

I would be pretty surprised if Chris's first canopy was a wingloading that high. There is probably some explanation.

There are some pieces of information missing . . . what was his student canopy progression, what did he use between student gear and actually buying his Sabre 135 and how did he step down to that wingloading, how much did he weigh when he bought his Sabre 135, etc. At what point in his early canopy progression did he receive specific canopy coaching and from what level of trainer (professional canopy piloting course or local subject matter expert or both).

Edited to add: Chris is a dz.commer - send him a PM and ask him if he will clarify the issue here: profile

Arrive Safely

John

[Hawkins121 0]

Only thing I would want to comment about is the 4000 jumps and 1 cutaway.. Thats friggin awesome.

[davelepka 4]

I haven't read the profile, but I'd be interested to know how long he's been jumping.

If it was any more than 8 or 9 years ago, that Wl isn't surprising. The trend with open canopy incidents was just begining, and ZP in general was still a pretty new technology. All the ZP canopies out were still in their first generation, and the jumping public was still getting. used to them.

Things have changed alot since then. Open canopy incidents have increased, and the trens has shown it has staying power. Canopies have been tweaked and developed through several generations of models. Of course, eductation is still pretty much the same, but hey, two out of three aint bad, right?

[ChrisL 2]

Maybe my post was so long that the main thust of my commentary got lost.

I wasnt asking what people thought of Chris wing loading :-)

My question was essentially:

Does anyone besides me think that the article could possibly be mis-interpreted to mean that Chris' first canopy was loaded conservatively?

I DO NOT want to give the impression that I am judging anything about Chris or his canopy choices, or even whether or not his first canopy was really loaded that high. I dont have the experience, knowledge, or wisdom to do any of the above.

The article does in fact state that he put his first thousand jumps on that Sabre 135. The rest is just math.

I think the way the article is worded could possibly be misinterpreted.
Thats what I was commenting on.

__

My mighty steed

[Newbie 0]

Quote

My question was essentially:

Does anyone besides me think that the article could possibly be mis-interpreted to mean that Chris' first canopy was loaded conservatively?

Yes, me. I thought the EXACT same thing when i read it in the bath last night but just forgot to post up when i got out. You beat me to it because i'd completely forgotten about it until i just saw this post now. I think there is probably some missing info. I imagine what he means by his "first 1000 jumps" are probably jumps from maybe jump number 100 or more onwards, as someone with that many jumps probably rounds things up and down a fair bit compared to you or i who only have 200 or so jumps. Thats what i put it down to, but yeah, i thought the same exact thing as you i.e. that it was quite odd to "appear" that he started on a canopy that had such a high wl.

"Skydiving is a door"
Happythoughts

[wmw999 2,120]

Reading his website, he seems to have started jumping when he was still a teenager, which almost certainly means that he weighed noticeably less than he does now. A 20-lb difference would mean a wing loading of about 1.15, which, if he bought it once he got off student status would not have been nearly as aggressive.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[ChrisL 2]

Quote

Reading his website, he seems to have started jumping when he was still a teenager, which almost certainly means that he weighed noticeably less than he does now. A 20-lb difference would mean a wing loading of about 1.15, which, if he bought it once he got off student status would not have been nearly as aggressive.

Wendy W.

That could well be the case, but Parachutist doesnt include any of that background info that would put the article information in proper perspective.

Based solely on the information contained in the article, I believe its possible to misinterpret this. Most people are not going to dig deeper or do any research into his student days and will just accept the article as fact.

Fact that seems to say that a 1.33 wing loading is both conservative and appropriate for a nivice jumper.

Thats my point.

__

My mighty steed

[hookitt 0]

I'll email chris this link and see if he'll comment on it himself. May take a couple days. If he doesn't post himself I'll paste what he wants me to.

Chris has always been conservative. By that I mean he was never radical. He has progressed to be a very good canopy pilot. He didn't go cross braced but that boy can sure fly a Stiletto when he wants too.

If I recall correctly (and I may not) he started on static line and back then he probably weighe a whole lot less.

Stay tuned!

My grammar sometimes resembles that of magnetic refrigerator poetry... Ghetto

[brianfry713 0]

Skydive Radio show #25 features Chris Salcone:
http://www.skydiveradio.com/shows.htm

He talks about freeflying, his progression into the sport, Davis and the PAC 750XL, and more.

You're right, he is a "very cool person and excellent skydiver".

[tbrown 26]

I haven't read the profile, so won't comment about Chris Salcone at all. But at least nowadays, wing loading aside, a 135 ft canopy is usually considered too small for anyone's first canopy, regardless of wing loading. A 1.15 WL under a 135 is NOT the same as a 1.15 WL under a 190. A 135 is simply a smaller wing with shorter lines and much quicker and more sensitive response to inputs. The stuff I've been reading says that even little guys & girls should never start with anything smaller than a 150.

But the guy may have just got started before all the incidents and debate over canopies got started and it would appear he's done just great.

Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !

[The111 0]

I also noticed the "my first canopy was a 135" thing and did a sort of double-take...

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[Airman1270 0]

As a side note, I think it would be somewhat interesting to feature dull, everyday (or every-other-month) jumpers such as myself; people who have achieved nothing that would attract your attention, but continue to jump out of airplanes because we can't imagine not doing so.

I've already practiced some of my potential answers to questions such as "What is the most bad-ass thing you can do in the sky?" (Achieve stability within five seconds of exit), or "Describe yourself in five words or less" (No, it can't be done.) Prepared I sit by the phone, waiting for Robin Heid to call. I wait some more...

Cheers,
Jon S.

[skybytch 259]

Quote

As a side note, I think it would be somewhat interesting to feature dull, everyday (or every-other-month) jumpers such as myself; people who have achieved nothing that would attract your attention, but continue to jump out of airplanes because we can't imagine not doing so.

I've seen several of those people featured over the years.

Quote

Prepared I sit by the phone, waiting for Robin Heid to call.

You're gonna be waiting a long time... the profiles in Parachutist are written by Brian Giboney.

On topic - I'd take the "conservative" comment to mean that he was conservative in staying with the same size and type of canopy for 1000 jumps - a conservative progression, not necessarily a conservative wingloading for a first canopy - unlike many people today who think that 100 jumps is sufficient to learn everything they possibly can under a particular wing.

[HydroGuy 0]

I took the article to mean "his" first canopy.

I don't expect Parachutist to ask individuals how much weight they've gained during their involvment with the sport...I don't think many female profilees (and probably some male as well) would really appreciate that question.

If the entire magazine is based around not confusing a newer jumper in any way, shape, or form - no matter how small the confusion may be - it would soon lose interest by anyone with over 50 jumps.

(is profilee a word, or did I make it up?)

Get in - Get off - Get away....repeat as neccessary

[murps2000 86]

He has progressed to be a very good canopy pilot. He didn't go cross braced but that boy can sure fly a Stiletto when he wants too.
***

Man, you got that right. He and that video guy Matt over at Davis do the baddest stiletto swoops I've ever seen. They made me realize that I never maxed out the stilettos I flew.

[gravitypowered 0]

Wow, what an amazing response to this thread! I'm glad people are paying attention to what they are reading and not just believing everything they read.

I actually haven't received my Parachutist yet so I don't remember what exact words I used to answer some of the profile questions. As for the "my first 1000 jumps on a Sabre 135" comment...My FIRST canopy that I owned when I had 30 jumps was a TurboZX 189 and I got the Sabre 135 when I had 200 jumps. I spent the next 800+ jumps on the Sabre before moving to a Stiletto 120 and I now jump a Stiletto 107.

I actually only weigh 5 pounds heavier than I did when I was on the 135 (but my gear weighs that many pounds lighter so it evens out!)

To get to the bottom of the real question, YES, a new jumper buying their first canopy would not be considered conservative on a 1.3 wing loading no matter the size canopy but espesially a smaller canopy like the 135. (The PD website lists this wing loading as "Expert" for a 135). I certainly was not an expert canopy pilot when I had 200 jumps and got my 135 but I had flown my 189 in many conditions, at different DZ elevations, using all sorts of control inputs (at high altitudes, of course).

I then spent the next 800+ jumps learning how to fly that non-elliptical canopy. I also learned high performance landings from straight in, to 90 degree, on up to 360 degree diving front riser turns on that canopy. I learned stalls, downwind landings, crosswind landings, and accuracy, and built confidence landing in tight spots or off-DZ landings. I did all this before downsizing ONE SIZE and changing to a higher performance Stiletto. This was what I considered a conservative progression.

This worked well for me and although I'm not winning swoop contests, I am enjoying flying a canopy that I trust in nearly any condition and can fly the crap out of. Will I downsize and move up in performance? Time will tell. What's the hurry...I intend to live long doing this sport and jumping ahead of myself is not a way to do that.

www.guanofreefly.com

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Will I downsize and move up in performance? Time will tell. What's the hurry...I intend to live long doing this sport and jumping ahead of myself is not a way to do that.

Well said!!

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[ChrisL 2]

Quote

Wow, what an amazing response to this thread! I'm glad people are paying attention to what they are reading and not just believing everything they read.

Chris,

Thanks for responding to the thread.

Its interesting to see how different people had different reactions to the information presented in the profile.

Most experienced jumpers almost unanimously assumed that there were simply gaps in the background info regarding your student progression and early jumps and that you didnt start jumping that 135 until you had some
experience.

My fear was that the inexperienced jumpers would make no such assumption and take the info at face value.

Thanks for filling in the gaps :-)

Chris

__

My mighty steed

[Elisha 1]

Quote

Quote

Will I downsize and move up in performance? Time will tell. What's the hurry...I intend to live long doing this sport and jumping ahead of myself is not a way to do that.

Well said!!

Ditto.

You (and Scott and Pete) got second at Nationals for FreeFlying. I don't think you have anything to prove.

If I don't have anyone to jump with at the American Boogie this year, you and Meeker are welcome to toss out of the back of the CASA again.

• Quote

[Zenister 0]

perhaps it might not be obvious, but a large number of people have followed what is considered (on DZ.com) a very aggressive canopy progression without incident or comment..

its the failures that get the attention.. the successes are ignored and unremarked, and yet some propose regulation based solely on the more spectacular and more obvious failures...

its what happens when you lack real data.....

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Airman1270 0]

Quote

Prepared I sit by the phone, waiting for Robin Heid to call.

You're gonna be waiting a long time... the profiles in Parachutist are written by Brian Giboney.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Thanks. I knew R.H. wasn't the guy who did the profile we're talking about here, but I didn't remember B.G.'s name. I used R.H. as an example because he's written some interesting profiles for SKYDIVING in the past.

Cheers,
Jon