CReW safety thoughts

[Nullified 0]

Hi everyone.

Some may feel that this post belongs in the CReW forum, and it does...it's there, too. It also belongs here.
I received this e-mail from Scott Miller, and with his permission, I'm posting it here.

Here we go;

Hi Mike,

Thanks for passing on the information about *****. I’m sending some good thoughts her way.

But first, I’m going to rant a little. And I’m sending this your way because I consider you a friend, and I think you’ll understand and forgive me for ranting. I also think that maybe you’re in a position to help improve the situation I’m going to rant about.

When ***** went through my canopy course at Sky’s The Limit in September, she had 83 jumps, was flying a Sabre 190, and listed her exit weight at 170 lbs. I got this information from the registration form she filled out.

That was five months ago. How many jumps has she made since then? It’s wintertime and she lives up North. Has she been jumping a whole lot? Has she made 100 jumps since September? Has she even made 50?



What the FUCK was she doing under a Lightning 126?



I’ve seen this happen more than once: a low-time jumper gets interested in CRW, and pretty soon her new CRW buddies want her to jump some ridiculously small canopy that she really has no business jumping, just so she will be at the “right” wing loading for CRW. Does anybody stop for a minute and consider the fact that you still have to land after a CRW jump? I understand the need for compatible canopies, but I also know that low-time jumpers make mistakes, and they need canopies that will allow them to survive those mistakes.

If someone like ***** showed up on the DZ and said “hey everyone, I’m going to jump a Stiletto 120,” what would happen? People would tell her she’s crazy. At least one or two experienced jumpers would probably spend the next 20 minutes with her explaining why that would be a bad idea. But if the same person says “I want to do CRW,” some “experienced” CRW dog will soon be telling her she needs a Lightning 126. Does this really make sense? Do people really think a Lightning loaded just under 1.4 to 1 is any safer than a Stiletto loaded just over 1.4 to 1? I think either one would be an equally bad idea for a low-time jumper. And by the way, I’ve jumped every size Stiletto and every size Lightning PD makes, but if someone disagrees with me about this I will be happy to sit down and listen to the person explain why. And if the person says “because the Stiletto is elliptical” I’ll probably piss my pants laughing.

I may be ranting like this because I feel a little guilty. When I met ***** in September, she told me she wanted to try CRW. I told her that it was a great idea. I told her that she would have fun, and learn a lot about flying a canopy. That’s what I always tell people about CRW.

I’m starting to re-think that advice, though. Maybe I should tell low-time jumpers to stay as far away from the CRW dogs as possible, until some of them pull their heads out of their asses and stop telling people like ***** they need to be under a 126 loaded at 1.38 to 1.

Mike, please feel free to post this message anywhere you want, or forward it to anyone you want to. It might piss some people off, but frankly I don’t care. These are my own opinions, not those of anyone I work for now or have worked for in the past, and I’m tired of being diplomatic about things like this.

I hope you stay involved in CRW, Mike, and I hope you have the chance to teach other people who want to try it. I also hope you agree with at least some of what I’ve written here, and keep it in mind. Low-time jumpers need relatively large, forgiving canopies. This fact does not change just because someone wants to learn CRW. If experienced CRW jumpers want to jump with low-timers, why not use larger canopies and give the low-timers half a chance to land safely?

Take care.

- Scott

If you're gonna' be stupid, well, then you're most likely stupid.

[PhreeZone 15]

I know the situation that you are talking about and yes... she had made over 100 jumps since September. See my incident post from yesterday for more current information about her jump numbers. She was more current then probally 80% of the people in the snow belt states. She had just made a trip to Zhills for a week in January since I hung out with her then.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[chuckbrown 0]

Scott makes some excellent points in general. But with respect to this specific incident the following was written by the injured jumper's CRW instructor & bears reading for its educational value as well:

From the CRW Dog list:

Just to clear up a few misconceptions of what happened to *****
before all
the Monday morning quarter backs are sending out advice on something
they
did not have all the facts on. ***** was on her 6th jump of the day
on
Saturday - all on a 126. When we are teaching new students (CRW or not)
we
tell them once they are below 500 feet they should be on approach -
preferable into the wind. They should have found the biggest clearing
possible and preferably the airport landing area. On that particular
jump
***** and one of her friends decided to make a stack when the main
group
broke off at 3,500 feet. Unfortunately while horsing around they turned
themselves too far upwind and by the time they broke off at 1,800 feet
and
were a mile up wind of the airport. Not wanting to land in a full
square
mile cow pasture with no obstacles but on the airport property they
continued down wind hoping to make it over the airport property line
fence.
Her friend started a slow turn at 100 - 150 feet to land crosswind.
****
thought she could do the same as her friend. It was obvious she could
not.

The first cause of this accident was the fact that two low time jumpers
were
horsing around after the main skydive was done. All the other students
followed the two CRW instructors back to the DZ and go to high five
after a
successful CRW jump.

The second cause of the accident was not paying attention to where you
are
relative to the DZ. All 10 other CRW jumpers on the load all landed in
the
designated DZ directly in front of the hanger. Had they paid attention
that
everyone else had turned downwind to head back to the drop zone this
accident would not have happened.

The third cause of the accident was to be flying down wind below 200 -
500
feet prior to landing. There was a 640 acre field (one square mile)
occupied
by 6 cows with no trees directly in front of the both of them. Not
wanting
to climb a barbed wire fence they continued back to the airport
property.
Seeing that they were both going to land out there were two 4 wheelers
already heading to pick them up. In fact one of the quads was 15 feet
from
final impact and watched the whole incident. Even if she would have
choose
to ride in the down wind landing and did a PLF injuries would have been
prevented.

And finally the fourth cause of the accident was to try to turn into
the
wind (using a hard steering toggle turn) at 50 feet - just after
crossing
over the property fence line. Her body hit the ground after the canopy
it
was such a violent turn.

This accident did not occur because of abilities nor because of wing
loading. It occurred because of bad judgment. **** had 5 stand up
landings under the 126 before this accident - one of which was a mile
and a
half from the DZ when her and ***** landed off. One that jump they
chose a
huge clearing and both landed without incident. Maybe because *****
and
***** had to walk a mile through the swamp distorted her judgment 3
jumps
later - only she knows. Yes she was 1.27 wing loaded. Her ability
warranted
that and she demonstrated that ability 5 times prior. The winds were 10
- 12
knots which are perfect landing conditions for these lightnings.

Now I do invite all the Monday morning quarter backs to throw in their
two
cents worth. I would suggest leaving out wing loading as a cause and
focus
on DZ awareness, landing patterns, final approaches, and flaring
techniques.
I will take some of the responsibility in this incident in the fact
that we
should have stressed to land into the wind and stress no more turns
under
200 -500 feet. Normally when a skydiver has more than 100 total jumps I
assume that they already know that. I will also take some of the
responsibility in not stressing the importance of DZ awareness and to
not be
horsing around with other low time CRW jumpers under the planned break
off
point. The rest of the responsibility needs to fall onto ******
herself for
not performing what she learned in her first AFF class.

End of post.

I would like to add my prayers for a speedy recovery.

Edited to add: While this jumper's name was in the original post, I deleted it after reading Nullified's reposting of Scott Miller's e-mail. It's my understanding that Nullified and the injured jumper were friends & jumped together. Since he refrained from using her name, I have deleted it as well out of respect for his feelings. Hope she recovers quickly.

[kelel01 1]

As a newbie myself, I have been told that the reason newbies (or lowtimers, in her case, I suppose) aren't supposed to fly small, zippy canopies isn't that 9 times out of 10 they couldn't land it . . . it's that when in a bad situation, they don't react as well. And that's what it sounds like happened here.

Just my newbie take on the situation.

Kelly

[chuckbrown 0]

A hard turn at 50 feet can seriously hurt you no matter what the wingloading. I think wingloading would be much more of an issue here if the jumper did not have the available out & was injured because she couldn't put her canopy in a tight off DZ landing area.

[gerryfuss 0]

Quote

aren't supposed to fly small, zippy canopies isn't that 9 times out of 10 they couldn't land it . . . it's that when in a bad situation, they don't react as well. And that's what it sounds like happened here

I think that may be the bottom line. You want to say wing loading is not a factor but in the situation that she was under a larger canopy and did everything the same, she would be more likely not to be hurt as badly or maybe at all. Doesn't that justify wing loading to be a factor?

[chuckbrown 0]

My point is that a hard toggle turn at 50 feet is the wrong move no matter what wingloading. If you absolutely, positively have to turn at that altitude it's better to do a flat turn so the canopy doesn't dive.

[kelel01 1]

I see and agree with your point-- fact is, though, that it seems that a newbie is more prone to making this error, hence the lighter wingloading and less aggressive canopies.

I made an error very similar to this while I was still on AFF, scared the absolute shit out of everyone, and walked away from it, in large part due to my lightly loaded low-performance canopy.

Again, just my newbie view of the situation-- take with a salt-mine's worth of salt.

Kelly

[Nullified 0]

Quote

My point is that a hard toggle turn at 50 feet is the wrong move no matter what wingloading. If you absolutely, positively have to turn at that altitude it's better to do a flat turn so the canopy doesn't dive.

That's not really the point. Nobody is claiming that the canopy is at fault. The point that Scott is trying to make is that, why is putting someone under a Lightning 126 any wiser than putting that same person under another canopy at that WL?

This incident prompted the e-mail, but discussing whether low turns are bad or not, is not the issue.

Stay safe,
Mike

If you're gonna' be stupid, well, then you're most likely stupid.

[NeedToJump 0]

Quote

Now I do invite all the Monday morning quarter backs to throw in their two cents worth. I would suggest leaving out wing loading as a cause and focus on DZ awareness, landing patterns, final approaches, and flaring techniques.

Wingloading a certainly a cause in this, it may not be the biggest cause but if is a cause. Under a smaller canopy a jumper has less time to react as the canopy comes down out of the sky faster and da smaller canopy is also less forgiving of a mistake.

Would this jumper have been hurt under a larger canopy? Probably, but this jumper probably would not have been hurt as much. There also would have been more time under canopy to decide what to do.

I agree that DZ awareness, landing patterns, final approaches, flaring techniques, etc. are the main causes in this situation. However, as Kelly pointed out, it's not that she couldn't handle that wingloading in good situations, it's that she couldn't hanlde it in this particular situation.

Wind Tunnel and Skydiving Coach http://www.ariperelman.com

[PhreeZone 15]

At what point do you let the person make their own judgement on the canopy that they are flying? At 175+ jumps most people are switching to their own canopy at about a 1.3 wingloading anyways. While this is faster then is ideal, its the facts of today's pilots that they downsize too fast and usually pay for it later.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[davelepka 4]

I have seen varying info on the WL, from 1.38 to 1.27. I'm not sure which is correct, but one fact being left out is the behavior of a 126 at 1.27 and a 176 at 1.27 are two different things. The shorter line set of a 126 will cause the canopy to react more quickly to inputs, and be more radical as the result of those inputs.

Another point is that CRW canopies are not known for their easy landings. In comparison to the Sabre 190 this student was jumping, a Lightning 126 seems like a VERY poor choice of canopy. Aside from a drasitc increase in wing loading, it represents a major change in the planform. How much experience did this jumper have with a 7-cell? (I'm not sure of the canopy itslef, but the fabric may been F-111, which would be another new factor).

Indeed errors were made by the jumper. Part of being a low time jumper, especially at an organized 'camp' is relying on the expertice of the instructors.

Five succesful landings hardly qualifies this jumper for that canopy nor do they show that this was a good reccomendation of canopy size. The conditions were not mentioned in the 'report' but I would guess that five succesful landings means they were on field (which is how people witnessed them) and the fact that six jumps were made indicates good weather throughout the day.

Canopies should not be selected based on what a jumper can hadle in a 'best case scenario' landing, which it seems the first five were. Canopy selection needs to be based on what the jumper can handle in less than ideal conditions. If those conditions are a result of the weather, the spot, or jumper error (as newer jumpers are prone to) is not relevant.

[chuckbrown 0]

Mike, first off I'm truly sorry for your friend. My point was in response to the incident report which indicates a hard low turn at 50 feet. Chuck.

[davelepka 4]

I agree with your point, but as Scott Miller indicated, in Sept, she was jumping a Sabre 190. For her, downsizing would be a 170 or 150. In addition, the Lightning was a new planform for her, which only furthers the thoery that this was VERY poor canopy selection.

[PhreeZone 15]

All this should be moved to the incidents fourm...

But a 7 cell planform was not new to her at all. She purchased a Hybrid Tri 160 at 1.06:1 and was jumping it all this winter and had a put a lot of jumps on it since September. She also had been jumping Lightnings before because I helped her hook a ZP Lightning 126 up to her container just about a month ago and she jumped it then for a week in FL.

Yes, she probally should have been on a L143 with some lead...

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[davelepka 4]

There's some consice and useful info.

I do agree that the 143 may have been a better choice. Actually the 160 would have been ideal, and jumping with people at a similar loading to elimiate (or minnimize) the need for lead.

[DJL 232]

50 feet is 50 feet and she made the choice to try for 180 turn. The canopy hit before she did, according to a witness. If she were up by one or even two sizes then what? She might have been just under the canopy in its arc into the ground? What good would that do? The other jumper with her made a cross-wind landing and was alright. Maybe she wasn't ready for a L126 but the cause and effect don't seem to have much to do with each other. You could say she wasn't ready for it if she hit some turbulence or tried to avoid something and hooked in. But she had been jumping this canopy and had been doing CRW so it wasn't like she opened at 2.5k and didn't have time to wring it out. True, a size up with lead would be better for a new jumper (It's what I do) but it wasn't the cause of this incident.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[Nullified 0]

I know that all aspects of this are going to end up being discussed, but the point of Scott's e-mail was to question our general approach to wing loadings with regard to low time jumpers learning CReW. Nobody is saying that a low turn is good in any situation.

As this incident has found it's way to the incident forum, I would appreciate it if on forum, we can stay focused on the WL approach, and not make this about low turns.

Stay safe,
Mike

If you're gonna' be stupid, well, then you're most likely stupid.

[Nullified 0]

Chuck, thank you.

Stay safe,
Mike

Quote

Mike, first off I'm truly sorry for your friend. My point was in response to the incident report which indicates a hard low turn at 50 feet. Chuck.

If you're gonna' be stupid, well, then you're most likely stupid.

[davelepka 4]

The argument could have been made that a larger canopy would have put her higher up when she reached the DZ, and with the reduced turn rate and reduced loss of altitude in a trun, the outcome may have been different.

This incident is similar to the kid who hooked it in under the Stilletto 190 when he had under 100 jumps. The argument was made both ways that it would have happened on a different canopy, or that a different canopy would have changed the outcome.

The point is that we heard about that incident, and we heard about this incident. Why? Becasue somebody was hurt or killed. How often would you guess that this same scenario is played out, but the turn is just high enough to avoid an incident? Probably fairly often.

I see this happen several times a season, but it never goes beyond some talking to of the jumper. Nobody reports the close calls that trun out OK. So the conclusion that a different canopy wouldn't have changed the outcome is unsubstatiated. The fact that experienced and informed jumpers looked to the canopy selection as a signifiacnt contributing factor in both incidents can be substantiated (it's in writing).

I'll stand by my assertion that the canopy selection was a signifactly contributing factor in this incident, and a more appropriate canopy would have lessened the severity or eliminated this incident altogether.

[tiigra 0]

Girls (and guys that don´t weight much) have to be extra careful when they try crew:

It´s always the same: Experienced crw-jumpers want to fly their regular small canopies they are most used to. Therefore they try to make the newbie jump a far too small canopy, and maybe also with lead.
If you don´t jump the small canopy, you can´t jump with them and they will think you are stupid. I think it´s important for new crw-jumpers to be aware of this attitude and be prepared to say no if they get invited to such jumps, even if the crw-jumpers try to say 'it´s ok'.

In crw, landing out is rather common.
When landing out, lead is not so nice... And not having a too small canopy either.

Maybe you want to downsize one day. But doing that on a crw-canopy with bad landing characteristic isn´t the right way.
If you do a bunch of crew-jumps you´re going to land out sooner or later - you don´t want your crw-canopy to be smaller than the normal canopies you jump and land on the dropzone landing area!

CRW is really cool, it´s great fun, but jump a canopy size you are used too!!

[faulknerwn 36]

Most of my teaching of newbies is on their original canopies. You can do a lot of good CRW with Triathalons and Spectres, and until you get to larger formations, you can mix wing-loadings without too much trouble. I remember a diamond we built once where the only 2 experienced people flew a Lightning 113 and 126, as wings under a F111 PD 190, with a Prodigy 200 docking 4th and a Maverone I believe stinging the tail. It flew fine.

Once you get to doing bigger ways, canopy size and wing-loading are more important, but I have done a lot of CRW with my 113 with everything from 290 square foot canopies to smaller ones. I've been teaching CRW recently to one girl who's on a Spectre 150 yet weighs less than me.

Yes, once you get them to the point they're more comfortable with canopy control, you can consider downsizing them slowly, but CRW Lightnings are not the only safe canopy to teach CRW on.

As far as type of canopy - I could get away with a lot of stuff on my Lightning 113 than I could on a Stilletto 120. I could do lower toggle turns and get that canopy back above my head MUCH faster than a Stilletto. If I had to land in a tight spot, I'd much rather be on my Lightning than a faster 9-cell. I'd rather have a newbie be on the slower 7-cell than the faster 9 cell when landing off.

The 2 canopies most recently I jumped recently to compare would be a Diablo 88 and a Cobalt 85. Night and day difference - I can shut down the Diablo when I need to with a much shorter runway. I can do lower turns, be more radical, and get away with it. I have to be much more precise on the Cobalt.

If I had a choice safety-wise for younger jumpers say (and this being the only consideration - not openings etc), I'd much rather see them on a Spectre than a Sabre 2 of the same size. The Spectre allows one to get away with more mistakes. I've got ~1500 jumps on Lightnings, lcose to 800 or so on other 7-cells (mainly a Diablo 88 and a Triathalon 99), and ~1000 on ellipticals varying in size between 75-105 sq ft. As a general all-purpose canopy, I'd rather see someone with 20 jumps on the _modern_ 7-cell any day of the week.

[sducoach 0]

Eric,

Why don't you explain the difference between the 126 and a 143 with lead?

We are talking about wing loading are we not?

Blues,

J.E.

James 4:8

[PhreeZone 15]

Well, its more then just the wing loading. The smaller canopy has shorter lines that make it react faster. The Lightnings are already short lined canopies that are twitchy for squares. A slightly larger canopy will dull some of that out a little bit even at the same wingloading. A 1.2 wingloading on a 97 feels very different then a 1.2 loading on a 230.

Chosing to jump a larger canopy and add lead will also give the option of dialing in the wingloading better since you can add or remove some lead as desired to a point to get the loadings flying close enough but you can still be at a lower loading then the rest of the group pretty easily.

For instance I used to have a Lightning 160 I'd jump with out anything, or I'd jump a Lightning 176 with about 14 pounds lead. I'd lose a few pounds of lead if I'd sink on the last jump.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[velo90 0]

I think what faulknerwn said in an earlier post was rather interesting. It matched very well to what happened when I did a CReW course 2 years ago.

I was new to CReW and had about 300 jumps. At the time I was jumping a stiletto 135. My exit weight is 171 lbs. What type of canopy was I given? A PD lightning 160. My instructor was jumping what he normally jumps and our wing loads certainly did not match. But this was no problem. We did not need matching wing loads, it was after all a course and not competition.

Whether a larger canopy would have helped the person who was injured is speculation, but I am sure it would not have made things worse. There is simpley no justification for putting someone with low jump numbers on a high wing loading.