Recommended Posts
faulknerwn 37
Quote
If working on larger formations (I'm talking about say, 12-ways) what do you feel that the +/- area that wing loadings should remain within is? If someone were loading a 143 at ~1:1, and were wearing weights to bring their loading to ~1.2, would this satisfy compatability issues?
[/reply[
That would most likely work. In our big ways, we often have different weightings in different parts of the formation. The center line is often heavier loaded to keep it flying forward, the pilot is often slightly lighter to keep the formation floaty.
Certainly a dive could be engineered where 1.2-1.3 wing loadings would work.
Especially on smaller-sized dives it shouldn't be an issue. The 92 world record had a wide variety of canopies in it - it was in the upper 30's if I remember correctly. It can be done.
I'm not sure of the experience level of the camp in Florida. Of the people that I know who were there, all had been doing CRW at several other camps at least, and I would have qualified them as not truly "beginner." I don't know if there were any true beginners there, but of the 4 relative newbies that I knew there, all had been to 3-4 of these camps before. All had been jumping Lightnings for at least a while before.
My opinion is certainly that you learn more on smaller formations. I learned most of my CRW doing 2 ways - mainly with newbies on a wide variety of canopies which taught me how to fly my canopies in all sorts of different speeds and such. Certainly 2 and 4 way sequential is a great learning tool. At this camp I know they did multiple point 4-ways with 3 relative novices and a coach.
If it was a true beginner's camp, we rarely go beyond an 8-way. At this last camp there were more people there who were ready to be challenged with something bigger.
QuoteIf it was a true beginner's camp, we rarely go beyond an 8-way. At this last camp there were more people there who were ready to be challenged with something bigger.
Just to clarify some points. The jump in question was not a 12 way. There were about 11-12 CRW participants in the air, but they were spread between 2 different groups. The largest formation attempted and built at the camp was a 9-way diamond on the last jump Sunday.
The jumps were kept relatively small and simple to build skills. There were really only 2 participants who could have been called beginners (very few to no CRW jumps). Both of these individuals were kept at very low wingloadings until they showed that they were capable of flying something smaller/heavier. The rest of the participants had atleast 50 CRW jumps, or atleast had several hundred skydives of experience.
QuoteJust to clarify some points. The jump in question was not a 12 way. There were about 11-12 CRW participants in the air, but they were spread between 2 different groups. The largest formation attempted and built at the camp was a 9-way diamond on the last jump Sunday.
The jumps were kept relatively small and simple to build skills. There were really only 2 participants who could have been called beginners (very few to no CRW jumps). Both of these individuals were kept at very low wingloadings until they showed that they were capable of flying something smaller/heavier. The rest of the participants had atleast 50 CRW jumps, or atleast had several hundred skydives of experience.
Vadim,
Thanks for clearing up a few things.
You all need to understand, I'm not a wingload nazi, and I'm not questioning the judgment of these particular instructors or commenting directly on this specific camp or incident. My observations and thoughts are much more 'in general'.
So, in general...
Most of us probably agree that there's more to determining whether or not someone is ready for a particular wingloading than observing a few landings under another canopy under pleasant conditions.
There have been several posts by many people on these forums addressing suggested agenda to meet when considering downsizing, especially when changing planforms is part of the equation.
I think that is something to consider when determining what size canopy to suggest to someone for any reason. Because of the compatability requirements for certain CReW formations, in general we tend to be less rigid regarding how we determine what canopy we recommend to people. I'm not an instructor, and I certainly am no expert, but I've been guilty of this as well. I've never suggested a high wingloading to low number jumpers who've approached me about CReW, but I certainly haven't deterred them from higher loadings as well as I probably should have, considering that if the canopy in question had been a Sabre2 with a similar loading, I would have been more vocal.
Hey, nobody's perfect and there are always ways to improve everything.
I think this a good discussion, and I don't feel that there's any reason for anyone to feel insulted, offended or attacked by these issues being questioned and further discussed.
Thanks, everyone.
Stay safe,
Mike
If you're gonna' be stupid, well, then you're most likely stupid.
QuoteBecause of the compatability requirements for certain CReW formations, in general we tend to be less rigid regarding how we determine what canopy we recommend to people.
That is very true. For those people who are not aware, CRW has very unique requirements that are not present in any other discipline. There has to be some standardization with CRW canopies so that the discipline is not confined to 1 DZ or a small group of people. While some CRW dogs might have several different size canopies to match the particular dive, most people know that if you have a Lightning loaded at 1.3-1.4, you can fly with most CRW dogs in the US flying Lightnings. As Kirk pointed out on the CRWDog mailing list, you also need to maintain an adaquate wingloading to get the canopy to fly properly (pressurization and flight performance).
This leads to a very difficult choice for instructors. Do you turn away newbies who want to participate in the greatest discipline of skydiving? Or do you allow them to jump a wingloading several points (0.1lbs/sq.ft) higher than you would otherwise allow? I am not an instructor or qualified to answer that question, but it is certainly an important part of the discipline. The required wingloading also forces a lot of women and lighter guys to fly 126's.
Mixing wingloadings isn't fun. During the camp, I was asked to flying my Lightning at 1.4 WL with a group closer 1.05 (instructor and 2 newbies). I had to stay in half brakes just to stay up with them. I had no efficiency left in flight, and had no control inputs left to try and approach the formation. So what happens if you try to segregate wingloadings? You get the CRW experts flying their canopies at 2.0, and the newbies flying at 1.0, and you lose a lot of learning and safety from not having experts instructing the less experienced people.
I certainly do not have the answer to this problem, but I am hoping that we can continue to have this discussion so that something good comes out of it.
What I think should be an integral part of CRW training should be turn awareness. One of the things that I see, and have done myself, is initiate turns that are not appropriate for what I am trying to do in the air. A hard toggle turn behind a formation will lead to a hard dive and a lot of altitude loss. I do braked turns all of the time in the air, and have learned that you can lose less than the height of a formation in a 180° turn if you use the right control inputs. For CRW, we should also be taught how to initiate and stop turns on a dime, as well as how much altitude is lost during each type of turn. Sure, we all get the control input briefing when we start, but we rarely talk about stuff like that. During this last camp, the instructors did point out stuff like that during the video debriefs when it was obvious someone was over turning. Turn dynamics are a very important part of CRW and canopy flight, and I think CRW should focus a lot as much attention on turn dynamics as it does on riser inputs.
faulknerwn 37
Quote
Mixing wingloadings isn't fun. During the camp, I was asked to flying my Lightning at 1.4 WL with a group closer 1.05 (instructor and 2 newbies). I had to stay in half brakes just to stay up with them. I had no efficiency left in flight, and had no control inputs left to try and approach the formation.
When you have a variety of mixed wing-loadings, you definitely have to be much more disciplined. Generally if I'm heavier than everyone else, I stay way out in front of the formation, and ride full brakes. That way they don't outrun when I'm in brakes and they're not. If I head straight back to the formation I'm hosed.
[reply[
So what happens if you try to segregate wingloadings? You get the CRW experts flying their canopies at 2.0, and the newbies flying at 1.0, and you lose a lot of learning and safety from not having experts instructing the less experienced people.
Yes and no. The majority of Lightning owners in the US at least jump them in the range of ~1.3-1.4. Its unusual to jump dramatically higher than that, and the people that do usually have a more typically sized canopy to jump when they do bigger formations. A 2.0 wing-loading would be EXTREMELY unusual over here.
As far as turn dynamics is concerned, you definitely need to think about it. If I'm approaching the formation and high, I'll do a more dramatic toggle turn usually. Sometimes if I'm right around my slot, I'll do a half-braked turn. If I am low, I'll do a full-braked turn so I can gain altitude on the formation when I turn. Most imporantly watch where you are going!
W
Scrumpot 1
QuoteThe 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.
Well then, what do YOU think Mike, in response to this? ...You got the letter, and then you posted it here. But I haven't seen your response or further thoughts yet as to it all.
Are CReW dogs and sub-say 300-400 jump total jump wonders mutually incompatable based upon what Scotty is saying? What would the alternatives to taking a 150 jump, jumper who wanted to do CReW and putting them under a lightning 126 at 1.3x-1 be? Do you guys otherwise routinely have some instead "upsize" canopies for yourselves handy so that the low-time jumper can match-up better with you in the air (understood to be ideal ....but is it also critical?), so that they are not faced with dealing with that loading when potentially landing in an otherwise potentially non-ideal situation arises?? Are CReW dogs as a result otherwise inherently putting lower-time total jump # jumpers in greater potential peril than they need to be in?
You are right. Scott seems to be making some valid observations here specifically as it relates to the handling of these jumpers by already EXPERIENCED CReW dogs. I am not a CReW dog, which is why I am now asking you. What is your honest assessment and I guess reaction/input as to those observations? How do we then deal with and further then learn something from this? Is the answer an established minimum # of jumps and/or perhaps some sort of canopy compitency (or landing) standard needing to be evidenced BEFORE being able to participate in CReW as such??
Your CReW experienced perspective on this and inupt would be appreciated.
Blue Skies,
-Grant
coitus non circum - Moab Stone
QuoteWell then, what do YOU think Mike, in response to this? ...You got the letter, and then you posted it here. But I haven't seen your response or further thoughts yet as to it all.
Actually, I have posted some other thoughts in this thread.
QuoteAre CReW dogs and sub-say 300-400 jump total jump wonders mutually incompatable based upon what Scotty is saying?
No, not at all. As several people have mentioned in this forum and the CReWDog mailing list, having more precisely matched canopies becomes a greater issue as the size and / or complexity of the formation increases. For more experienced jumpers, this wouldn't be an issue as they are more prepared to deal with higher wing loadings.
The safety issue of wing loading becomes relavent when we're discussing people who are fairly new jumpers.
For these people, maybe that means that they aren't able to participate in a 9-way diamond. Is this really a bad thing? Maybe it means that they're going to end up spending more time honing their approach and docking skills or piloting skills.
Maybe the approach is to have several different types of camps.
In the RW world there are several different level skills camps available. Some are open to all, and others have prerequisites. The prerequisites can vary.
As everyone is aware, the CReW community is quite small compared with other disciplines, and there are only a handful of people who are qualified to safely instruct and coach a skills camp, and they only have so much time. This makes it a bit more difficult to have coaches and organizers available, and would make it very difficult to begin splitting up all the various skill levels of participants for camps.
As with many things, coming up with a good and realistically implementable solution is not always as easy as we'd like.
I don't have the answer, and that's why I've brought this it. Hopefully this discussion will continue, and maybe in the process we'll be able to come up with a good solution.
Stay safe,
Mike
If you're gonna' be stupid, well, then you're most likely stupid.
relyon 0
The jumper involved in the unfortunate incident that prompted this and several other threads is out of the hospital and recuperating at home. They've taken the time to write an e-mail regarding the incident and their recovery progress, and have given their permission to post it on dropzone.com. See here.
Bob
Bob
Scrumpot 1
Cross-posted here, ...from the Canopy Relative Work Board accordingly:
Exerpted from the full text of the letter contained over there:
Although I think it is admirable that this jumper is accepting culpability for him/(her?)self, I do still find myself somewhat disagreeing, and now asking again of you Mike (and/or others), for further opinion on this statement.
If instead for instance this jumper actually was under a "gigantic" canopy (let alone reasonable for their weight & wingloading vs. experience level) would not most likely the injuries sustained as a result of the (presumed) "panic turn" been most likely at least somewhat mitigated? This jumper very nearly died from the sounds of it here! ...Granted, that a panic turn, or any low turn close to the ground on any canopy can indeed injure or kill. However, on a higher wing-loaded canopy, the direness of the results, experience and observation tells me, would be also most likely and conversely therefore "amplified" too accordingly ...would they not?
I do still think this issue, or component of the issue is in fact, relevant. ...Comments?
Best wishes for a speedy and hopefully FULL recovery <<>> to this jumper.
-Grant
Exerpted from the full text of the letter contained over there:
QuoteWingloading wasn't an issue on this accident. I could have been under a gigantic canopy, and the same results would have still occured.
Although I think it is admirable that this jumper is accepting culpability for him/(her?)self, I do still find myself somewhat disagreeing, and now asking again of you Mike (and/or others), for further opinion on this statement.
If instead for instance this jumper actually was under a "gigantic" canopy (let alone reasonable for their weight & wingloading vs. experience level) would not most likely the injuries sustained as a result of the (presumed) "panic turn" been most likely at least somewhat mitigated? This jumper very nearly died from the sounds of it here! ...Granted, that a panic turn, or any low turn close to the ground on any canopy can indeed injure or kill. However, on a higher wing-loaded canopy, the direness of the results, experience and observation tells me, would be also most likely and conversely therefore "amplified" too accordingly ...would they not?
I do still think this issue, or component of the issue is in fact, relevant. ...Comments?
Best wishes for a speedy and hopefully FULL recovery <<
-Grant
coitus non circum - Moab Stone
Hi Grant.
I don't disagree with Bubbles in that she made the mistake that put her in the hospital, but I do disagree with her regarding the results.
To say that under a gigantic canopy the sane results would've occured is like saying that under a smaller canopy the resluts wouldn't have been worse. If this were the case, then downsizing would never be an issue. We could all just buy tiny canopies fresh out of AFF.
Every canopy is dangerous, but a larger canopy is going to do less damage than a smaller canopy if the same mistake is made.
Bubbles almost died. If she had been flying a 113, the damage would've been greater. If she had been under a VX46, well, that's the idea.
Grant, this isn't directed towards you, but I'm finding it really sad that most people seem to be more concerned with the way the e-mail was written than about the topic of the e-mail.
Some people have gone past the heated tone of the words and addressed the issue, but most haven't.
Stay safe,
Mike
If you're gonna' be stupid, well, then you're most likely stupid.
I don't disagree with Bubbles in that she made the mistake that put her in the hospital, but I do disagree with her regarding the results.
To say that under a gigantic canopy the sane results would've occured is like saying that under a smaller canopy the resluts wouldn't have been worse. If this were the case, then downsizing would never be an issue. We could all just buy tiny canopies fresh out of AFF.
Every canopy is dangerous, but a larger canopy is going to do less damage than a smaller canopy if the same mistake is made.
Bubbles almost died. If she had been flying a 113, the damage would've been greater. If she had been under a VX46, well, that's the idea.
Grant, this isn't directed towards you, but I'm finding it really sad that most people seem to be more concerned with the way the e-mail was written than about the topic of the e-mail.
Some people have gone past the heated tone of the words and addressed the issue, but most haven't.
Stay safe,
Mike
If you're gonna' be stupid, well, then you're most likely stupid.
Wendy,
If working on larger formations (I'm talking about say, 12-ways) what do you feel that the +/- area that wing loadings should remain within is? If someone were loading a 143 at ~1:1, and were wearing weights to bring their loading to ~1.2, would this satisfy compatability issues?
Also, and I'm not implying that there is an absolute right or wrong answer to this, I think we should ask ourselves what is the immediate and short term goal of these CReW camps.
What I mean is, is it necessary in every case to finish the camp with everyone in a single formation with many of the participants pushing the limit of their brand new abilities? I'm not criticizing this practice. Just wondering if maybe it would make more sense in some casesto stick with less complex formations and concentrate on honing the new skills rather than trying to engineer the largest most complex dive for the camp to go out in a bang with?
As someone expressed on the mailing list, these camps are not about training for the next world record, but about teaching basic skills and how to safely use them.
Nobody needs to be held back. If there are intermediate participants, I'm sure that there are other skills that can be worked on. Maybe an intro to 4-way sequential. May be an intro to top docking.
I appreciate that finishing these camps with a bang is a wonderful thing. It's a great sense of accomplishment and pride for the instructors and participants.
It's not my intention to insult the instructors who run these camps. I have a great deal of respect for them. But, there are always ways to improve things, and that begins with discussion.
What do you think?
Stay safe,
Mike
If you're gonna' be stupid, well, then you're most likely stupid.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites