mikeat10500 9 #151 April 29, 2003 QuoteSure, Mostly a Monarch 135 (my first canopy, I put 501 jumps on it) @ 1.39:1 Wow...I would have killed myself on that...or at least broke something! ...mike----------------------------------- Mike Wheadon B-3715,HEMP#1 Higher Expectations for Modern Parachutists. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #152 April 29, 2003 No injuries. My worst landing ever was under the Monarch. A hook turn over (and into) a pond at Murtle Beach, completely surrounded by condos, zero outs. Learned about making good decisions that day. Hook Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
aneblett 0 #153 April 29, 2003 Quote Another couple of interesting tidbits to add to the mix would be the number of low turn incidents you've witnessed... and how many funerals you've attended or how many people you'll never get to jump with again because of them. Only 2 on my DZ (it is quite small) and both were by the same person. The first time was under a PD210 if I had to guess I would say that he weighs in at 185 or less. Did a low turn (slowly I might add) and got away with smacking his knee on the ground. I was laying on my stomach in my tent watching the landing area. What an interesting perspective that was. That was almost his last jump (july I think) last season. His knee still isn't right, he gets it scoped in July of this year. This year he gets a new canopy, refuses to jump his old one until he is current and pulls almost the same move on his new Sabre2 170. this time he landed on his ass. lucky if you ask me. I don't know if anyone has spoken to him yet. I wasn't there to see the jump but I saw the video and it brougnt back memories of the first time. AgeS.E.X. party #2 ..It is far worse to live with fear, than to die confronting it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
aneblett 0 #154 April 29, 2003 ***But when you think you are better quailfied to make choices than people who have MUCH more EXP than you...well thats a lot of ego there.... *** Ego is a problem for me too sometimes. Not mine but the ones of the people that are supposed to be giving advice. I have determined that often just because someone has way more jumps than you doesn't make me want to listen to what they have to say. There are people at my DZ whose opinions that I value and others that I will listen to but not necessarily act on before running by the people that I trust. And no I don't just trust them because they tell me what I want to hear, but because there is never any guile, ego,condescension or anything but genuine concern for my well being and progression when they talk to me. AgeS.E.X. party #2 ..It is far worse to live with fear, than to die confronting it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rmsmith 1 #155 April 29, 2003 QuoteWhat worries me is that someone out there just might be blinded by the dollar signs... Actually, it's always about money. For example, the roads are filled with elderly folks who couldn't pass a simple review in an automobile simulator, but they're still out there. One dealer might refuse to sell an automobile, but the next dealer will complete the sale. As for the driving public's risk? That's what insurance is all about. On the books, it is worth the risk to have the elderly behind the wheel. Sure, we loose some folks, but overall the economy gains ground, and the elderly have mobility. The same logic applies to everything in a market based system. It's nothing personal, just business! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #156 April 29, 2003 So do you think that I don't have the interests of people in my mind and hart? I am sick of hot shot, low time ego maniacs that think they know it all better than everyone. These people refuse to listen to the voice of experience....And are doomed to make every mistake for themselves...The difference is that they are not living through the mistakes like we used to. Canopy selection based on ego, not skill is the largest single contributor to the fatalities page...And how many more are serouisly injured every year affecting not only them, but all of those that care for them, and all of us that have to pay more for medical care, insurance...ect. If you look at the "master swoopers" you will see that they took a very simple step progression to get where they are. There are no short cuts. What makes these hot shots think that they are better than these masters and can progress faster? Ego thats all... And yes I think that we own it to let them live long enough to have more knowledge so they can make an informed choice. If regulation is the only way to do that...Fine with me. Like I have said before...Thats why there are min pull altitudes in the SIM. Do these affect some peoples right to chose their own destiny...Yep, but you don't hear people bitching about them. I am all about letting people jump what they want...AFTER they have learned enough to handle it. But then now we have to be able to certify that they do know what they are doing...And it has to be the same standard everywhere. Thats a lot more work. It is already clear that some DZO's don't care....Some restrict to much, I bet some don't have a clue. Under the simple to use jump # to wingload....Injuries should go down...Fatalities should go down....And I think most peoples skills will go up...These hot shots want small so fast that they don't learn everything they can under the canopy that they have now before they downsize. Skills can be learned under any size canopy. And they can always get that X braced pocket rocket 99....After 500 jumps. What is the damn rush? Like it or not...regulation is going to come... I am for it. I would hope that we can make an easy to use...Simple to understand program. Not everyone will like it, but I bet people bitched about the min pull altitudes when they came out as well. I plan on pitching this idea to the USPA. You 100 jump wonders that don't like it...Pitch against it. I am not worried about your input, I welcome it. And then if it happens and you don't like it...Get 500 jumps and then go kill yourselves. Education is not working. Ron"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tonto 1 #157 April 29, 2003 On my DZ no-one with under 100 jumps can jump a canopy smaller than a 170 without CI consent. If you're little and chat to the CI, then wing loading and performance becomes the decieding factor. After 100 dives it's up to (un)common sense and peer pressure - but we seem to be doing an OK job. People are happy and alive (But we still have the odd 1000 jump plus hammer in...) tIt's the year of the Pig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Unstable 8 #158 April 29, 2003 Well spoken response, Ron, Clearly you have devolped a well thought out set of ideas. I compleatly agree with your viewpoint, putting wingloading restrictions into the BSR's would make a change for the better, and the simple Dutch plan discussed in this thread would please even the most performance oriented jumpers. I have never seen for myself a 100- jump wonder, i don't think they exist, but as for myself, I'll keep 1:1 for quite a while, there is no rush, and I have MANNNNY more jumps til i know it all. - s. smith "why didn't the pirate go visit his mother?" "A: Because she lived too fAAARRGH away"=========Shaun ========== Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikeat10500 9 #159 April 29, 2003 QuoteOn my DZ no-one with under 100 jumps can jump a canopy smaller than a 170 without CI consent. If you're little and chat to the CI, then wing loading and performance becomes the decieding factor. t This is the reason I would like the DZO's to make and enforce their own rules. Every DZ and jumper is unique and so is every situation. They would ( and do now) have the option to decide who does what. USPA would not have to make new BSR's if the DZO's could at least curb the problem. Like Hook said the FAA won't get involved (until we are knee deep in our own dead). It is not the fatality rate of today that concerns me...it's the next ten years! ...mike----------------------------------- Mike Wheadon B-3715,HEMP#1 Higher Expectations for Modern Parachutists. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sfc 0 #160 April 29, 2003 Couldn't agree with you more. We have a good DZ manager that doesn't let us do really stupid things (at least as far as the skydiving bit goes) and I've never heard anyone getting upset, it's based on common sense, no written rules or anything, as a result we don't have any 100 jumper wonders on postage stamps, I and most of the other swoopers have hit the ground a little too hard on occasion, but none of us have been carried off in an ambulance, that would not have been the case if the wingloadings had been higher. But it sounds like some form of self regulation is required given the increasing injury/fatality trend and the increasing availability of HP canopies. Jump numbers are the only thing to go by, no-one complains about the licence requirements and they are tied to jump numbers, it makes sense to use a metric that everyone understands and is easy to measure. Ultimately it will be up to the DZ to enforce the rule, but having a recomendation from the USPA will provide a consistant standard which DZs can use to make judgements on. And the other thing is that you don't need a hankie to get decent swoops, if you practice enough you can make almost anything swoop, [brag] I managed to get 200+ ft on my 135 @ 1.33:1 on a gentle downwinder and stand it up [/brag] Me 1.33:1 @ 839 jumps. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cajones 0 #161 April 29, 2003 With "Swan Lake" playing in the background... If that is your worst landing, ever, you'll be just fine. Looked like it hurt your pride more than anything. The laws of physics are strictly enforced. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mickee 0 #162 April 29, 2003 I read this tread and was kind of surprised that there is no regulation at all on wingloading in the US. Here in Sweden we have quite hard rules on this subject... I feel that the rules are a bit too restrictive, but they clearly cuts down on accidents on newbies. I attached the swedish weight/size regulation, if anyone is interested... The numbers in bold are the recommended size, the numbers in parenthesis are the absolute smallest sized main canopy you are allowed to use. The numbers on the left are total jumps after a completed education. The weights are in kilograms, but I entered the corresponding lbs weighs in blue text, so you non-metric people can read it (I hope I converted it correctly) And, excuse my english, it's not my primary language :) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cajones 0 #163 April 29, 2003 Interesting chart, Mickee. Strange that no one is allowed to go below a 120. The very light people don't even go above a 1:1 loading, but the people in my weight range go over 1:1 in a few hundred jumps. Does this chart continue abouve 500 jumps, or are jumpers with more than 500 unregulated? Edit because English is my primary language and I should try to spell gooder. The laws of physics are strictly enforced. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #164 April 29, 2003 EDIT>Sorry, its more clear to me now.Thanks Mickee. Its good to see how other countries manage this issue. -------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
aneblett 0 #165 April 29, 2003 Ron, I hope that you didn't think that my post about ego was directed at you personally. It wasn't my intention at all and if it came off that way I apoplogize (I would have PMed you but I figured if you did take it that way that the apology should be public too) I has specific people and instances in mind with that post. QuoteSo do you think that I don't have the interests of people in my mind and hart? No Ron I have been reading your posts and I think that you do. More people should care as you do and be willing do speak on it. QuoteUnder the simple to use jump # to wingload....Injuries should go down...Fatalities should go down....And I think most peoples skills will go up...These hot shots want small so fast that they don't learn everything they can under the canopy that they have now before they downsize. Skills can be learned under any size canopy. And they can always get that X braced pocket rocket 99....After 500 jumps. Agreed. This isn't a perfect solution but it is definitely a starting point. One that can be shaped at a later date. Quote What is the damn rush? Good question! The main answer I can come up with is that many newbies equate the great swoop landings with the canopy you fly as opposed to the skill of the pilot. They have money and off they go. I am thoroughly enjoying this discussion. Thanks to all who are participating. AgeS.E.X. party #2 ..It is far worse to live with fear, than to die confronting it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mickee 0 #166 April 29, 2003 Quote Does this chart continue abouve 500 jumps, or are jumpers with more than 500 unregulated? Yes, that is correct, when you have 500 jumps they think you can make your own decisions, so it is unregulated. In addition, there is a rule that prohibits HP-canopies before you have 300 jumps... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mickee 0 #167 April 29, 2003 Quote Am I reading this correctly, the Swedish system is based on annual jumps (antal hopp) or total jumps? No, not annual jumps. It is based on total jumps not including the jumps during your education... ('antal hopp' = 'number of jumps') Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #168 April 29, 2003 Question... Does anyone know if the countries which have mandated W/L and other canopy restrictions also include any kind of canopy control as a prerequisite to downsizing? Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikeat10500 9 #169 April 29, 2003 Ok all you swoopers....am I doing it right? ...mike ----------------------------------- Mike Wheadon B-3715,HEMP#1 Higher Expectations for Modern Parachutists. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #170 April 29, 2003 QuoteI hope that you didn't think that my post about ego was directed at you personally. Yerah I did...sorry to snap..But I get A LOT of flack from people when I get on this subject....Sorry. QuoteThe main answer I can come up with is that many newbies equate the great swoop landings with the canopy you fly as opposed to the skill of the pilot That is the thing...A canopy is only as good as the pilot. Many times I have out swooped someone on a smaller Xbraced design with my Stiletto 107...Why? Well maybe its the almost 2,000 jumps I have on a Stiletto 107. Yes, a guy with a clue and a better wing will beat me. And I know quite a few guys that have great swoops with 135's. Hell I just did my 1st jump on a specter 107 last weekend. I have to say I liked it, and I did a fairly good pond swoop with it...I did bail out early since I had no clue when it whould stop flying and make me start swimming but I think I could out swoop a few guys I know on it. It's not the wing. I think if they are forced to fly the wings they have longer once they think they have "mastered" it insted of downsizing...They will learn more. I am all about freedom..I don't want to get rid of them, or outlaw them...I just want to delay when you can get them till after some more experience is gained. Ron"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cajones 0 #171 April 29, 2003 It looks like you are landing okay, but it looks like you might have some toilet paper stuck to your shoe... The laws of physics are strictly enforced. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikeat10500 9 #172 April 29, 2003 Cajones Thanks....I'll take care of that as soon as I can control my laughter. mike .... ----------------------------------- Mike Wheadon B-3715,HEMP#1 Higher Expectations for Modern Parachutists. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
aneblett 0 #173 April 29, 2003 QuoteYerah I did...sorry to snap..But I get A LOT of flack from people when I get on this subject....Sorry. No problem man it happens. Glad we got that cleared though. So that we can go on and be friends with no angst. QuoteThat is the thing...A canopy is only as good as the pilot. Many times I have out swooped someone on a smaller Xbraced design with my Stiletto 107...Why? I wondered about this when I started jumping my first set of gear. and talked to my dzo about swooping and how I couldn't get any seoop out of my canopy and he promptly took my gear up and wound up my canopy and got some hellified swoop out of it. It was an old Bt-60 that he would have been loading at maybe 1-1. Then to further demonstrate the point he took up a student Manta and though not as great managed to get some good swoop out of that as well. The point was well taken. My DZO is known for "aggressive" canopy selection but I have never seen him suggest something that I considered uber aggressive. My Selection may have been the most aggressive that I have seen in the last little while and I am sure that it has caused some discussion amongst some of the other jumpers. I would agree that it is somewhat aggressive but it was a choice that I made. I don't consider myself a "100 jump wonder" though others may disagree. And I am flying very conservatively under my new wing. I don't want to be a statistic. AgeS.E.X. party #2 ..It is far worse to live with fear, than to die confronting it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #174 April 29, 2003 Quote Education is not working. based on all the comments about AFI's without the ability to land themselves and/or teach anyone else it doesnt look like education has even been tried at a real level, either that or people are just letting an amazing number of unqualified jumpers fly canopies they arent ready for... but go ahead and lobby for regulation. mandating a simple scale to canopy size restriction wont do much more than push the average number of jumps for each accident victim a bit higher since your not actually requiring them to LEARN how to fly any particular wing your just having them land under a parachute a few extra times. and then next time someone goes in with 1000 jumps under a canopy they couldnt fly you can salve your conscience by saying "well he was within regulations" i guess if it happens often enough remember one death is too many you can then lobby to raise the limits so NOONE is allowed jumping anything loaded more than 1.0 i'm sure accidents will go down then too. :rollseyes:[sarcasm] as they would if we simply stopped skydiving too why dont we just outlaw that and solve the whole issue? if noone is jumping out of planes no one will die under canopy[/sarcasm] going to lobby for scales next to boarding ramps to verify wingloadings? scan your license as you line up send the info to the master database at the USPA HQ for to be crossrefrenced to thier constantly updated manifest loads records to ensure the jumper meets the requirements? after all that burrito you had at lunch my put you over 1.4 today.. why not? you dont seem to trust the DZO's, ST&As, coaches and instructors well enough to give them the ability to decide if the jumpers under their supervision can fly their canopies, and would rather put that responsibility at a board level that never actually sees any jumpers?? why not make the people 'on the ground' responsible for verifing that the jumpers they train actually demonstrate the ability to land the parachutes they are flying?? a simple skills evaluation irreguardless of jump numbers would be far more effective and perhaps even save a few of you 2000 jump wonders from dying under wings your ability isnt up to yet sorry i forget in our society overreaching regulation is always the answer, once you have a law against it problems disappear.____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #175 April 29, 2003 Well since you have all the answers feel free to share. It seems that most people are dying because they let egos select canopy size....Yep, more people in the over 500 jump class will die insted of the under 500. But I bet that if you regulate..AND educate while these jet jockys are doing jumps to get to the cool wingload...They might actually survive. Problem is that now any shmuck can get a small canopy and try to learn under it. Some places say hell no, some say hell yes...Not everywhere has the canopy schools that some larger DZ's have. So education is not working....I don't even pretend that regulation will make the problem dissapear, but it will reduce it, and hell the only thing we loose is low timers not getting the cool toys as soon as they want...I am ok with that. You can yell about your personal freedom...Which this does not take away, it only makes it so you have to have more experience before you can make such a choice. Again, its just like pull altitudes...There were there to help eliminate low pull deaths...And they worked..So will this. Low timers want to be cool...They almost all think that they are above the power curve...Many are wrong and die. Regulation is a part of life...I can't drink and drive..I can't do AFF (I don't have the ticket), I am not allowed to fly a twin engine airplane, I can't ride a motorcycle (don't have the ticket), not just anyone can do tandems, I can't pull where I like, I can't go through clouds, I can't jump a rig that is out of date, I can't drink and jump. All of these are there to protect me, and you from me..I'm ok with them. If you can't deal with that concept...get a therapist. ron"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
