dragon2 2 #51 August 19, 2003 QuoteQuoteIs it our problem,. that manufacturers give ridiculous WL limits, because they said to afraid of legal consequences? And you have come to this based on 108 jumps? I think they are very reasonable. Can they be exceded? Yes. But I have found a Stiletto to start to loose performance right at 1.7...Right where PD says it will.... Funny huh? The people that make the canopies having a clue as to how they should be flown? Ron I think you both have good points (disclaimer: I don't even have 400 jumps yet). According to PD, I should've kept my Spectre 150, putting me exactly in the intermediate category (whatever that is, but I'm not a student and I'm not an expert, I'm sure). However I now jump a Spectre 135, putting me in between advanced and expert (WL 1.17 BTW). Okaaaay, I don't think the WL is high or that the chute is very small, but then I don't manufacture them. HOWEVER my Lightning 126 is off the scale: I'm between advanced and expert as well, overloading it by 32 lbs (not even including the 10 lbs of lead I sometimes wear), according to the label on the chute (max for a lightning is it's size in lbs, apperently), and not getting to max yet according to their chart (227 lbs, same as expert). Huh? According to the chart, I would have to jump a Lighting 218 (!!!) for an intermediate WL. Yeah, right . Advanced would be either a 160 or 143, can live with that. I asked Kolla about this, it's because Lightings are so hard to land... But still, I'm either 'advanced' or I think I am based on my canopy choices, according to PD. Myself I don't think so, therefore I do think the charts (at least these two) are a bit on the conservative side. ciel bleu, Saskia Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #52 August 19, 2003 QuoteHuh? According to the chart, I would have to jump a Lighting 218 (!!!) for an intermediate WL. Yeah, right . Advanced would be either a 160 or 143, can live with that. I asked Kolla about this, it's because Lightings are so hard to land... Well if they are hard to land...Which BTW I had a 113 loaded at 1.59 I had no problem landing...Had to hook it, but no problem...Then maybe they are accurate? For the Specter..I don't know. I only have two jumps on the Specter...But it did dive harder than my Stiletto. 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
dragon2 2 #53 August 19, 2003 QuoteQuoteHuh? According to the chart, I would have to jump a Lighting 218 (!!!) for an intermediate WL. Yeah, right . Advanced would be either a 160 or 143, can live with that. I asked Kolla about this, it's because Lightings are so hard to land... Well if they are hard to land...Which BTW I had a 113 loaded at 1.59 I had no problem landing...Had to hook it, but no problem...Then maybe they are accurate? I don't really believe you ever have to hook a Lightning (unless you shortened the brakes or something): I don't hook, I don't even use both FR yet. Only canopy I really had trouble landing recently was a Diamant 160 (French version of a sequential - I think otherwise rotation - Lightning). I had 10 lbs of lead too. I really think that's one canopy you HAVE to hook or FR to get a decent landing. I tried 3 straight-ins with zero winds of which I biffed 2 times. Definitely NOT my canopy of choice! I'm not the world's best land-er. So, if I can land the damn Lightnings, and straight-in too, it can't be that hard, can it? Speed does make landing a Lightning easier. I land more easily with the 126 then with the 143, and lead helps as well. Of course, I also never biffed the 143 and I did biff in twice with the 126 in zero wind/thermal air. Other people biffed as well, so not only the canopy's fault, and afterwards I landed just fine, same conditions. Then again, my F111 RESERVE landed better (softer) then the Lightning... Oh well, I don't feel unsafe with this canopy, and my I's and the crew guys at our DZ think it's OK too. In fact, I'm still way underloading, compared to a couple others (our national team jumps Tri's at almost 2.0/1), but then they have 2.000 - 10.000 jumps. I'm quite happy with my 1.17/1.25/1.34 wingloads... ciel bleu, Saskia Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #54 August 19, 2003 QuoteI don't really believe you ever have to hook a Lightning I would have pounded in with the 113 if I didn't get speed built up...Same thing for my short lined 126. QuoteThen again, my F111 RESERVE landed better (softer) then the Lightning.. This has to do with the design of the canopy. I am glad you are happy with your canopy's.... I don't think you are in danger, but just because you are comfertable with them does not make them safe. 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
billvon 2,772 #55 August 19, 2003 >Do I think I'm an advanced canopy pilot? I don't know. I would suggest that, until you consider yourself an advanced canopy pilot, you do not jump a canopy that requires advanced canopy flying skills - and a Crossfire-2 at 1.5 to 1 falls under that category. >I have seem some of my peers do rear riser approaches and > thought that at some point I should try them. But I don't think I'm > ready for that yet, just as I'm not ready to swoop the pond yet. It has been my experience that a good many canopy injuries and fatalities are caused by people without the skill to swoop finding themselves in a position where they have to. They find themselves flying downwind into a barbed wire fence, or see an imminent collision with another jumper at 80 feet. You cannot keep yourself safe by avoiding high performance manuevers; I know a lot of people who would never try a hook turn who have broken pelvises, backs, femurs etc because they found themselves in a situation they did not have the canopy control skills to deal with. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,772 #56 August 19, 2003 >HOWEVER my Lightning 126 is off the scale . . . CRW canopies are a different issue. They fly differently and land differently; different rules apply to their loadings. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freakydiver 0 #57 August 19, 2003 Training! Training!! FUCKING TRAINING!!! How about this - hey look mah, my first AFF class. Hey mah - we talked about how when I get off student status I'll see all sorts of hot shot landings on high performance canopies. Mah, they also showed us videos of what people look like when they don't have hundreds of jumps on high performance canopies and burn themselves a hole in the ground. You shoulda seen all of the metal and surgery and $$$$ it took to fix these fools. In a hurry to be "cool" they forgot that a highly loaded wing can kill, I sure am glad they FUCKING SHOWED US THAT in AFF!!! Why doesn't that happen now? Would be so easy to instill the negative side of hp landings to the students during the first fucking course. Also, I am 26 years old and have LED many expeditions into the backcountry snow of Colorado and can gurantee that AGE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WISDOM. The only thing that creates wisdom in an individual is for them to be shown what the fuck they don't know - i.e. hp landings and bad aftermath for AFF students. For me, it was my first dead guy under 6 feet of snow. From that moment on, I will guees, double guess, tripe and quadruple guess any decision I make in the backcountry. I also allow this to carry over into jumping. Now that I am carving turns in on final, I'm really nervous about the outcome and am going as slow as humanly possible about it, nice slow carving turns. Regulation is a joke and it will never happen. Educate these young guns or continue to watch them try to be cool. I recently visited another DZ, I was blown away to hear some of the 100 jump wonders, all they talked about was velocity this, cross brace that. People, get your heads out of your ass and get a canopy that won't kill you when more than one thing goes wrong. Live to jump another day and go 20 mph slower on your landings. -- (N.DG) "If all else fails – at least try and look under control." -- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freakydiver 0 #58 August 19, 2003 "I have seem some of my peers do rear riser approaches..." ??? Correct me if I am wrong but rear risers are not used on approach but rather just before touchdown. Also, a Crossfire loaded at 1.5 WILL bite you in the ass very quickly if you aren't 110 percent attentive around it. Anyhow - good luck. -- (N.DG) "If all else fails – at least try and look under control." -- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #59 August 19, 2003 QuoteIt has been my experience that a good many canopy injuries and fatalities are caused by people without the skill to swoop finding themselves in a position where they have to. They find themselves flying downwind into a barbed wire fence, or see an imminent collision with another jumper at 80 feet. You cannot keep yourself safe by avoiding high performance manuevers; I know a lot of people who would never try a hook turn who have broken pelvises, backs, femurs etc because they found themselves in a situation they did not have the canopy control skills to deal with Who said anything about not knowing how to swoop? I like to swoop (damm look at my profile) just as I like to be accurate with where I am going to land (I'm not perfect, but I usually land very very close to my intended target). I'm not afraid to land in crosswind (heck I LIKE landing crosswind and really wish my DZ would adopt a similar landing standard that Eloy has in their main landing area, but that's not going to happen anytime soon because many people don't like crosswind landings). And I'm not afraid to land downwind (I was forced to land downwind numerous times at Rantoul). All I said was that I felt like I wasn't ready to be doing high performance rear riser flares (heck should I start doing them? Then maybe I'll end up in the hospital like this other poor guy so that you can criticize me as well). Besides rear riser flares, I have plenty of experience doing the things you claim we need to do before we downsize. And if I ever find myself with a broken steering line, you bet I will be landing with my rears (knowning I may need to PLF), but it's not going to be high performance front riser carve. Instead it'll be a nice conservative straight in approach. Am I an advanced canopy pilot? I don't know? I don't know what that means. I didn't want to say yes to Ron because then I would have played right into his argument about the topic. But if you've seen my landing videos you'll see that on at least one of them, I was performing a crosswind swoop after setting up with a nice conservative yet aggresive front riser carve. I have been trained (by good people), but I also understand that no amount of training will make up for one moment of bad judgement. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #60 August 19, 2003 QuoteCorrect me if I am wrong but rear risers are not used on approach but rather just before touchdown. Cut me some slack here (oops I forgot, there is no spare slack to be had around here). I should have said "high performance rear riser flares followed by a toggle flare". Quote Also, a Crossfire loaded at 1.5 WILL bite you in the ass very quickly if you aren't 110 percent attentive around it. Don't you think I already know this? Read the post again, I mentioned that I would be doing hop n' pops and it'll be a while before I attempt a high performance landing. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,772 #61 August 19, 2003 >Am I an advanced canopy pilot? I don't know? I don't know what that means. To me it means being able to control your canopy in all flight regimes - during a HS approach, during the flare, during opening etc. It means you are flying _ahead_ of the canopy, causing it to go where you want rather than reacting to what it does. It means you can use all the lift that the canopy has in an emergency to level the wing and arrest your descent. That's my definition anyway. i don't know what yours is. I was just going by your own description of yourself as "not an advanced pilot." To me, that sounds like there are gaps in what you can do and what you think an advanced pilot can do. I'd fill in those gaps before downsizing. that's all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #62 August 19, 2003 QuoteTo me it means being able to control your canopy in all flight regimes - during a HS approach, during the flare, during opening etc. It means you are flying _ahead_ of the canopy, causing it to go where you want rather than reacting to what it does. It means you can use all the lift that the canopy has in an emergency to level the wing and arrest your descent. That's my definition anyway. Bill, what's your definition of an expert canopy pilot? - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,772 #63 August 19, 2003 >Bill, what's your definition of an expert canopy pilot? All that plus a level of skill sufficient to compete with others in competitions. (Safely of course) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sducoach 0 #64 August 19, 2003 Why don't you and mojo go read the original posts. Both the DZO and I were on a trip together and not at the DZ. This kid had been slowed down before that weekend. Neither of you know the DZO, me, or our level of trust. I've kept people from jumping at our DZ, but Billy you are full of it, you did not ground anyone! All they had to do was go to another DZ! They can jump there all they want. You did not ground them. You only "think" you did! Wake Up. You guys are hilarious. Blues, J.E.James 4:8 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sducoach 0 #65 August 19, 2003 Rgoper, When you're 50, 25 is a kid. Wait until you're 50 and we'll check your point of reference. Blues, J.E.James 4:8 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,772 #66 August 19, 2003 >but Billy you are full of it, you did not ground anyone! Yeah I did. They tried a few times at other local DZ's but they enforce our groundings. >All they had to do was go to another DZ! They can jump there all >they want. You did not ground them. You only "think" you did! >Wake Up. I'm pretty sure I'm awake now. I'm sure they could go to Indiana and jump, but they didn't jump in Socal for a while - which was the objective. >You guys are hilarious. Glad to add a smile to your day, then! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #67 August 19, 2003 QuoteThis kid had been slowed down before that weekend. How? What was it that you did, as the S&TA, or that the DZO did to slow this kid down? QuoteNeither of you know the DZO, me, or our level of trust. No one is questioning your level of trust, I think though that people are questioning is your level of commitment. If this kid really was a "not if, but when" kid, then why didn't you ground him? Why didn't you take steps to prevent him from jumping at your DZ? Why didn't you call the neighboring DZs and warn them? Or did you? I don't know, because you haven't told us. QuoteAll they had to do was go to another DZ! They can jump there all they want. You did not ground them. You only "think" you did! Wake Up. You're right, all they need to do is go to the DZ down the road. However, if you ground him at your DZ you've prevented him from going in there, and maybe sent him a message that his actions are serious enough to warrant such an extreme tactic. At least it's a start, right? Better than nothing? Or were you worried about losing a customer? Edit: We always talk about how skydiving is a self regulating sport, we talk about the need or desire to keep the FAA out of sport. We talk about keeping excessive regulation from the USPA out of our sport. None of that will happen if we don't do the self regulation we're so proud of. None of that will happen if we just turn a blind eye to safety or to those who obviously need help. Every injury, and worse, every fatality, is bringing us closer to forced regulation. Self regulation DOES work, I think, but we need to make it work; we need to take responsibility for ourselves and for those we have been charged with watching over. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sducoach 0 #68 August 19, 2003 I guess your point is that as long as they don't kill themselves within a certain radius of you or your DZ it's okay, you done grounded em! Quote I'm pretty sure I'm awake now. I'm sure they could go to Indiana and jump, but they didn't jump in Socal for a while - which was the objective. Blues, J.E.James 4:8 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,772 #69 August 19, 2003 >I guess your point is that as long as they don't kill themselves within >a certain radius of you or your DZ it's okay, you done grounded em! Yep, basically. It's harder to go 350 miles to jump than 20, so grounding them at all the nerby DZ's helps keep them on the ground. It's not foolproof; heck, you could revoke their USPA memberships and keep their packing data cards and they could still go to Mexico. All you can do is your best with the tools you have. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rgoper 0 #70 August 19, 2003 QuoteWhen you're 50 *cough* *cough* bullshit. my dob: 12/11/58 my oldest child: 25 sorry old friend, your not the only one that's been fortunate enough to live awhile.--Richard-- "We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sducoach 0 #71 August 20, 2003 Jimbo, I'm going to go through your post one more time. Then you can call me or come visit my home as I offered to talk across the table with me anytime. Until then.................... 1: This kid was slowed down by talking to him, explaining the dangers, explaining how to "learn at altitude" and then bring it down. He was taught how to learn. Having his rear chewed when he failed to listen and then helped to understand why we were upset. Because we cared about him and this sport. He attended a canopy safety seminar and was taught about "SLAM's". "Stupid-Low-Altitude-Maneuvers" and discussed what the results could be. But while we are gone he followed the advise of an "expert" and now is living the results of his "SLAM". 2: You question, or imply, others are questioning my level of commitment. Well Jimbo, that's typically your style. The DZO was talked to several times about this "kid" (sorry Rgroper). This was not a customer, he was a packer, staff, friend. If you want to discuss my commitment, come see me. You make statements like the old question, "Mr. Jimbo, are you still beating your wife?" or try to act like something has not been "told" to you. Real easy to do with a key board and again, your style. If you are trying to place the blame for this on my shoulders Jimbo, go ahead, you speak from a position of ignorance. I don't care about what you say, but I do care about this kid. 3: No Jimbo, I was not more concerned about losing a customer, but nice try. As I said, this kid was a packer. He made money for the DZO but not a dime for me. Now he's in the hospital with out insurance, the DZO is without a packer, and I'm watching you try and place the blame on someone other than the true cause. You said it's "bad form" to mention PM's. Well Jimbo, it's "bad form" to say one thing in a PM and another in the "form". Tells me alot about your commitment. Here are the facts again Jimbo, just for you. This kid had just returned from Rantoul as a swoop king regardless of what we said. While I and the DZO were away at an event he decided to try what an expert told him he needed to do. He missed, and "SLAM-ed" real, real hard. Now he's going to go through 6-12 months of rehab. But I'll tell you this. When I visited him in the hospital to show my lack of commitment, all I asked was if he had learned anything? He did not hear an "I told you so". I simply told him I was glad he survived. Then, offered him and his mother, anything that I could do to help them get through the next year. Some people have "teeth", some have self-imposed power to "ground" skydivers, some are just experts with opinions on everything. Just be careful please because when you are giving your expert opinion, that "kid" sitting on the bench next to you who believes you experts, may be another friend of mine. I don't like coming home from a trip and going to the hospital. Still giving you Blues, J.E.James 4:8 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sducoach 0 #72 August 20, 2003 am 50. Your BS part is confusing though. dob 1-26-53 my oldest child is 28 and a nurse. The youngest 19 and in college. And I'll tell you what old friend, I'm not sorry and I hope you live a long, long time. Blues, J.E.James 4:8 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikkey 0 #73 August 20, 2003 QuoteDidn't your proposal allow a jumper to exceed the WL restrictions after taking a class? I think there is a difference between taking a canopy control class and attending a swoop seminar. The people in favor of WL restrictions have proposed to build in some progressions based on training and I agree. But it is not any training - it is well defined training that matches peoples experience. If you have around 200 jumps you should first learn to fly you canopy and use ALL input methods correctly - at altitude. You should NOT be attending swoop seminars. I find it irresponsible by the guys in Rantoul to let a guy with 200 jumps, loaded 1.5 participate in a swoop seminar (flame me if you want) and give him HP landing techniques to practice at home. The "sky god" who did this should have a good look at himself. When I attended a canopy control class, the first thing we did was talking safety and theory and the instructors went in detail through each participants "record" - i.e. no. of jumps, canopy, WL and currency. We did not swoop - we learned how to fly and control the canopies. You have to learn to walk before you can run!--------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
phoenixlpr 0 #74 August 20, 2003 Fell free to blame me because of the lack of experience!!! My weight is 92kg~202 pounds. So its about 222 lbs at door. I was adviced to buy canopy sized 170 as a first canopy. Please check the size chart of Sabre2 @ PD. Its somewhere between Advance and Experienced. My instructor told me that PD size chatrs have only safe limits.......legal issues? Im sure they know how to fly them. But they might put lower limits avoiding further legal problems. I know in US anyone can be sued for anything..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rgoper 0 #75 August 20, 2003 QuoteI am 50.Quote i know, i did the math all by myself. Your BS part is confusing though.Quote then perhaps a refresher course in social skills is in order for you then sir? And I'll tell you what old friend, I'm not sorry and I hope you live a long, long time. oh, make no mistake, i never implied you shoud have been repentant for anything, only questioning your classification of a 25 year old as a "kid", surely the young man isn't "simple?" having said that, it is my conception that you are not to blame in this incident. i hope you live a much longer and a continued happy life as well. best of luck, and positive vibes to you. take care, continue being safe. i appluad your efforts in your capacity in our beloved sport.--Richard-- "We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
This Site Is For Sale
