Will Your Wingload Save You?

[rgoper 0]

i thought it better to follow up here with this post rather than continue with it in the "Incidents" forum. a remark was made by a poster that his wingload would not have presented him with as severe an emergency as it did the jumper that experienced the brake line mal. while it's true a "lighter" wingload would "slow things down a bit" it should not be taken for granted, and it should not be relied upon. all malfuntions should be addressed with immediate identification, assessment and the proper emergency procedure initiated immediately. remember, while your evaluating and identifying all of this, your burning serious altitude and you are not aware of how much because it's highly unlikely your concentrating on altitude at this point, this is the most valuable lesson to be learned fron this incident. "don't ever get too low to cut away and deploy your reserve" ever, an unnecessary cut-away and reserve deployment is better than the alternative any day. and for goodness sakes, don't take anything for granted merely for a "comfort factor" blue skies, hot days, take care and be safe.

--Richard--
"We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist"

[quade 3]

On the other hand . . . very few jumpers die each year from having a canopy too lightly loaded.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rgoper 0]

Quote

very few jumpers die each year from having a canopy too lightly loaded.

this is not even close to the point of my post. please do not take the post out of it's original context, as it may save someone's life one day.

--Richard--
"We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist"

[Monsterchute 0]

i agree with everything you said, no counting on "comfort factors" but one should try to create "comfort factors.

A low wingloading can be safer but among the low turn incidents there are also quite a number with low wingloadings, eventhough most people strictly think of low turn incidents as high performance canopy accidents.

[Ron 7]

Well, at a lighter wingload, you are not burning the altitude as fast.

Yes, any wingload can kill you.

However, the lighter wingloads are less violent, lose less altitude, and give you more time to react....

And after hitting the ground a lighter wingload will result in less injuries than a high wingload...Yes, both can kill.

At any rate....ALTITUDE AWARENESS is the key to longevity in this sport. I have a friend who is dead now due to a lost toggle, and a cut away at 50 feet.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Cajones 0]

I'm not certain I follow you, completely. I looked at the posts on the Incidents Forum. I believe the poster was trying to say a lighter wingloading may have allowed a safe landing with the toggle knotted, as the situation pictured and described.

I have no doubt lower wingloading would have reduced some of the injuries suffered by skydivers in the past. Arguably, a slight chance lighter wingloadings would have created some additional injuries due to off-LZ landings, does exist. It is still quite possible to injure or kill yourself under a lightly loaded canopy. Light wingloading does not prevent injuries, it simply give a more forgiving environment. That's why we put students under big, forgiving canopies. An "aggressive" turn at 100 feet under a 1.7 wingloading and an "aggressive" turn at 100 feet under a 0.7 wingloaded canopy produces two very different scenarios.

Although discussion continues in another thread, a lightly loaded reserve landing an unconscious skydiver is a far, far better scenario than a heavily loaded reserve, that - yes - can mean the difference between surviving and not surviving.

The direction you may be taking is to remind us all to not waste precious altitude deciding if we can fix something - regardless of our wingloading - I'd like to remind all of us - there is no guarantee your reserve will be perfect. I've witnessed more than one cutaway from line-twist that could've been kicked out. Sufficient time/altitude would've permitted "fixing" this problem. A decision the canopy was less-than-perfect, and that precious altitude was rapidly evaporating caused an emergency procedures scenario that was certainly preventable. At least one of these cutaways resulted in a reserve with line twists, putting the jumper in the same situation as the main had given. The jumper later commented "What if it had been worse? I had less altitude [due to the cutaway/reserve deployment] with the same problem."

Altitude awareness should continue after deployment. Decision altitudes and hard-deck altitudes are part of our emergency procedures for a reason. We are taught "When in doubt - whip it out" because of the extremely low chance of reserve malfunction, but that does not excuse us from thinking on our feet. Rehearse emergency procedures often, exercise good judgment in the air and on the ground, and never forget - you can do everything right and still end up a statistic.

The laws of physics are strictly enforced.

[quade 3]

It's not out of context at all!

That's among the reasons that students are put on such outrageously huge canopies.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rgoper 0]

Quote

but one should try to create "comfort factors."

i'm not going to dissagree with you, YET. but sell me on this mentality, and explain how "comfort factors" are condusive to life longevity in the sport of sky diving. i'm a "safety freak" i take nothing for granted, and before exiting the jumpship i rehearse every possible malfunction i can think of visually, in my mind and how i will react, it's saved my life twice thus far in the 4 years in the sport. Ron's statement is dead on, "altitude awareness" is the one constant that will yield safety and life longevity in this sport.

--Richard--
"We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist"

[rgoper 0]

I See Your Point

Quote

That's among the reasons that students are put on such outrageously huge canopies.

although my point is altitude awareness and the so called dependency on "comfort zones/factors" ie: light wingloads etc...just when you think it can't happen...if our training continues at the same level it is now, we will see more incidents. i would never, ever tell a student or any other jumper this, or that cannot, or is less likely to happen to you. i think being prepared for any and all emergencies regarding everything from boarding the jumpship to exit and landing should be emphasized constantly.

--Richard--
"We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist"

[billvon 2,435]

>while it's true a "lighter" wingload would "slow things down a bit" it
>should not be taken for granted, and it should not be relied upon.

Lighter wingloadings actually _avoid_ some mals, like line twist cutaways. We pretty much rely upon the fact that you cannot cause an unrecoverable line twist/spin just from opening a Manta in a bad body position, which is good for students. They also provide more time to deal with canopy damage, lineovers, broken lines etc. It's not an absolute guarantee that you'll have more time, but statistically speaking you will survive a lot more often under a more lightly loaded canopy when the shit hits the fan.

>and for goodness sakes, don't take anything for granted merely for
> a "comfort factor"

I agree. By the same token, though, don't give up those safety margins for no good reason. A good skydiver trades off his experience, skill and risk acceptance against a smaller canopy. Only when all those factors are there should one decide to downsize.

[Faber 0]

I just cant see why not using the reserve in that case..
If you dont need your reseve when you have a mal,what do you then wear it for?
Im sure the jumpe will cut it if he gets up again and if he get the same mal..

Theres no reason not to use the reseve in that case..

about the wingload stuff.
All wingload can kill you,how ever the higher the wingload is the higher the risk for getting injuried or killed..

Stay safe
Stefan Faber

[quade 3]

I agree completely with that.

We all need to be keenly aware of the various malfunction scenarios, basic safety requirements and proper landing techniques no matter what type or wingloading of canopy we're flying.

That said, it's a simple fact that a larger canopy IS more safe.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 2,435]

>i would never, ever tell a student or any other jumper this, or that
>cannot, or is less likely to happen to you.

I do that all the time. A double mal is a lot less likely than a successful reserve deployment, so if you have a lineover, you should cut away rather than ride the mal in for fear your reserve won't open. Why? Because you are less likely to survive landing under a lineover than taking a chance on your reserve.

Safety in skydiving often comes down to choosing what's the safest course of action. Some things are less likely to hurt you than others, which is why many of us wear helmets but very few of us wear tertiary reserves. Often new jumpers need help in determining what's more likely to hurt them - that way they can make better decisions when it comes to safety.

[rgoper 0]

Quote

Lighter wingloadings actually _avoid_ some mals, like line twist cutaways.

while this is a true statement, it has happened. i trained utilizing tandem/afp progression, jumping a Sabre 230^2 loaded at 1.1:0, i experienced line twists, line dump and hard openings during student status, and i'm glad i did. that said, remember students deploy anywhere between 5500-4000 agl, if we were confident of lower malfunctions at light wing loads then why the extra altitude? point being it can happen and altitude goes by quicker under a malfunctioning canopy than any other time.

Quote

but statistically speaking you will survive a lot more often under a more lightly loaded canopy when the shit hits the fan.

agreed, but stats can change. the days of the Manta are just about over, and training students on Sabre2's are starting to be the "new training method" so we cannot rely on old stats to determine what will occur in the future.

Quote

A good skydiver trades off his experience, skill and risk acceptance against a smaller canopy.

i would like to think that an intelligent, informed and properly instructed sky diver would make this decision. "It's all about living" my whole point in this post if nothing else is "don't take anything for granted" complancency kills.

--Richard--
"We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist"

[darkwing 4]

I had a knot in my steering line which prevented me from releasing the brakes on one side. Due to my light loading and its generic docility (Spectre 190, about 1.1) I was able to comfortably control it and land it just fine. I doubt that many people jumping highly loaded small canopies would have landed theirs under the same situation.

-- Jeff
My Skydiving History

[billvon 2,435]

>remember students deploy anywhere between 5500-4000 agl, if we
> were confident of lower malfunctions at light wing loads then why the
> extra altitude?

FJ SL students deploy at 3000 feet. The 4500-5000 foot altitude is so if they get away from an AFF-JM and don't pull he can still get them open by 3000 feet. It's not for mals.

>agreed, but stats can change.

Of course. And on the day that a new jumper is safer under a Stiletto 120 than a Manta I'll change the advice I give them, but so far that's not the case.

>the days of the Manta are just about over . . .

I don't believe that. Large canopies will continue to be the mainstay of most student programs in the US for quite some time, although (hopefully) they will be used for fewer jumps before the A-license.

>and training students on Sabre2's are starting to be the "new training
> method" so we cannot rely on old stats to determine what will occur
> in the future.

But in terms of advice we give _now_ we have to rely on what we've got. It would be a poor driving instructor indeed who advised his students to go as fast as they wanted in a blinding snowstorm because new technology might make that safer someday.

[robskydiv 0]

I'm with ya Quade.

[robskydiv 0]

Rgoper, I get your point and respect it. We should
all be mentally prepared to react to emergency situations regardless of our equipment. If not, why skydive? Personally, I depend upon my light wingloadng for an extra measure of safety, but I'll also depend on mentally rehearsing emergency proedures. Time will tell if I become complacent.

[riggerrob 558]

I'm with ya billvon.
Maybe the original point of this thread is "don't get complacent."

[apoil 0]

Quote

On the other hand . . . very few jumpers die each year from having a canopy too lightly loaded.

None die from it being too heavily loaded either.
It's just a contributing factor.

[Ron 7]

Replying to:
Re: [quade] Will Your Winload Save You? by apoil
Post:

In Reply To


On the other hand . . . very few jumpers die each year from having a canopy too lightly loaded.



None die from it being too heavily loaded either.
It's just a contributing factor.

Quote

Sorry Cliff have to disagree on this one....But you knew I would right?

Some of the people that died would most likley not have died if they made the same mistake that the did with a Raven II main.

Yes the #1 cause of accidents (which by the way I don't believe in accidents..All accidents are nothing more than errors in judgment) is someone screwing up.

But the wingload of a canopy can play a very large factor in making the accident happen at all, or being worse.

Ron

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[billvon 2,435]

>None die from it being too heavily loaded either.
>It's just a contributing factor.

While literally true, you could say the same about drunk drivers. Drunk driving doesn't kill people, rear ending other cars at 50mph does. However, being drunk makes it a lot more likely that you'll rear end cars at 50mph. Staying alive driving involves _both_ not rear ending cars at 50mph and staying sober enough to drive; surviving in the world of skydiving requires both good canopy skills and the wisdom to choose a canopy large enough to save your life under most situations.

[Tonto 1]

Agreed - there is no beginner slope in skydiving. The ground is hard, fair and patient.

t

It's the year of the Pig.

[wmw999 2,149]

Quote

The ground is hard, fair and patient.

Oh I like that quote. I think I need a new helmet for it.

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)

[apoil 0]

Quote

None die from it being too heavily loaded either.
It's just a contributing factor.
Sorry Cliff have to disagree on this one....But you knew I would right?

Some of the people that died would most likley not have died if they made the same mistake that the did with a Raven II main.

Try harder.. you just agreed with me.

The MISTAKE is what killed them. The wingloading was just a contributing factor. Had they not made the mistake, they wouldn't have died, under either canopy.

I tell everyone that the higher wingloading puts them more at risk and will be far less forgiving of minor errors and completely unforgiving of major ones.

But if you are writing the incident report that goes to the public are you going to put: "cause of death: wingloading" or "cause of death: low turn" ???

I'm not talking about what you put in your analysis. I'm talking about cause of death.

Quote

Yes the #1 cause of accidents (which by the way I don't believe in accidents..All accidents are nothing more than errors in judgment) is someone screwing up.

There you go agreeing with me again.. This is becoming a problem.