Re: [billvon] Injury at SDA

[Steel 0]

>But if he has done it safely for hundreds of jumps he must be doing
>something right.

>I once jumped at a DZ that used unqualified pilots >and really cruddy aircraft. We made hundreds of >flights that way without incident. Then he had a >minor problem, crashed, killed himself, paralyzed >a JM and seriously messed up two students. Were >we "doing something right?" Or were we just lucky >for a long time?


At first I thought I would just leave this alone to avoid stirring the pot too much but then I thought if I don't respond it will appear as if I am wrong. And if I am proven wrong I will be the first to admit it but here I am not. So here goes.
First of all you can't compare an aircraft to skydivers because an aircraft is a mechanical device which has no intelligence and no cell regeneration. By that I mean an aircraft can only get worse it can not get better. In order for it to get better a third party (an airplane mechanic or something) must change or tweak something. A skydiver on the otherhand, whether he wants to or not, learns from every jump he makes. Even if nothing different happens in the jump he re-enforces muscle memory in a way that simply can not be taught by anything other than experience. Any pilot (who is not lying to you) will tell you that at one point when he was learning to fly that once he pulled the yoke back when they meant to push it foward. (Near the ground this can very easily cause a serious accident). You can be sure that the instructor had covered that before they got in the cockpit. But everytime that happened it re-enforced to them what they happens when you push it foward and what happens when you pull it back until it became seond nature to them. So my point is if they made hundreds of flights without incident then yes the pilot's chances of surviving a stressful situation was improving by each flight but no the airplane's chances were not improving.
If the accident you are referring to was pilot error, the fact remains sh*@ happens even to the best. So a simple annecdote of something going wrong is really not grounding breaking information.

If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

[billvon 2,421]

>First of all you can't compare an aircraft to skydivers because an
> aircraft is a mechanical device which has no intelligence and no cell
> regeneration.

A canopy is a mechanical device. It can fail. It has no intelligence and no cell regeneration. It requires a good pilot, good maintenance, and a good deal of respect. In that way it is very much like an airplane.

>A skydiver on the otherhand, whether he wants to or not, learns from
> every jump he makes.

So (potentially) does an aircraft pilot.

> Any pilot (who is not lying to you) will tell you that at one point when
> he was learning to fly that once he pulled the yoke back when they
> meant to push it foward.

Hmm. I've never done that, but then again I've never turned the yoke right when I wanted to turn left and I never turned my car's steering wheel right when I wanted to turn left. However, it is true that some people have made similar mistakes (i.e. pressing on the gas pedal instead of the brake) so I will concede that operators can make mistakes.

> So my point is if they made hundreds of flights without incident then
> yes the pilot's chances of surviving a stressful situation was
> improving by each flight but no the airplane's chances were not
> improving.

An airplane does not make a successful landing unless the pilot and aircraft work together. A skydiver does not make a successful landing unless skydiver and canopy work together. A pilot may be relatively safe flying a 152 with a passenger but still be unsafe flying a planeload of skydivers in a higher powered aircraft with a variable pitch prop; a skydiver may be safe jumping a Sabre 170 but unsafe flying a Stiletto 97. In both cases, making 100 jumps (or 100 flights) under the more difficult conditions means very little unless the pilot specifically trains for the event. Has the pilot of the plane practiced kicking the rudder to clear the tail of a premature deployment? Has he practiced engine-out procedures at max T/O weight? Has he practiced stall recovery? If not, then 100 loads flown without incident may not matter; the 101st may still kill him and the people in his aircraft.

Similarly, a jumper who survives 100 landings under a tiny canopy may not know a damn thing about flying it. He may be too afraid to even try anything unusual; after all, everyone's telling him he's going to die! He's not going to touch the toggles near the ground until flare time. And that can work until someone cuts him off, or his canopy hits a wake, or he has to avoid a 5 year old in the landing area. And then, since he can't fly his canopy at that altitude, he will become injured or dead.

Sure, he can learn. He can practice low turns and turns in the flare. He can practice flaring with rear risers, or uphill landings, or accuracy. And if he does all that, then those 100 jumps really mean something; they mean a greater competence under canopy. Without that effort, he hasn't made 100 jumps - he's just made the same 1 jump 100 times.

>If the accident you are referring to was pilot error, the fact remains
> sh*@ happens even to the best. So a simple annecdote of
> something going wrong is really not grounding breaking information.

I agree, actually. And a simple story about how someone has 100 jumps under a small canopy likewise tells me nothing about his skill.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

First of all I don't believe anybody should have to load less than 1 to 1 after being released from student status.

So I should have downsized from a 288 to a 187, or smaller, as soon as I got my "A" license card stamped? I don't think your formula works at all.

When people ask me about downsizing, they are asking me to predict the future. "How will I do with canopy ABC at X.X wing loading. If I have seen them fly, I can make an educated guess about their odds of being able to handle the new canopy. I can't tell them it is OK if I think that they will be fine IF I think they might not get through the first 20 jumps without a problem. I feel as though I take a bit of responsibility if they say, "you'll be fine" and the person femurs on the first jump under the new canopy. They have to be able to handle the canopy from their first jump on it and that means being able to handle their current canopy 110%. That way when they downsize, they can handle the new canopy 100%. 90% is not good enough.

I think it is different for a friend to offer advice to someone than an Instructor. The friend can say, "Hell, what do I know?, he shouldn't have listened to me". The Instructor puts his/her reputation on the line.

"You'll be fine" BAMMMM! "CALL 911!." So much for that Instructor's credibility.

There are several DZ's I have seen, where the peer pressure to downsize is strong. This leads to people downsizing too soon, to fit in with the "in" crowd. These DZ's have a high number of injuries each year.

I think the first question a skydiver should ask them-selves before downsizing is "why do I want to downsize". The answer, if honest, can be very revealing.

Hook

[Steel 0]

>A canopy is a mechanical device. It can fail. It has >no intelligence and no cell regeneration. It requires >a good pilot, good maintenance, and a good deal >of respect. In that way it is very much like an >airplane.

I have no response for this because it really does not negate anything I have said. It just addresses different angles and makes a different statement.

>Hmm. I've never done that, but then again I've >never turned the yoke right when I wanted to turn >left and I never turned my car's steering wheel >right when I wanted to turn left. However, it is true >that some people have made similar mistakes >(i.e. pressing on the gas pedal instead of the brake) >so I will concede that operators can make mistakes.

turning to a steering wheel to the left is intuitive just as turning a yoke to the right to bank right is also intuitive. This is why I mentioned something that would be totally taught to a new pilot. Knowing that pushing the yoke foward will in turn swing the elevator down giving off more the the Bernoulli's principal effect on the vertical stablilizer, causing it to rise up and therefore lessening the angle of attack or increaseing the angle of descent, is not in anyway intuitive. And I don't believe any pilot who swears that when they were first learning how to fly that they never got confused with this. I don't mean that they got into an accident because of it. I just mean that they were flying around with their instructor and suddenly their instructor noticed that they lost or gained too much altitude and told them to check their altitiude and at that point they initally responded incorrectly and worsened the situation.

>Similarly, a jumper who survives 100 landings >under a tiny canopy may not know a damn thing >about flying it. He may be too afraid to even try >anything unusual; after all, everyone's telling him >he's going to die! He's not going to touch the >toggles near the ground until flare time. And that >can work until someone cuts him off, or his canopy >hits a wake, or he has to avoid a 5 year old in the >landing area. And then, since he can't fly his >canopy at that altitude, he will become injured or dead.

I don't know anybody who fits this description. The toggle reference suggests you are talking about me. But since I have over 800 jumps on my little canopies, have practiced accuracy to the point of kicking a cone with them, have practiced carving over a lane of cones four feet wide at an angle larger than that of the one on the prospeed carving course, have performed 180s, 270s, 360s, 720s, and 1080s with them, have altered brake settings for flying as well as stowings for openings, have swooped ponds with them and successsfully remained in a lane 4 feet wide, have practiced rear riser landings, intentionally landed downwind with them and have participated in 26-way formations with them. So I guess you couldn't possibly be referring to me.

A skydiver on the otherhand, whether he wants to or not, learns from
> every jump he makes.

>So (potentially) does an aircraft pilot.

so we agree here

If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

[Ron 7]

Brian Germain has a recomended wingload to jump chart...

I quite like it.

1.X

X equals the number of jumps you have.

100 = 1.1
200 = 1.2
300 = 1.3
and so on.

However I think that it gets a little to much about 600 jumps.

I do agree with a post Steel wrote (which I am not sure I want to happen again)


I think that a performance test is the best way to decide if you should downsize....Bill Von I think says the same thing.
He asks if you can do a series of manuvers with your canopy....A good idea.

But I take it a step further....

I think before you should downsize you should be able to qualify for a PRO rating with the canopy you are now jumping. 10 declared standups in a 10 meter circle in a row. Miss one, and you must start over.

I have done it with as small as an 88.

My reasoning is simple...If you can't do it...Then you can't fly the canopy you have. You don't know how to fly that canopy, why downsize?

It is also very easy to judge...Have an I or S&TA watch the guy land. If he can do it...Then he can downsize and not until.

A guy can still go as small as he wants....just not until he can handle the size he has...It also would provide a better "Step Progression" that most people agree is needed.

Thoughts?
Ron

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

[Cajun 0]

Quote

But I take it a step further....

I think before you should downsize you should be able to qualify for a PRO rating with the canopy you are now jumping. 10 declared standups in a 10 meter circle in a row. Miss one, and you must start over.

That is an idea, and sounds very interesting. But unfortunately I think only the FAA could regulate this. Possibly uspa, but then I jump at a non-uspa dz so I would be able to jump what ever I like until I go to a uspa dz, at which point I would have to upsize or spend $$ to get checked out.

Only problem I see with the FAA doing this is if someone is found out to be breaking the rules the jump pilot would be the one that gets in trouble.

edit : I can't spell worth a crap!

[Steel 0]

I don't know what to tell you dude. In some ways perhaps your right. Me, I did downsize right off student status from a 288 to a Robo Z 185 and I was fine with it, back in 1994. I was a little over 1.1 pounds per square feet with it at the time. Other people may have issues with this. But I have seen people who weigh far less than I did being pressured into a 230 which they then jumped for hundreds of jumps. I think that is the other extreme. If somebody outright asked me for what canopy size is right for them, I would be afraid to answer them because of the risk involved it anything they buy no matter what.
But I hold very strong my opinion that the final decision should be theirs. Its just a matter of personal freedom.

If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

[joshjumps 0]

Quote

That is an idea, and sounds very interesting. But unfortunately I think only the FAA could regulate this. Possibly uspa, but then I jump at a non-uspa dz so I would be able to jump what ever I like until I go to a uspa dz, at which point I would have to upsize or spend $$ to get checked out.

Only problem I see with the FAA doing this is if someone is found out to be breaking the rules the jump pilot would be the one that gets in trouble.

edit : I can't spell worth a crap!

It is an excellent idea but I don't believe Ron is endorsing any regulation, just self-regulation. If we as skydivers and instructors can acknowledge our limits nobody else will have to do it for us.

josh

[Cajun 0]

Quote

It is an excellent idea but I don't believe Ron is endorsing any regulation, just self-regulation. If we as skydivers and instructors can acknowledge our limits nobody else will have to do it for us.

josh

I wish it would work, but that's what we're doing now, and WAY too many people are dying. If I say I'm ok at 2:1 but you disagree who is right?

The only way is with a standardized test of some kind. I don't like it but it may be here soon, just wait until the FAA gets tired of us killing ourselves.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

I don't know what to tell you dude. In some ways perhaps your right. Me, I did downsize right off student status from a 288 to a Robo Z 185 and I was fine with it, back in 1994. I was a little over 1.1 pounds per square feet with it at the time. Other people may have issues with this. But I have seen people who weigh far less than I did being pressured into a 230 which they then jumped for hundreds of jumps. I think that is the other extreme.

"the other extreme". Exactly downsizing that fast can be called extreme. You are recommending an "extreme" downsize progression.

Quote

If somebody outright asked me for what canopy size is right for them, I would be afraid to answer them because of the risk involved it anything they buy no matter what.

Too late, you already have made a recommendation. Skydivers looking to downsize will take approval from one person and run with it, regardless of who that person is. Advising people to downsize quickly is reckless and irresponsible.

This is not a complicated issue. If you downsize too fast, you increase your chances of injury or death. If you down size slower than you are capable of, no harm done.

I had a student, after I left the DZ, get peer pressured into smaller and smaller canopies. He wanted so bad to be part of the "cool" crowd, right now. He was willing to risk anything, injury, permanent injury, or even death to be considered "cool" and a "hot canopy pilot". I had to constantly talk to him regarding canopy control. He's dead now.

The hot canopy pilots that impress me don't jump up and down yelling "look how good I am, I am a hot canopy pilot". The impressive canopy pilots are damn good, and humble. They are always self-critiquing, improving. JC springs to mind.

Hook

[Ron 7]

Well Josh...I DO think that USPA should endorse some sort of regulation...

And I think they will....However I think it is better if the jumpers come up with it, not the HQ.

If the USPA HQ does it, it will not be good. It will be heavy handed, and will limit personal choice to much.

Under this "plan" you can fly whatever you want...as long as you can PROVE you can do it safely....If you can handle a tiny pocket rocket...you can jump it.

It will encourage people to learn more.
It will provide a guideline to follow.
It will eliminate the peer pressure from the selection process.
It will educate jumpers about canopy selection.
I think it will reduce the number of accidents.

Anyone not agree?

The downside would be that you have to prove what you think you can do....And there would be more regulation. You could not just get any canopy you wanted anymore. A small reduction in personal freedom...(Remember you can still do what you want, but only after you have shown you can handle it).

It uses a program already in place.

I think it could be used in conjunction with another more generalized rule....

We could use Brian Germains plan of Wingloading for anyone.

100 Jumps = 1.1
200 1.2
300 1.3
400 1.4
500 1.5

This way you could progress at a pace that would be "normal"
And if you wanted to exceed that "rule" you would have to prove your skills by the PRO program.

Thoughts?

Ron

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

[Steel 0]

>The hot canopy pilots that impress me don't jump up and down >yelling "look how good I am, I am a hot canopy pilot". The impressive canopy> pilots are damn good, and humble. They are always self->critiquing, improving. JC springs to mind.

>Hook

Take somebody like J. C. who knows he has sucessfully swooped over 300 feet and start telling him that he has never swooped over 100 ft. Start making up stories that he is walking around with a limp. Send him to a place where he is to meet a group of people he never knew before. And even though he is trying to mind his own business, people keep coming up to him giving advice he does not care for and never asked for. Have a group of people outright lie about his performance. If at this point he has not just up and left he may just fly his canopy through the course stand up his landings and walk away quietly. Then somebody else that follows might swoop a little further but they go vertical, slamn into the pond or knock down windblades. Then tell him that he is the dangerous one and that for this reason he is not allowed to compete. If you did this I am sure his attitude would change.
Look at the whole picture and maybe things will start to make sense.

If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

[relyon 0]

Quote

But I take it a step further....

I think before you should downsize you should be able to qualify for a PRO rating with the canopy you are now jumping. 10 declared standups in a 10 meter circle in a row. Miss one, and you must start over.

I have done it with as small as an 88.

My reasoning is simple...If you can't do it...Then you can't fly the canopy you have. You don't know how to fly that canopy, why downsize?

Huh. I've not tried the PRO rating thing, but I'm not the greatest at accuracy and would probably choke on jump #9 or #10, if not before. I guess I just don't know how to fly my canopy.

Bob

[billvon 2,421]

>Knowing that pushing the yoke foward will in turn swing the elevator
> down giving off more the the Bernoulli's principal effect on the
> vertical stablilizer, causing it to rise up and therefore lessening the
> angle of attack or increaseing the angle of descent, is not in anyway
> intuitive.

"Push the yoke away from you to make the nose move away from you" is not intuitive? Hmm. Maybe you had a different flight instructor than I did.

>The toggle reference suggests you are talking about me.

My god, man! I surely _hope_ you're not afraid to use your toggles on final! I was actually talking about several former students of mine who were pressured into jumping canopies they were afraid of.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

LOL ... I never had problems confusing the yoke's movements concerning the elevator's control, but the rudder and it's associated pedals were another story in the early days of my flight training.

Also, primary flight students are taught to control rate of descent with power, and their air speed with pitch. As more experienced pilots we know that the glide path and airspeed can be controlled with a combination of the two, but to simplify things primary students are taught one way (or at least I was).

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[billvon 2,421]

>Then tell him that he is the dangerous one and that for this reason
> he is not allowed to compete.

Few skydivers I know would do that. Believe it or not, though, there are actually skydivers who are not as good as him! I know, hard to believe; everyone in this sport is a hot shit natural who has at least as much skill as the next guy, even if they have only 50 jumps.

Something that many skydivers learn around jump 1000 or so is that they're not as good as they thought they were. It happened to me; I found out I had a lot to learn about teaching, canopy flight, and big-way flying, my three loves at the time. Fortunately I learned. One thing I discovered, though, is that not everyone is as skilled as I am. Some are less skilled; these people I try to help out with advice (or send them to someone who can help them.) Some are more skilled; I learn from these people. Trying to treat all other jumpers as if they have the same level of skill simply doesn't work.

Believe it or not, you're not the best canopy pilot in the world. Someday someone better than you may give you advice on your canopy flying. For your sake I hope you are able to listen. Someday you may come across someone who isn't as good as you, and they're struggling to control their canopy well. For their sake I hope you are willing to help them.

[billvon 2,421]

>but the rudder and it's associated pedals were another story in the
> early days of my flight training . . .

Yeah, me too. "Step on the ball" and "dead foot, dead engine" were always running through my mind during my training flights. For some reason rudder control was never intuitive to me (although it's become enough of a habit now that I don't think about it.)

[relyon 0]

Quote

"Push the yoke away from you to make the nose move away from you" is not intuitive? Hmm. Maybe you had a different flight instructor than I did.

I'm probably misinterpreting something, but I took the original yoke mis-control reference as applied to the horn going off. When an airplane stall warning goes off, the correct reaction is to push the stick/yoke forward and increasing power. That same reaction will get you killed in a helicopter when the low rotor rpm warning goes off, which is usually best handled by pulling back on the cyclic and lowering collective.

Bob

[Steel 0]

>several former students of mine who were pressured into >jumping canopies they were afraid of.
where in the skydving community does this happen? I have read people make reference to a "cool group" to peer pressure skydivers to downsize. Anyway it doesn't make any sense to me. I have been jumping a little under a decade and I have met skydivers that don't bug saying your canopy is to small and skydivers that do. But I have never ever come across somebody trying to peer pressure somebody else into jumping a smaller parachute than they feel comfortable with.
However I have come across a lot of belly fliers who have a tendency to want to break off lower and pull lower and I do have an issue with this. But I guess in the end its their right to say we don't want anybody on this dive to pull higher than 2500 and its my right to make a decision at that point wether or not I wish to go along with that or opt out.

If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

[joshjumps 0]

Quote

Well Josh...I DO think that USPA should endorse some sort of regulation...

And I think they will....However I think it is better if the jumpers come up with it, not the HQ.

If the USPA HQ does it, it will not be good. It will be heavy handed, and will limit personal choice to much.

Sorry Ron didn't mean to put words in your mouth. Not sure I agree with you with the uspa getting involved but I do agree with your ideas about people not downsizing until they can complete the pro requirements on their current canopy.

To all the skydivers out there who think they have gotten all they can out of their canopy look up the pro requirements and see if you can pull it off.

cheers
josh

[quade 3]

Quote

To all the skydivers out there who think they have gotten all they can out of their canopy look up the pro requirements and see if you can pull it off.

Pro Rating or Pro Swoop?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[joshjumps 0]

Quote

Pro Rating or Pro Swoop?

Pro rating, I have no idea what pro swoop requirements are...what are they?

josh

[sarge 0]

try this.

.

[/url]http://www.proswoopingtour.com/[url]

well you get the idea...
.

--
I'm done with the personally meaningful and philosophical sigs!!

[quade 3]

Cool.

Anybody wanna go one on one and shoot some Pro Accuracy for jump tickets?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mjkoziel 0]

Dude, I won't post my OPINIONS here, but you seem very sure of your self on this one; and I have 2 thing to say.
1) Why are you trying to convince people of your OPINION!
2) I hope your family and friends are as sure as you are... for their sake.
Matt K.