Ninja pilots .....

[SkydiveMonkey 0]

Sorry if this has been posted before (or is incorrect), but I was speaking to one of the top guys at my dz this evening and he was saying that all ninjas have been grounded. Thought you guys should know.

____________________
Say no to subliminal messages

[skygod7777 0]

Quote

Sorry if this has been posted before (or is incorrect), but I was speaking to one of the top guys at my dz this evening and he was saying that all ninjas have been grounded. Thought you guys should know.

why????????????????

blue sky's and long swoops
kelly

"hook low, flare late...........dirt, tumble, dirt..........ouch"

[PhreeZone 15]

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=176864;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread

Basically a canopy collipsed and untill all the details are out... the canopy is down. I like this attitude. If there is a problem in the design or canopy, after one incident stop jumping it till it can be analyzed better to find the flaw, if any, before another jumper gets hurt or killed.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[zyzko 0]

What amuses me in the bulletin is that manufacturer also blames users (in a slight between-the-lines -tone) for jumping too high performance canopies.

Just as PhreeZone mentioned the attitude is good in a way - if there has been many reports of same sort there can be a problem and it should be investigated. (btw. PdF asks all Ninja pilots to contact them). BUT blaming users for jumping "too high performance canopies" is just plain stupid - if there is a problem there is a problem with the canopy - inexperience is no reason for collapses (other than common sense of avoiding turbulent conditions but again - if canopy is very sensitive to turbulence compared to other canopies in the same class there is a design problem).

Sad news for Ninja pilots and I suspect there are "a couple of" angry customers.

-Kari

[rendezvous 0]

well, I think sometimes it takes more than just common sense to detect turbulance. Experience definitely has a roll to play in it specially when we are talking about something that isn't really vissible but can only be felt.

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

Basically a canopy collipsed and untill all the details are out... the canopy is down. I like this attitude. If there is a problem in the design or canopy, after one incident stop jumping it till it can be analyzed better to find the flaw, if any, before another jumper gets hurt or killed.

I hate to see people get hurt as much as anyone else does, but does a single incident provide enough data to even begin thinking that there's a flaw in the design? I could understand this if Ninjas were collapsing every day/weekend/month, but a single incident? That doesn't make any sense to me.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[billvon 2,416]

>BUT blaming users for jumping "too high performance canopies" is
> just plain stupid - if there is a problem there is a problem with the
> canopy - inexperience is no reason for collapses . . .

A collapse due to inexperience put me in a wheelchair for a month. I didn't know enough to not land near a row of trees when the wind was coming off them. It was a PD190 BTW, not a tiny HP, which is why I ended up in a wheelchair and not a hearse.

> (other than common sense of avoiding turbulent conditions but
> again -

That 'common sense' takes years and hundreds, if not thousands, of jumps to learn. Where will the tip vortices of the previous canopy end up? How far do you need to be away from that tree? When one windblade is contrary, what does that mean about what's going on down there? If you get lift on final, what will happen during the flare?

I agree 100% with the company - most people out there _are_ jumping canopies they do not have the skill to fly well.

>Sad news for Ninja pilots and I suspect there are "a couple of" angry
>customers.

There would be angry pilots if they didn't ground it (look at the Crossfire.) And personally, I applaud them for taking a position that, while bad for them business-wise, might just save lives.

[SkymonkeyONE 3]

Quote

That 'common sense' takes years and hundreds, if not thousands, of jumps to learn. Where will the tip vortices of the previous canopy end up? How far do you need to be away from that tree? When one windblade is contrary, what does that mean about what's going on down there? If you get lift on final, what will happen during the flare?

Bill is exactly correct. While making 10 jumps a day five days a week will give you a ton of experience in whatever skill you are trying to master, it will not replace the common sense one gets after being on a dropzone for many years. While there are plenty of "kids" out there nowadays with more jumps than me, I regularly see them pile in on days that I absolutely refuse to jump (due to squirelly conditions). At my dropzone, people pay attention when I scratch from a load or just don't manifest. While it's fun to chase numbers (when you can afford it or are getting paid to jump), it's just not worth getting hurt over when the weather is shitty.

Chuck

[zyzko 0]

Quote

A collapse due to inexperience put me in a wheelchair for a month. I didn't know enough to not land near a row of trees when the wind was coming off them. It was a PD190 BTW, not a tiny HP, which is why I ended up in a wheelchair and not a hearse.

Maybe I wasn't too clear when I was making my point (English is not my native language and I'm sometimes a bit clumsy...). The PD190 putting you in wheelchair is a perfect example what I meant. It doesn't take a Ninja or FX or VX to injure or kill you if you are not skilled enough. Where we should draw the line? Are all those cross-braced monsters just killing machines?

If the company made the decision to manufacture the canopy in the first place they already knew the risks involved and inexperienced pilots are no excuse for a recall after that decision.

Being carefull is always a sensible thing to do, and PdF's decision is a very responsible one, but are there more inexperienced people jumping Ninjas than there are those who jump Icarus Extremes? Why are those still on market? Or the PD190? I hope we shall find out and maybe PdF does something to improve the Ninja.

I agree 100% with the comments made about the experience needed to know turbulence - I have now about 70 jumps on my Cobalt and I'm still extra carefull because the Cobalt won't alert me about turbulence the same way my old canopy did.

Safe swoops,

-Kari

[crazy 0]

Quote

If the company made the decision to manufacture the canopy in the first place they already knew the risks involved and inexperienced pilots are no excuse for a recall after that decision.

So what? They released the Ninja, a problem was reported and they think that the problem is not with the canopy but with the pilots. What are they supposed to do? Keep making money and let the inexperienced pilots kill themselves? Or are you blaming them for releasing it in the first place?

Quote

Being carefull is always a sensible thing to do, and PdF's decision is a very responsible one, but are there more inexperienced people jumping Ninjas than there are those who jump Icarus Extremes? Why are those still on market? Or the PD190?

Maybe because other manufacturers will not react until there is a serious accident. PdF is used to react as soon as a problem is reported.

Quote

I hope we shall find out and maybe PdF does something to improve the Ninja.

Unfortunately, the only sensible thing that they can do is probably idiotproofing the ninja. It will probably not be an improvement in terms of performances for expert pilots.

bb
Come

[thrillseek 0]

A crossbraced canopy is not a killing machine... Let's be real here...You are blaming an advanced design for injuries and fatalities when it is the canopy pilots and ONLY the canopy pilots who are at fault for these incidents. The crossbraced design was created to give rigidity to the smaller wing surfaces. The designs go through rigorous testing by extremely experienced skydivers. If a canopy collapses on final, we shouldn't be so quick to blame the whole concept. As we saw with Icarus, occasionally, a wing surface doesn't perform as it should and steps are taken to improve or replace it. For any of you sceptics out there, I do not jump a crossbraced canopy, but would gladly do so because i trust their designs.

[billvon 2,416]

> A crossbraced canopy is not a killing machine...

I agree; if anything, a crossbraced design is safer than the same-sized non crossbraced design since it is more efficient, and can therefore slow you down more before landing, impact, can flat turn more slowly etc. However, a lot of people use the cross-braced designs so they can jump smaller canopies than they otherwise would, and this can lead to the perception that they are more dangerous.

[PhreeZone 15]

>The crossbraced design was created to give rigidity to the smaller wing surfaces

Actually Crossbraces do nothing for rigidity. Thay make the airfoil more efficient and there for able to be flown and landed at heavier loadings. And there is a thing as making an airfoil too efficient, one can do high speed stalls with one thats too efficient.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[zyzko 0]

Quote

A crossbraced canopy is not a killing machine... Let's be real here...You are blaming an advanced design for injuries and fatalities when it is the canopy pilots and ONLY the canopy pilots who are at fault for these incidents.

Exactly. The comment about killing machines was sarcasm.

If it turns out that the reported collapses were user-induced and the canopy is not faulty what should PdF do? Recall the canopy? Are they going to recall all their other canopies too? Like mentioned before, you don't need a crossbraced monster to kill you....

-Kari

[cobaltdan 0]

phree:

actually, x bracing does increase the rigidity of a parafoil. one technique of many.

increased rigidity translates to less distortion during manuevers.


sincerely,

dan
atair

Daniel Preston <><>
atairaerodynamics.com (sport)
atairaerospace.com (military)

[marcin 0]

One thing that I dislike about X-braced, but also about X-fire is the reduced and partially covered inlets at the nose of the canopy. I do not claim scientifical arguments here, but I believe such a canopy should be more sensitive to turbulence in a way, that when it deinflates it collapses immediately and folds over because reinflation is more difficult.

Just my feeling.
Marcin

[Staso 0]

Quote

that when it deinflates it collapses immediately and folds over because reinflation is more difficult.

on the other hand that should also make deinflation more difficult in first place.

stan.

--
it's not about defying gravity; it's how hard you can abuse it. speed skydiving it is ...
Speed Skydiving Forum

[marcin 0]

This is the argument some people use. But while deinflation happens with the nose fully open (hence air gets out relatively easily), the reinflation has to deal with a collapsed cell having only small opening a the nose (so air can only reenter from neighbouring cells). So perhaps a turbulence, that would result in a quick collapse and reinflation on a say Sabre, remaining almost unnoticed, with an x-braced at low alti results in an unrecoverable malfunction. Thats why I would be rather worried of a combination of closed nose and no-crossport construction (Atair experimented with no-crossports in endcells?).

This is my personal concern, growing as I read all those reports of incidents or accidents with collapsing x-braced, but this can as well be all bullshit in the light of some scientific research.

marcin

[ernokaikkonen 0]

>Thats why I would be rather worried of a combination of closed
>nose and no-crossport construction (Atair experimented with
> no-crossports in endcells?).

That's a feature on the Cobalt. No crossports between cells 3&4 or 6&7.

I don't recall cobalt's deflating at low altitude though, there was a Crossfire and some crossbraced canopies (VX or Velocity, and a Xaos as I recall)

Erno

[billvon 2,416]

>actually, x bracing does increase the rigidity of a parafoil. one
>technique of many.

I agree, but I think we may need two definitions of rigidity. The one you are referring to ("micro rigidity?") increases the performance of canopies by manitaining their shape during all conditions, including loadings caused by high-G manuevers or brake line deflection of the tail. The other ("macro rigidity?") would be used to describe the resistance of the canopy to collapse. A canopy can be very resistant to collapse but not very structurally rigid and vice versa.

[marcin 0]

[I don't recall cobalt's deflating at low altitude though]

Cobalts are not crossbraced (meaning not with closed nose). I'd be slightly worried of a canopy with x-brace (or with otherwise closed nose) AND no-crossports.

marcin.

[ernokaikkonen 0]

>Cobalts are not crossbraced (meaning not with closed nose).

These two things are not necessarily related. The competition cobalt has a very closed nose, and no crossbraces. Icarus EXTreme FX has crossbraces but a relatively open nose.

>I'd be slightly worried of a canopy with x-brace (or with otherwise
>closed nose) AND no- crossports.

That's the Comp-Cobalt then. Have there been problems with those collapsing?

Erno