The topic simply involves "when" a student should get training, not if. And we can't agree. So be it. Wouldn't it be nice if everyone could be trained for this kind of thing right out of the door?
Ok...we seem to agree on most parts regardless of relevant skill levels...Get the training.
I'll ask around and get some other views on the safety factor of intentional stalls at 15 jumps.
Ok...we seem to agree on most parts regardless of relevant skill levels...Get the training.
I'll ask around and get some other views on the safety factor of intentional stalls at 15 jumps.
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
QuoteI'll ask around and get some other views on the safety factor of intentional stalls.
Understand with proper technique, and the right approach, a stall and recovery is not the spinning demon seed some people think it is. The entry and exit from a stall can be a very controlled and methodical event, especially at lower WL.
CREW guys will use a mild stall in four way rotation. The top guy will pop up and over the stack, stall his canopy, and ride downthe burble to dock on the bottom. If satlls weren't safe, I don't think anyone would be doing them ten feet behind a three stack.
Bad experiences with stalls are the result of poor or non-existant training. Just like you can screw up alot of things by doing it wrong, so to is the case with stalls.
People seem to forget that once you open your canopy, you've avoided a terminal impact, but now you're alone with your canopy, and it's the tool you are going to use to save your life. Not knowing the full scope of it's capabilities is really like flying partially blind. It's stupid.
Just becasue it's the norm, doesn't mean it's right.
Quote
Understand with proper technique, and the right approach, a stall and recovery is not the spinning demon seed some people think it is. The entry and exit from a stall can be a very controlled and methodical event, especially at lower WL.
So correct. And that's one of the things proper training in technique will help you accomplish.
QuoteBad experiences with stalls are the result of poor or non-existant training. Just like you can screw up alot of things by doing it wrong, so to is the case with stalls.
And, I would venture to say, that unplanned-for events could make it go wrong even if you did the right things is what makes it an unsafe manuever (even assuming good training and good learning).
QuoteNot knowing the full scope of it's capabilities is really like flying partially blind. It's stupid.
Agreed. The only points of contention, Dave, is when does one have the capability and presence of mind to be able to handle the full scope and the things that could go wrong and the relative safety of doing intentional stalls. I'm from the old-school - anything you do to screw up a good canopy is not safe.
QuoteJust becasue it's the norm, doesn't mean it's right.
Boy, you are right there...progression and advancements in teaching techniques and skills is rarely a bad thing.
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
velvetjo 0
Quotewhen does one have the capability and presence of mind to be able to handle the full scope and the things that could go wrong and the relative safety of doing intentional stalls. I'm from the old-school - anything you do to screw up a good canopy is not safe.
It says a lot that the FAA won't allow a student airplane pilot to solo without having first practiced stalls & stall recoveries. It's simply a mode of flight, and one that needs to be experienced early in a student's progression.
Lance
riggerrob 558
I'll ask around and get some other views on the safety factor of intentional stalls at 15 jumps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I usually introduce my PFF students to stalls when they have 6 or 8 jumps. This is usually after they have progressed from 290 to 230 square foot canopies and have demonstrated a bunch of decent landings, rear riser turns, etc.
The question of WHEN to teach stalls is highly dependent upon student weight, skill, weather, etc. and is best made by local instructors.
Far better to learn the basics of stalls and stall recovery under a big, docile 290 than a Spinetto.
Thanks Rob. I really didn't think I was that far of base there. Lots of factors to consider.
You have a pleasant way of putting things.
I hope Jason Shumway gets to see your post.
You have a pleasant way of putting things.
I hope Jason Shumway gets to see your post.
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
marks 0
Andy, you expressed interest with me in taking a weekend and getting canopy control coaching.
I will have you know, the first jump I have you do is about spotting, after a spotting class. then the second jump is a full on all out stall of your canopy. then the third jump is all about flying and turning the canopy at its stall point without letting it stall.
I will have you know, the first jump I have you do is about spotting, after a spotting class. then the second jump is a full on all out stall of your canopy. then the third jump is all about flying and turning the canopy at its stall point without letting it stall.
Yep...good stuff...
Would you recommend that full stall to any 15 jump student not knowing their abilities?
Am I just being overly cautious here, Mark?
Learning about your canopy in a controlled , progressive manner is one thing, but to expose a 15-jump student to a full stall without the basic, pre-requisite riser and toggle explorations and skills?.....
Edited to add: OK, if that's the case, then I concede that teaching these things to 15-jumpers is OK. I do NOT concede that it would be safe for him/her. For those of us with more experience and having learned and done stalls, granted the safety factor is much higher.
Just for your info...I have to take 2 wraps to fully stall my 190 Triathlon. I think this is not a safe practice also.
Would you recommend that full stall to any 15 jump student not knowing their abilities?
Am I just being overly cautious here, Mark?
Learning about your canopy in a controlled , progressive manner is one thing, but to expose a 15-jump student to a full stall without the basic, pre-requisite riser and toggle explorations and skills?.....
Edited to add: OK, if that's the case, then I concede that teaching these things to 15-jumpers is OK. I do NOT concede that it would be safe for him/her. For those of us with more experience and having learned and done stalls, granted the safety factor is much higher.
Just for your info...I have to take 2 wraps to fully stall my 190 Triathlon. I think this is not a safe practice also.
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
marks 0
QuoteWould you recommend that full stall to any 15 jump student not knowing their abilities?
yes, under the full supervision of a professional canopy coach and or an aff instructor.
reason for it, because you want it to scare the hell out of them so they DON'T do it. and so they understand what happens when they do. then you teach them to fly it right at that point. it gives them a great feel for the canopy and a better understanding on how it works and doesn't work.
don't get me wrong, you wont ever see me stall my canopy, I HATE it with a passion. it scares the hell out of me, but I also have the experience to be able to push it to that edge and even fly it there if I have to.
I also, like to have students do very hard toggle whips up high, WHY? this might sound weird, but it is a great training tool and it will keep the kids from dying. I like them to do extremely hard toggle whips for 2 reasons.
1. so they have an understanding of the dive. and
2. "this is the scary one" so they might even possibly get into line twist, and scare the shit out of themselves. because if they do it low, they could die. I really only use that one for "that guy" just to slow them down a bit.
OK, Mark...OK guys.
I've been verbally bitch-slapped and know it.
Mark, I like 'em even though the first one scared the crap out of me and I let up the toggles all at once and in the middle of the dive I saw the horizon WAY over the tail of my Tri-190.
I've been verbally bitch-slapped and know it.
Mark, I like 'em even though the first one scared the crap out of me and I let up the toggles all at once and in the middle of the dive I saw the horizon WAY over the tail of my Tri-190.
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
marks 0
I didnt bitch slap you! just said my point of veiw.
Im sure there are other points of veiw.
Im sure there are other points of veiw.
No Mark, I wasn't referring to you at all...others.
You be 'da man.
You be 'da man.
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
AFFI 0
Sometime back I emailed the late great Don Y. concerning some of the canopy control requirements on the A License Proficiency card, in particular the Braked Approach and Landing and Accuracy Landing requirements. Don, in is own elegant manner went into details that did include the importance of learning stall points of the canopy being piloted and how it is imperative that the student learn control aspects of their canopy prior to performing braked maneuvers close to the ground. His reply email is pasted below. Thought some of you might appreciate good ole don’s perspective.
Hey, Mykel,
My purported areas of “expertise” certainly do not include the detailed whys and wherefores of all of the facets of the “I.S.P.” I’ll still be absorbing the minutia for several years to come, as will the rest of the instructional community. Keep in mind that I was mostly “out of the S&T Committee” loop for two years, and that there were numerous modifications and revisions to the “I.S.P.” by them after my departure from the committee. After that disclaimer, I can, however, speculate………….
My interpretation, for that’s all that it is, would lead me to conclude that the degree of control input by the student would absolutely be equipment/wing loading dependent, as well factoring in the wind conditions existing (down to the deck) when the canopy flight in question is planned. The definition of what is “braked” will vary a bit from DZ to DZ and Instructor to Instructor. After all, isn’t every landing aside from full flight a ‘braked landing” at some point prior to, or perhaps after, ground impact??? Good, bad or indifferent.
I’m sure that the spirit and intent of this requirement is to ensure that the student understands and can discern between the various modes of flight of their canopy, which on their final student canopy flights, IMHO, should include approaches to and execution of a stall and demonstrating the ability to recover to full flight at an extravagant altitude, ergo, way up there, probably immediately following the determination of a good canopy, subsequent to the controllability check. This is directly paralleled in aviation flight instruction.
How many folks have been killed over the years due partly or wholly to an imperfect understanding and feel for the safe envelope of flight for the canopy that they were using when they frapped? So a clear understanding of how to avoid a stall when the chips are down (new DZ, last load, running late, bad spot, tiny field, perhaps unfamiliar equipment, etc., or even a reserve ride) is essential. How many skydivers (including Instructors) out there these days have never truly stalled their canopy?????? “Oh, that’s too scary.” And their point is? The alternative is even more scary for most normal folks.
In all cases common sense should be exercised by each Instructor, therefore in essence tailoring the requirement to each student, not simply blindly adhering to a requirement in the program, applying what I would term ‘collision avoidance of a cookie-cutter approach to canopy flight instruction’.
The spirit and intent of the accuracy requirement is to have the student demonstrate proper expertise in landing their parachute where they plan to, without guidance. This is not a contest for Instructors in directing radio-controlled student skydivers to a spot landing. One consideration is that the “A” License requirement is going up to 25 jumps in September- that’s five more opportunities to work with “problem children” on their canopy skills.
That’s all that you get today. Besides, my coffee cup is empty.
Clear Skies,
Don
Hey, Mykel,
My purported areas of “expertise” certainly do not include the detailed whys and wherefores of all of the facets of the “I.S.P.” I’ll still be absorbing the minutia for several years to come, as will the rest of the instructional community. Keep in mind that I was mostly “out of the S&T Committee” loop for two years, and that there were numerous modifications and revisions to the “I.S.P.” by them after my departure from the committee. After that disclaimer, I can, however, speculate………….
My interpretation, for that’s all that it is, would lead me to conclude that the degree of control input by the student would absolutely be equipment/wing loading dependent, as well factoring in the wind conditions existing (down to the deck) when the canopy flight in question is planned. The definition of what is “braked” will vary a bit from DZ to DZ and Instructor to Instructor. After all, isn’t every landing aside from full flight a ‘braked landing” at some point prior to, or perhaps after, ground impact??? Good, bad or indifferent.
I’m sure that the spirit and intent of this requirement is to ensure that the student understands and can discern between the various modes of flight of their canopy, which on their final student canopy flights, IMHO, should include approaches to and execution of a stall and demonstrating the ability to recover to full flight at an extravagant altitude, ergo, way up there, probably immediately following the determination of a good canopy, subsequent to the controllability check. This is directly paralleled in aviation flight instruction.
How many folks have been killed over the years due partly or wholly to an imperfect understanding and feel for the safe envelope of flight for the canopy that they were using when they frapped? So a clear understanding of how to avoid a stall when the chips are down (new DZ, last load, running late, bad spot, tiny field, perhaps unfamiliar equipment, etc., or even a reserve ride) is essential. How many skydivers (including Instructors) out there these days have never truly stalled their canopy?????? “Oh, that’s too scary.” And their point is? The alternative is even more scary for most normal folks.
In all cases common sense should be exercised by each Instructor, therefore in essence tailoring the requirement to each student, not simply blindly adhering to a requirement in the program, applying what I would term ‘collision avoidance of a cookie-cutter approach to canopy flight instruction’.
The spirit and intent of the accuracy requirement is to have the student demonstrate proper expertise in landing their parachute where they plan to, without guidance. This is not a contest for Instructors in directing radio-controlled student skydivers to a spot landing. One consideration is that the “A” License requirement is going up to 25 jumps in September- that’s five more opportunities to work with “problem children” on their canopy skills.
That’s all that you get today. Besides, my coffee cup is empty.
Clear Skies,
Don
Damn! I never thought that I would start such a heated discussion. 
Well if it counts for anything. I did talk to an instructor and after seeing me jump thought that it would be a good idea for me to try. he said that it is very important for me to know the stall point of any chute that I'm flying and how to recognize a stall.
the saber 2 210 that I was flying at full breaks wouldn't stall. so I wrapped the break lines up a little bit and tried again. (I was at 4500 feet trying this) it stalled. I paniced and raised me hands, saw the horizon above my tail. S**t my self and recovered. luckly no line twists or anything. but I could see how they could form..
As for where this thread has gone. I think that popsjumper makes a lot of good points. having seen many student jumps I think that it sometimes takes some longer to learn the basics. but it is something that I think students should experience because if it happens as a bad time and you have never felt that falling backwards feeling you will panic hardcore.
Pops I think that your advice on talking to an instructor that can assess your canopy control abilities is spot on.
I don' t think that there is one answer for all students.
but for me.... I'll be practicing stalls very carefully till I don't panic at the feeling.
Thanks everyone
Jason
Well if it counts for anything. I did talk to an instructor and after seeing me jump thought that it would be a good idea for me to try. he said that it is very important for me to know the stall point of any chute that I'm flying and how to recognize a stall.
the saber 2 210 that I was flying at full breaks wouldn't stall. so I wrapped the break lines up a little bit and tried again. (I was at 4500 feet trying this) it stalled. I paniced and raised me hands, saw the horizon above my tail. S**t my self
and recovered. luckly no line twists or anything. but I could see how they could form.. As for where this thread has gone. I think that popsjumper makes a lot of good points. having seen many student jumps I think that it sometimes takes some longer to learn the basics. but it is something that I think students should experience because if it happens as a bad time and you have never felt that falling backwards feeling you will panic hardcore.
Pops I think that your advice on talking to an instructor that can assess your canopy control abilities is spot on.
I don' t think that there is one answer for all students.
but for me.... I'll be practicing stalls very carefully till I don't panic at the feeling.
Thanks everyone
Jason
MB38 0
What country?Quote...the “A” License requirement is going up to 25 jumps in September...
I really don't know what I'm talking about.
Heres where your lack of information is showing. A stall is not instantaneous at lower Wl, they develop. If you have experienced a satll, you will recognize the feeling, and know what is happening. The correct action os to not apply any more brakes, your canopy is already flying as slow as it can.
Without experience in stalls, the immediate reaction to things not goign well during landing is to finish the flare, which in this case will accelaerate the stall and worsen the sitaution.
Wrong again. Stalls are not unsafe, at an apporpriate altitude, and with appropriate technique. Youare mistaking inflation with being the determining factor between a bad and good canopy. This is also incorrect. Provided you are in control of it, the inflation or deflation of your canopy above 2000ft is your business.
I never suggested this on jump one. The OP is in jump 15. Beleive it or not, the current system of training is shorting jumpers in the area of canopy control.
Jump one is a very supervised enviorment, with a huge weath of info to absorb. Seeing as the number of jumpers who return for jump #2 is small, and jumper #3 is even smaller and so on, by the time a guy is at 8 or 10 jumps, it's time to consider that he is a skydiver, and will continue on to self jumpmaster. At this point it's time to get serious and persue the trainig you need to keep jumping.
How much have YOU read? My first post on this matter suggested gettign a canopy coach for an hour, and learning what he needed to know the right way.
Continuing to repeat this does not make it true.
The overall point is, and yor position is a great illustration, that jumpers do not have a good understaning of canopy flight. Beyond basic freefall stability, the majority of training should be focused in canopy control, and aerodynamic theory. Every jump is the equivilant of an engine-out scenario for a pilot, and jumpers are far under preparred for the situations that could present themselves.
Your problem is that you are dealing with your reality, which is based on the old way of doing things. My reality is based on forward thinking, and working with what could, and should be the norm, which is complete and thourough training in the area of canopy control.
There's a reason that Scott Miller and Brian Germian teach stalls to ALL of their students regardless of their experience.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites