Does it concern anyone that . . .

[freeflyguy 0]

ah, you are right on that one. Remi does have it wrong, but that is completely 'believable' don't attack him over it. They don't teach that stuff to skydivers. There really isn't much need too. There is a need for a private pilot to know it though.
j

[PhreeZone 15]

Quote

What I was saying was that the skills needed to keep myself and everyone around me safe came naturaly.

Not to generate a flare war or anything here, but are other jumpers saying this or are your JM's? There is a huge difference between these 2 crowds. JM's are really only worried about the 2 minutes that you are in the air after they land. Their primary purpose is to get you to the ground with out having you break something. Other jumpers are sharing the same airspace as you and are WAY more concerned about your flying skills then JM's are after you graduate.
I've been cut off on final by way more JM's then anyone else. Most JM's are so worried about beating the entire crowd down to talk to their student on Radio that they don't pay enough attention to the others in the area and end up cutting most of them off. So while JM's are great at most things, there are some things that even they need to practice what they preach.
Other jumpers on the other hand are much more likely to be willing to say something to you if you are'nt doing something right. Being in the air with a total of only 3 other jumpers is'nt really that big of a deal. Now if you open in the middle of 20 others and screw up a bit on the flying, the margin of error is way less. I've talked to a few jumpers this year alone who thought they were doing everything right, but after looking at video, they were shown to be cutting other jumpers off, making s turns too late in the pattern or causeing a ton of other problems. Did they realize they were doing this? Nope.... it was'nt till I got cut off I decided to tape from the ground to show this person thier mistakes.
Part of the problem with learning on non-student wingloadings 1:1 is that is instills a sence of false confidence. "If my JM's trust me at this loading at 2 or 3 jumps, then I can progress to a higher one with out any issue." I've seen it happen at another DZ (I've never been to a DZ in TX), and within 2 years most jumpers at this DZ are being encouraged to be at 1.5 wing loadings on Stiletto catergory canopies. Are the jumpers really ready for it? Not really but since everyone else they started with is doing it, they do it too.
Whats the solution? I like the idea of starting on ZP canopys , but feel students need to keep the at the student loading level of .5-.8:1. Sure there is no proformance, but lots of room for error is left. After 30-40 jumps and if the Jumper does well enough under canopy, then 1:1-1.15:1 for another 50 . Remember all you should be really learning here is still how to land, how to land where you want to and how the canopy does in stuff like crosswinds and downwind. at less then 75 jumps survial should be the #1 priority not impressive landings. After 150 jumps..... You should know what you to do in the future and should seek out help to do what you wish to accomplish.
Phree
Canopy Nazi #2 and looking for Canopy coaching.....
I want to touch the sky, I want to fly so high ~ Sonique

[Slappie 9]

Maybe I'm not like everyone else. I'm out to have fun. Not have impressive landings. The point is students can be taught how to fly something with a wing load of over 1.1... I was.. It's only smart to teach a student to jump on the equipment they are going to be buying and using in the future!
Well after level 4 I was taken off radio. I also have seen what you say about JM's flying in fast so they can get their students in safely. I still dissagree with some of your points others make sense. I wasn't flaming I was just stating my opinion. BTW Others have told me I'm a safe canopy pilot. The thing I was getting at was the issue over wing loading for students. They should be at least 1.1.1 I'm not trying to swoop a canpoy. I don't even want to downsize. I'm happy flying my 170 with a WL of 1.2 with soft stand up landings. I jump from an Otter so at anygiven time there is usually 23 people in the air at one time. I'm also a Sit-Flyer so I tend to get down alittle faster. I've flown around our RW teams and see people making mistakes all the time. We are human after all.
My New Website with 24hr Chat

[quade 3]

Quote

ah, you are right on that one. Remi does have it wrong, but that is completely 'believable' don't attack him over it. They don't teach that stuff to skydivers. There really isn't much need too. There is a need for a private pilot to know it though.
j

If I'm attacking anyone, it's Remi's JM for not giving Remi a correct understanding of how he's flying.
Paul
http://futurecam.com/skydive.html

[quade 3]

Quote

Quade, while I do agree with you on the points you make about newbies, I want to point out one thing. Addressing the comment you made about "Airspeed equals lift", they were right, the more airspeed the more lift. If a canopy has no airspeed, the canopy has no lift. While I do agree with you that we do not need to teach newbies high speed landings before they learn other skills, we shouldn't teach them false info.
William

That phrase, "Airspeed equals lift" besides being mostly wrong, gives the newbies the idea that in order to make "good" landings, they have to increase the speed of their canopy.
I'll go so far as to say that any speed during landing above the canopy's best glide speed is wasted kinetic energy.
Now, this may be "fun" but it has nothing to do with a soft or accurate landing.
Paul
http://futurecam.com/skydive.html

[FallingMarc 0]

Training students on the type of equipment they will be buying is one thing... but you don't need a Ferrari to learn to drive. Sure people can be taught on a wing loading over 1:1, but the margin of error is reduced. I haven't even been in the sport for a year, and I've seen students ignore the radio, not flare, bury a toggle at 30 feet, etc... We use ZP 290 Skymasters for students. The guy that turned low would not have walked away from his landing if he had been under a smaller sport canopy. Luckily for him, he had a lighter wingloading, and did decide to listen to the radio quickly enough to brush himself off and get nothing worse than a long lecture about low turns and target fixation. Some people need that margin of error before they learn the way to fly safely.
I went from the student gear(loaded at something like .5:1) to a Triathlon at 1.1:1 at jump 35. I've put almost 50 jumps on it since then, and it still seems like a lot of canopy for me. I can't see myself downsizing anytime soon. I want to learn to swoop eventually, but not for a long time. I just don't see how it's safe to put brand spankin new canopy pilots under something that takes quicker thinking and reactions, until they are comfortable and safe flying something more forgiving.
Marc

[PhreeZone 15]

***Canopy Nazi rant here****
Can students be taught at higher wingloadings? Sure... Its really easy to teach them because any thing that they do is going to provide immediate responce. Same thing why flying an elliptical canopy comes so easy. But while its the easiest to teach, is it the safest? At a higher loading the canopy feels like its part of you.
I should be able to take any first time jumper out and put them under a Sabre 120 loaded at 1.5:1 and have them land it fine. But when you look at the sheer number of first and second jump number's compaired to the number of AFF or any programs gratuate rate, the arguement is lost. Why provide a canopy that extremly easy to get hurt under without enough experience to jumpers that probally won't make it worth teaching the finer points of canopy control? Now if you are getting canopy control after graduation then you are picking up the finer point and are ahead of the curve.
Lets say this is the same as cars... Did you start out driving on a Corvette or a Station wagon? Sure the Corvette is fun to drive and its easy to get it to do what you want it to do... but how much did you learn about driving? The car did most the work and one wrong move usully ends with a trip to the ER or worse. Under a station wagon, it might not be what you are going to buy once you get your licence, but you could learn your lessons in some what saftey since it was'nt going 120 the moment you touched the gas.
Comments from everyone are welcome here.......
Phree
Canopy Nazi #2.....
At a 1.2 loading on a Sabre 170 you are at PD's limit for Expert jumpers. Do you really consider your self to be an Expert jumper at 37 jumps?
I want to touch the sky, I want to fly so high ~ Sonique

[mgaillar 0]

Bernoulli's Principle:
Daniel Bernoulli, an eighteenth-century Swiss scientist, discovered that as the velocity of a fluid increases, its pressure decreases. How and why does this work, and what does it have to do with aircraft in flight?
Bernoulli's principle applies to any fluid, and since air is a fluid, it applies to air. The camber of an airfoil causes an increase in the velocity of the air passing over the airfoil. This results in a decrease in the pressure in the stream of air moving over the airfoil. This decrease in pressure on the top of the airfoil causes lift.
Hmmmm.
http://www.skydiveorange.com

[scottbre 0]

My opinion on this probably has little if any merit, since I only currently have 17 jumps, but I tend to agree with PhreeZone. I did my first 12 jumps on the huge manta 290's and then bought a used rig with a raider 220. I only notice a slight difference between the two in handling and landing (my wingloading is .85:1), but I think it would have been stupid of me to have gotten a canopy that was any smaller. I have had all stand up landing except for my last one, where I flared about 10 feet too high. As soon as I realized this, i let up on the toggles which of course gave me a big downward boost of speed, at which point I immediately buried the toggles. It evened out fine, but about 2 feet lower than I would have liked, giving me a nice soft, but rather swift slide landing on my butt. Had I had a smaller canopy, it wouldn't have been as gentle with me, and I probably wouldn't have been able to get that second flare all the way down before hitting the ground. All that said, I think every student is going to have at least a few of those embarrassing landings, and as long as you aren't overloading your canopy for your experience level, those occurrences will just be embarrassing and not painful as well.
Finally the station wagon/ferrari analogy is a good one. Sure you can learn to drive a ferrari first, but you will be learning the driving process backwards. You will be learning all the nuances of driving a high performance car, which will invariably take your concentration away from the basics of just driving, which you will still have to eventually learn, possibly at a much higher price.
"Can't keep my mind from the circling sky. Tongue-tied & twisted just an earth-bound misfit, I."

[quade 3]

Quote

Bernoulli's Principle:
Daniel Bernoulli, an eighteenth-century Swiss scientist, discovered that as the velocity of a fluid increases, its pressure decreases. How and why does this work, and what does it have to do with aircraft in flight?
Bernoulli's principle applies to any fluid, and since air is a fluid, it applies to air. The camber of an airfoil causes an increase in the velocity of the air passing over the airfoil. This results in a decrease in the pressure in the stream of air moving over the airfoil. This decrease in pressure on the top of the airfoil causes lift.
Hmmmm.

Well, that's a fairly simple model of what takes place and one that is commonly given to students, however, it's not entirely correct.
Please see; THIS.
Paul
http://futurecam.com/skydive.html

[FallingMarc 0]

Quote

Sure you can learn to drive a ferrari first, but you will be learning the driving process backwards. You will be learning all the nuances of driving a high performance car, which will invariably take your concentration away from the basics of just driving, which you will still have to eventually learn, possibly at a much higher price.

Excellently put... it doesn't matter if you want to have fun with your canopy, or see it only as a means of getting to the ground safely. If you're ignoring the basics of survival in order to have fun, you're dangerous. Learn to walk before you run... and learn to land slowly, hit accuracy, crosswind, traffic, etc., before you swoop and spiral into the pattern...
Marc

[freeflyguy 0]

Quote

If you're ignoring the basics of survival in order to have fun, you're dangerous. Learn to walk before you run... and learn to land slowly, hit accuracy, crosswind, traffic, etc., before you swoop and spiral into the pattern...

I like the way you guys think.
It is true that you all probably could land some cross braced rocket loaded at 2.5. It would probably scare the hell out of you, but if you had too, you could do it. But would it be a good idea. No. People think that because they can land a highly loaded canopy safely a couple times, they can jump it on a regular basis. What about when you have to land out? That guy killed himself a month or two ago, landing out, and makeing a low turn. That is why I completely agree with the above quote.
So I agree too, teaching a student on a loading of 1.2 on a zp is proabably not a good idea. The margin for error increases as the loading goes up.
There is always time to be a great canopy pilot, later, but only if you are alive later.

[prost 0]

I guess al of my professors in fluid dynamics and all the other courses I took didn't know crap and you are the authority. Let me restate it...."If all other things are kept a constant, the more forward speed the more lift a wing will have." Yes you can do other things that increase lift. Why do you think it takes more power to fly the plane at extreme slower speeds? If a wing has no forward speed it has no lift no matter what kind of wing you have. I agree that we should not teach newbies that more forward speed will solve there landing problems. Don't teach subjects you don't really know about.
William

[quade 3]

Quote

Don't teach subjects you don't really know about.

Ya know, the FAA approved my texts on the subject -- I must know something!
Look, the ENTIRE point of my argument is that the statement "airspeed equals lift" is just about as accurate as the statement "peanut butter equals sandwich". Yes, if you add more peanut butter you'll have a bigger sandwich, but without the bread ya got a LOT of goo on your hands. ;^)
That is to say, yes, airspeed is -a- factor in the lift formula but is NOT the entire story.
Try this one . . . "lift equals one half rho V squared." If you took courses in aerodynamics, that phrase should have come up at least once or twice.
In other words, you MUST also take into consideration the density of the air and the coefficient of lift of the wing at it's current angle of attack.
Hey, I've posted at least a couple of times some references to other texts that support my views on this. It's not just me.
Paul Quade
http://futurecam.com/skydive.html

[mnischalke 0]

So you are telling me that my instructor was full of shit and that my canopy is not suspended by magic?
mike

[landmissle 2]

Hmmm. Perhaps you should read the post in "Skydiving Talk Back", "DZ.com Community".
What we have here is the ejeculate splatters of mental masterbation. Come on folks, keep it cordial. Do you really think that you're impressing newbies that may be coming here solicting advice. More importantly, do you think there're likely to post a question (let alone, offer a differing opinion) if they have to fear reprisal from the obviously superior intellects that inhabit this forum? It not only affects newbies, but other folks that have well founded advice but, lack the egotistical fortitude of others, clearly demostrated here, are also less likey to contribute.
Feel free to tell me to take a flying leap since I'm not a moderator. I'd love to take your advice anyways, since most of flying leaps are restriced to weekends and Caravans.
Just thought I'd throw out a cautionary note. I really don't want to abandon this forum but, if it devolves into "is to", "is not", 'is to", "is not", well I can better allocate my remaining life-span into other arenas.
Let's lighten up. I really think this can be an awesome forum chock full juicy ted-bits. Whata' say?
Feet up, heads down, blue skies,
Landmissle

[quade 3]

Landmissle --
Maybe it was the food poisoning I had yesterday that REALLY got to me and started this whole bad vibe thing, I don't know.
That said, I really haven't been trying to start a flame war or anything. All I'd wanted to do is to defend my position that something that is being said as the "truth" by a lot of people is simply incorrect (or at the very least a completely incomplete answer).
What's facinating to me is that this "truth" has been parroted by so many people without them even thinking about what it would really mean.
It's amazing to me, that my simple statement that this "truth" was incorrect brought such a violent and automatic reaction from so many people. It's almost as if I told a bunch of kids that there was no Santa Clause.
Well, of course there's a Santa Clause . . . somebody told me so.
Paul
http://futurecam.com/skydive.html

[skymedic 0]

I am with you on this one paul...
Marc
Res Firma Mitescere Nescite

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

that there was no Santa Clause

Santa's NOT real? *runs from room crying*
(Sorry, I know that wasn't at all constructive or even on topic, but its late and I thought we needed some humor here...AggieDave '02
-------------
Blue Skies and Gig'em Ags!
BTHO t.u.

[RemiAndKaren 0]

Damm.. I hate this time zone thingy....

Quote

If I'm attacking anyone, it's Remi's JM for not giving Remi a correct understanding of how he's flying

No sweat..
I had this image in mind when I posted: on a canopy, the angle is, for exemple, 10 deg from the horizontal going down. When I said decreased the angle of attack, I ment to bring it to 5 from horizontal going down.
You're right, if we use a ref of positive going up, then my term decrease would be wrong, as the canopy would go from -10 to -5, wich is an increase. I was thinking in absolute numbers, sorry for the confusion.
Obviously, its been a while since I did maths, so let me talk in dumb words the less the canopy points down, or the more it points up, the more lift it has... right?
Remi
Muff 914

[RemiAndKaren 0]

Gee.. I really dont know what I'm talking about, do I !
Sorry folks, on top of things, I confused angle of attack with angle of incidence..... evn if the canopy is -10 deg from the horizon, it probably has a positive angle of attack to the relative wind....
It is true, as skydivers we tend to simplify things.....
Remi
Muff 914

[BenW 0]

Remi,
Isn't the angle of attack equal to the angle of dangle?
Anyway, you can't talk about canopy swooping and flight; You're the one who thinks he should deploy his reserve at 13,000ft whilst doing an RW exit!
B

[RemiAndKaren 0]

I never deployed my reserve at 13K... It was the plane that did it, and it was 14K...
Remi
Muff 914

[BenW 0]

Ner ner ne ner ner...

• Quote

[skycat 0]

Ok I'm not trying to start this all over, but I think asking questions by newbies is a good thing. Currently I'm getting canopy coaching and in the last few weeks I've learned so many things I never would have thought about. I was landing fine under my canopy, but my coach said my technique was wrong. What I was doing was going to get me into trouble when I do downsize to higher wingloadings. By changing my technique on how I flare, when I flare, and what my body is doing while I flare, I actually get very nice "swoopy" landing on strait in approches. I'm not even using my front risers.
I mean how many newbies have actually hit the accuracy target? I hear alot of well I can do it if I have to it, or well the landing area is so huge why should I have to. After watching probably some of the best swoopers around doing stuff that to me was amazing, I was told that 99% of it is accuracy, being at point X at Y altitude, and if you aren't there, abort and find an alternate.
There is a lot a young jumper can learn to make them a better pilot, and it is good that they ask questions, the more questions the better. The thing is figuring out what is crap and what is worth learning and trying.
Kelli