Canopy Progression - the Pro's way

[relyon 0]

Assumming the numbers (and corresponding wing loadings) are correct, I sense JC's progression to the Stilletto 150 at 315 jumps would have gotten him a severe ration of shit from many dropzone.com posters, regardless of his progression to that point. So why does JC get hailed as a model of the canopy progression while the average anonymous jumper gets flamed?

Bob

[andy2 0]

I think its the only thing you can do when someone with low jump numbers inquires ONLINE about whether or not they should downsize aggressively. It's erring on the side of caution. Why tell them they should do it when its easier to tell them they shouldnt?

I think the only way to get good advice on canopy selection is from people that have seen you land MULTIPLE times in MULTIPLE conditions. Anything else is just stupid and pointless. Everyone's different.

---------------------------------------------
let my inspiration flow,
in token rhyme suggesting rhythm...

[Ron 7]

At least there is a progression, not just Student canopies, and then a Stiletto.

Which today is a few jumps on a Sabre, then a Velocity.

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

[ianmdrennan 2]

Quote

I think its the only thing you can do when someone with low jump numbers inquires ONLINE about whether or not they should downsize aggressively. It's erring on the side of caution. Why tell them they should do it when its easier to tell them they shouldnt?

I think the only way to get good advice on canopy selection is from people that have seen you land MULTIPLE times in MULTIPLE conditions. Anything else is just stupid and pointless. Everyone's different.

I think that you are correct and that about sums it up. I've known people who were ready for smaller canopies before the norm and have done very well going through a faster progression. Unfortunately, as you stated, when asked online we have to assume that the person is an average or less than average canopy pilot - no matter what they think.

Blue skies
Ian

Performance Designs Factory Team

[rigging65 0]

I think an important part that is often missed by people with the best of intentions, is that people don't fall so easily into a "mold" (ie- you've got 30 jumps, so you can't fly anything but a square loaded at 1.0). We stereotype so that we have some sort of baseline to work off of in the event we encounter an unknown...and it most often serves us well.

There are probably many, many young jumpers out there that could be tutored and coached and be flying moderately loaded, high performance canopies with only a few dozen jumps. Does that sentence make you cringe? Think about it. Some people are certainly more apt to pick up skills and performance standards faster than there neighbor is. There are new jumpers out there with their sh*t wired tight and a good head on their shoulders that can, with coaching, be very safe...regardless of what they fly. Do all of them get the coaching they need? Certainly not. Do some of them? Yes. Do you know which is which without asking???

Of course, we use our stereotype "molds" out of convenience...and because they serve us well most of the time. And, I think it would be criminal not to use those "molds" in the event that you are speaking to/with someone whom you have no prior relationship with, don't know the background or capabilities of, etc.

Please note, I'm in now way endorsing smaller, faster canopies for new jumpers...I'm just pointing out that there are people out there that are capable of handling them. Was JC one of them? I don't know, I didn't know him when he was learning to skydive. It's totally possible that he was, and that someone held his hand through his transitions and he ended up flying a Stiletto earlier than one might be comfortable with as defined by the "mold".

I think jumpers are getting smarter, and so you see a more conservative approach because we're able to put two and two together and see that canopies are killing people. But I think we're also seeing a time in skydiving where there is more technical data and more available training in our "problem" areas than ever before. With this in mind, the next time you think about flaming someone when you learn they've got 50 jumps and are flying at 1.3, think about it first. Maybe ask who their canopy mentor is, get some facts. If you don't think they've got the mentoring and support to be flying what they're flying, then maybe they are truly in need of a tune-up...after all, it might save their life...but if they've got a mentor who seems to be keeping track of them and their training, you might think twice before you light them up. We've had this occur at our DZ in the past (and currently) and the thing is, everyone has the young jumper's best interest at heart. It's simply a matter of understanding the capabilities and personality of the jumper in question. Not everything is as it appears...especially if you take the time to look deeper.

You may not agree with it, but at least they're getting some training and trying to be intelligent about it, and that's certainly better than the alternative!

Just some thoughts....

"...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward.
For there you have been, and there you long to return..."

[Yoshi 0]

wells said...

-yoshi

_________________________________________
this space for rent.

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

I sense JC's progression to the Stilletto 150 at 315 jumps would have gotten him a severe ration of shit from many dropzone.com posters, regardless of his progression to that point.

I don't think that's the case. In fact, it wasn't with me. I went to a Stileto 150 at roughly 350 jumps, and even skybytch was on board with my canopy choice. I weigh in a bit more then JC, too.

Most of the canopy nazi's only really speak up when people are going sub-100 square feet with only a few hundred jumps.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[jumperconway 0]

Hear,hear! Very well said!

[rjf98 0]

Interesting... we're all talking about JC and no one has talked to him. It's been a while, but I think I remember him telling me he was flying a camera at around 200 jumps and filming tandems real shortly after that.

Hey some guys are good, some guys suck, and some guys are great. Every once in a while someone makes dumb choices, lives despite it, and then turns out great. Not saying it's the case with JC... nothing but respect for the guy, but I'd really like to hear his thoughts on his canopy progression.

[sarge 0]

Quote

I think the idea is to upsize the wing and wear alittle weight, that way your WL stays the same but the wing you're flying is bigger thus being able to create more life. Correct me if I'm wrong please.

... I'm amazed nobody even commented on this!

whatever...

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

[PhreeZone 15]

Substitute "lift" for "life" and its basically a correct statement.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[twnsnd 1]

Why wouldn't more wing equal more lift? Forget about wingload.

-We are the Swoophaters. We have travelled back in time to hate on your swoops.-

[ianmdrennan 2]

Quote

Why wouldn't more wing equal more lift? Forget about wingload.

It does but wingload increases forward speed, which as you know, is how we create lift. So more wingload = more speed, on a bigger wing = more lift.

It's a balancing act at best, but is the reason that a 150 loaded at 1.1 will go slower and cover less distance than a 150 loaded at 1.6 in an equally competent pilots hands.

Blue skies
Ian

Performance Designs Factory Team

[PhreeZone 15]

Correct, there is a fine balence point between the distance covered between something like a 79 canopy at 2.3 or a 99 canopy at the same loading. There is a point that the larger surface area starts to provide more drag then lift also.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[Harksaw 0]

Quote

Quote

Why wouldn't more wing equal more lift? Forget about wingload.

It does but wingload increases forward speed, which as you know, is how we create lift. So more wingload = more speed, on a bigger wing = more lift.

Blue skies
Ian

In addition, If I Recall Correctly, lift is proportional to the square of the windspeed, and proportional (power of 1) to the area. So theoretically, a canopy going at a speed 2*A will give you four times the lift as a canopy going A.

A canopy twice that size going speed A will only give you twice the lift.

Physicists, please correct me if I am mistaken.

__________________________________________________
I started skydiving for the money and the chicks. Oh, wait.

[alan 1]

Quote

I think the idea is to upsize the wing and wear alittle weight, that way your WL stays the same but the wing you're flying is bigger thus being able to create more life. Correct me if I'm wrong please.

The idea is to find the wing loading without weights that gives the best glide for the distance and carving competitions, etc.. The weights are added for the speed competition where the length of the glide is not important.

alan

[andy2 0]

ok, but what about little guys like me, I would have to fly a 65 sq ft canopy in order to get a 2.2 WL. Is that small a canopy really ideal for distance? I've asked people and they say no, ideally I would upsize a few sizes in the 80s and add about 20 pounds of weight!

Thats just what I've been told, I'm glad I dont have to worry about it for another thousand or so jumps!

---------------------------------------------
let my inspiration flow,
in token rhyme suggesting rhythm...

[rmsmith 1]

Quote

Physicists, please correct me if I am mistaken.

I recall a real life physicist who performed a low "double front riser" manuever striking the ground in concert with his canopy...killing himself. It was somewhere at an east coast drop zone, IIRC. If anyone had a grasp of the acceleration of gravity, it would have been this poor unfortunate soul. Education didn't replace experience!

[jsaxton 0]

If you're ever in CA and want to go footing, look me up