Your Canopy Risk Quotient? :Parachutist 03/04

[sarge 0]

Mine is currently a 37

Which places me in the High Risk catagory.

I have -0- jumps in the last month (last three months) less than 200 jumps on my current canopy and I just didn't get enough jumps in last year (less than 200)

- In the final analysis; It appears I can only cut my risk assessment points 'substantially' by lowering my wingload, upping my square footage and changing my canopy design...

Nice questionnaire

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

[davelepka 4]

I came out to a low 40 something. This was after I used currency info from Oct., the last time I jumped. If I used actual info, who knows how high I'd be.

This survey lacked ALOT. I don't do any dedicated practice jumps at all. I've got 3500 'practice' jumps. Also, I've never taken a canopy course. When I started jumping they didn't exist, and I had 2000+ jumps by the time they came to be.

I can see how this survey would work for lower time jumpers, say, under 1000 jumps.

[AndyMan 7]

I went through that last night... I could only think its a load of crap.

My first time through it, it put me in the highest category. Scary, I think it was. Aparently I'm a danger to myself and everyone else on the DZ.

So I'm scary, despite that fact that I jump at a 1.6 wingloading with over 500 jumps, have been in the sport for 4 years, and expect to do over two hundred jumps this season, rarely go a week without jumping, and have a coach rating.

Scary my ass. The only thing scary was that clasification system. Did anyone notice that the article didn't have a by-line?

That article was horseshit.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[sarge 0]

Quote

I've got 3500 'practice' jumps. Also, I've never taken a canopy course

Most excellent points!!

I bet this is pretty common among most jumpers as well who have been using the same canopy for quite some time. And I am still among the -1000 crowd.

My canopy was brand new last year and I spent a lot of extra time working with it, (I even took a canopy control course) and did lots of work up high! I'm afraid that in only a few hundred more jumps on this canopy, I'm in jeopardy of losing the, 'training/practice' points from the survey as well.

.

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

[sarge 0]

Quote

I went through that last night... I could only think its a load of crap.

p.39 "Also To Consider ; [first sentence] 'While this survey is far from perfect..."

-I thought it has some use a general guide Andy.

Quote

My first time through it, it put me in the highest category. Stupid

I think dave made a good point and one which I acknowledge within the context of the questionanaire is that according to the scoring, mine would be much higher had it not been coincidental that I took canopy training and worked the shit out of my canopy last season...

The training points appear to be permanent though. That I find curious??? since so much emphasis is placed on currency.

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

[craichead 0]

While I don't think the survey was complete horseshit (it has some interesting points worth considering, especially for those who are keen on downsizing quickly), I liken it to a pop-psychology Cosmo quiz for skydivers.

USPA could've been much more calculated and "scientific" in constructing this questionnaire.

_Pm

__
"Scared of love, love and aeroplanes...falling out, I said takes no brains." -- Andy Partridge (XTC)

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

and have a coach rating.

So? Doesn't make you a great canopy pilot, just means you can teach students.

Quote

So I'm scary, despite that fact that I jump at a 1.6 wingloading with over 500 jumps, have been in the sport for 4 years, and expect to do over two hundred jumps this season, rarely go a week without jumping

I'm high risk, despite the fact I jump a 1.9:1 wingloading with a bit under 1000 jumps, I've been in the sport for nearly 4 years and expect to do around 700 jumps this year and I don't go more then a few days without jumping, and I have a coach and tandem rating.

I did the survey twice, since I just downsized, I wanted to see what the difference was.

Before the downsize, I was in the lowest category.

With the new canopy, I'm in the "High risk" category.

What does that tell me? The same thing I knew, I have a lot of jumps to do to dial in this canopy and I could really use some canopy coaching.

I think it is a good learning tool for folks, if anything it gets them thinking about their canopy and getting some canopy coaching.


So Andy, are you saying that you're not going to get any canopy coaching and the article didn't make you think about your canopy skills?

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

So Andy, are you saying that you're not going to get any canopy coaching and the article didn't make you think about your canopy skills?

It did make me think of them, but for the most part it simply reminded me that currency is key. I haven't jumped in 4 monthes because it's still winter in a good half of the country.

The second time I ran through it, I went through as if it were now the 1st week in May instead of the 1st weekn in March. I scored considerably better.

I'm so glad that 4 weeks of jumping makes me "safe". It's a relief to know I'm not a danger to those around me any more.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[ccowden 0]

Basically the survey said this-

If you jump a high performance canopy, you are high risk.

Well DUH!!!

I am guessing that even the pros would be in the high risk numbers in this survey, so what is the point exactly? High performance flight is a higher risk factor than other canopy flight?

I thought we already knew that. I think they wasted paper with this one and could have used the space to write a much better article on canopy safety.

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

I am guessing that even the pros would be in the high risk numbers in this survey, so what is the point exactly? High performance flight is a higher risk factor than other canopy flight?

I thought we already knew that. I think they wasted paper with this one and could have used the space to write a much better article on canopy safety.

The point is we need to try everything under the sun to get the truely "at risk" jumpers to recognize the fact.

If this help so be it. If you don't think it does, well why don't you write an article and submit it?

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[skybytch 259]

Quote

I'm so glad that 4 weeks of jumping makes me "safe". It's a relief to know I'm not a danger to those around me any more.

When I get back in the air after a break or more than a month or so, I assume I am a danger to myself and everyone around me - in freefall, under canopy and in the landing area. After four weekends of jumping the way you jump, I'd feel a whole lot better about my skills than I would on my first day back in the air.

Anybody remember how many injuries/fatalities were posted about last spring when those in the frozen north finally got decent skydiving weather? And how many more that weren't posted? Happens every year. A reminder that after 3-5 months of not jumping we aren't as good as we were when we jumped last time is, imho, a very good thing.

If that article makes one person reconsider doing a fat 270 approach on that new to them at the end of last season one size smaller main canopy on their first jump back after the winter... then it was a good article.

Quote

If this help so be it. If you don't think it does, well why don't you write an article and submit it?

An excellent point JP. But it's far easier to criticize what others have written and submitted than it is to come up with something yourself.

[SkySlut 0]

Good point...it seems as though most of the people that are posting on this thread have, for the most part, posted good info or admitted that they didnt know and suggested that they talk to an instructor or other qualified personel.

Quote

The point is we need to try everything under the sun to get the truely "at risk" jumpers to recognize the fact.

I am very curious to see what some of the posters, that have been ranting and raving on a few other threads recently, who seem to be on the other end of the spectrum (i.e. 100 jump wonders) think of this and what their risk quotient is. I wonder if this article made any points with them. Although, I doubt much would change their opinion...but it would be interesting anyways.

[SkymonkeyONE 3]

Tragically flawed? Really? My scores:

28 (average risk) under my wingsuit main (Sabre2 97)
33 (average risk) under my competition main (Velocity 79)

I can see where this questionaire might ruffle some people's feathers, but oh well. Lisa hit the nail on the head in her response to Andy. You can't use the excuse that "nobody jumps up here in the winter" to quantify the fact that there are a LOT of people up north who need time to "tune up" before they get in the air with a lot of other people. Currency is incredibly important.

An example of doing something smart:

Katie was jumping a demo Sabre2 135 before she went to Kuwait. While she was gone she bought a Sabre2 150 because she knew she needed time to get her skills tuned back up. (she has made over 100 jumps since November and just went over 200 total).

[ccowden 0]

My point was that this article was written in a manner that would not reach the 'target' readers in the way that I think it was intended. By calling someone 'high risk' or 'a danger to everyone around them' , you will get the type of reactions that are posted here, plus probably lose the chance you had to get through to the persons who might really need to understand this risk factor.

I understood what the article was trying to get across, but I just think they went about it wrong. It had the feel of fingerpointing and made me sound as if I was not safe and shouldn't be jumping what I am. I scored a 40. I always strive for safety and education with my canopy flight and take it very seriously. This article made it sound as if I didn't do any such things.

----THIS IS MY OPINION AND MAY NOT BE SHARED BY EVERYONE. I AM SIMPLY STATING HOW I PERCEIVED IT.---

To me, and I repeat, to ME, the article was written in a way that made me feel as though I was not very safe, a risk to others, not taking canopy flight seriously, and worst of all, was completely unaware of these facts. I even used the numbers of a canopy coach who scored 2 points higher than I.

I believe that the intention were good, but it was just poorly delivered. I am not saying I could do better or I am an expert or I am not in a higher risk bracket or the people who wrote this were idiots, so if you got any of these impressions, I apologize and will say you missed my point. I am just stating my opinions and assumed this forum was the place to do it.

I would certainly be willing to give my input on another article dedicated to canopy safety and risk assesment. I never implied that I could write a better article, I was just displeased with this one. I would assume the writers of this article and viewers of this forum would want this type of input, but I could be wrong. I was very pleased to see this article in the magazine and it was the first one I read because I want to continually educate myself and become a safer pilot, so I appreciate the effort. But I was disappointed with how it came across.

[ccowden 0]

Let me add-

I agree that I could have delivered my opinion in a better manner the first time and should have lacked the sarcasm. It was an error on my part. I just assumed that this thread was started in that tone and I found it humorous.

[davelepka 4]

You've got a good point about the approach of the article. It is a little 'off' in hte approach they use toward the target audience.

A good usage would be for everyone at safety day to fill one out, and then discuss the results with a qualified instructor. It would help to smooth out the message to those pulling down higher scores.

For the more experienced jumpers, as in several thousand jumps and up, the resutls do seem to lean toward the higher numbers. This seems to be a result of steering the survey toward accuracy for those with lower jump numbers. I think that your score is what it is, but a highly experienced jumper can 'downplay' thier number a bit due to experience.

No offence to Andyman, but I think he is in the target audience. With 500 jumps, a 1.6 WL, and a leaning toward HP landings, I think he should give his scores another, more humble, look.

Swooping is an advanced manuver in skydiving. Just like we whip the 100 jump wonders for thinking they know it all, when it comes to swooping, 500 jumps is a newbie. You've got to figure that in those 500, many of them were not Hp landings, and were most likely on a variety of very different canopies. Experienced swoopers do change canopies, but the differences are usually small, such as 96 x-brace to 90 x-brace. An upcoming jumper will downsize one or more sizes (a bigger percenatge of change in sq ft than the x-brace example) as well as changing planform one or more times.

While 500 jumps is a good general number for everyday skydiving, swooping isn't everyday skydiving, and jumpers need to willing to return to the "newbie" midset before getting involved. You've got alot to learn and your attitude needs to reflect that.

[gus 1]

Anyone care to post the article so those of us without Parachutist can see it?

Gus

OutpatientsOnline.com

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

A good usage would be for everyone at safety day to fill one out, and then discuss the results with a qualified instructor.

We had some crap weather on this past Saturday, but everyone was out at the DZ waiting for it to clear (it did, sortof), so the S&TA ran off a bunch of copies of just the questions, passed them out and had everyone fill one out.

He also hid the Parachutist, so folks wouldn't know what it meant, then had a mini-safety-day on the packing mat, discussing what it meant, etc.

All in all it was really good and I think people were forced to take a hard look at their individual skills, which is also very good.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[sarge 0]

I am seriously hoping you are not quoting me

Quote

"Tragically flawed" [re:the questionnaire or any part of the article I referred to]

... because I never said that Chuck, nor do feel I came remotely near even implying such.

I actually found a lot of merit in the article, and for some of the reasons already expressed which, I don't believe bear repeating.

I was really hoping this thread would inspire meaningful insights to the concept of what I thought was the intent of the article. "Wake-up call!" and not for a professional like you or masters with several thousands of jumps... but for people like me - in the high performance realm with good experience but who are still in apprenticeship.

Oh yeah, reference my opening post, just FYI, you too could 'substantially' lower your score, from a 28 to an 11 by moving to 1:1, 170 rectangular... would you "feel" any safer?

See....? it doesn't matter what, "I" feel. (you're the pilot)... know what I mean?

.

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

[MarkM 0]

I'm "scary" on a .75 loaded canopy. Guess I should think about upsizing, huh?

[sarge 0]

Quote

Guess I should think about upsizing, huh?

LOL!!! -if your're thinking about it, yeah that is scary!!! LMAO!!!

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

[jumperconway 0]

I found it interesting grouping people 500-2000 a rather large group and time in the sport somewhat irrelevant IMHO. Strangely I fit in the 5+ yrs. because I started over 5 yrs. ago with 1 tandem and 4 AFF jumps. That doesn't take into consideration an almost 2 year hiatus. I've done over 500 jumps a year since my return but my canopy size, type and WL score me 24pts. to start off with. I've done 1700 jumps in just over 3yrs. with all but the first 350 or so loaded 1.7 or better on either a Crossfire or X-braced canopies. Without canopy control classes or a shitpot full of hop n pops I still score 35-38! It tells me that this is not a good place to be? I am well within manufacture specs on all 3 X-braced canopies I own. I jump year round and do HP landings on almost all jumps, traffic allowing. Maybe I need to go from my 79'-27c Xaos back to a Sabre 150 so that I am not such a hazard to everyone in the sky or on the ground near my landing area. I trully believe that this Quotient fits the 500 and under jumpers much better than over 500 and extremely current!

[SkymonkeyONE 3]

No, Doug, I didn't mean to respond directly to you. That "tragically flawed" comment has since been edited out of the other actual post which caused me to respond. Your's was the last post I had read before responding. Mine was a general response to those who had determined the questionnaire had no merit.

Chuckie

[ramon 0]

I am at 39 which seems to be about the norm for experienced current and schooled pilots with high wingloadings.

I definitely see that I am higher risk than if I were flying a larger canopy.

I also see that my friend who is loaded higher than me and is very uncurrent would be "scary".

ramon

"Revolution is an abrupt change in the form of misgovernment.", Ambrose Bierce.

[brenthutch 383]

I took the test and ended up in the high risk category. I thought it was interesting that if I upsized from my current wingloading of 2.3 on a Xaos-21 to a new canopy, say a Xaos 27 with a wingloading of 2.1 (to be more conservative and safer), I would move from the high risk to the dangerous category because I would be jumping a new canopy.