-Branched Castrodavid's discussion on swooping

[buff 0]

My old man has had an ATP rating since the 70's and has flown nukes on B52 to the 777 and retired to fly the Flagship Detroit. By the OP's reasoning, I guess I should just put him out on a sub-100 X-braced when we finish the FJC.

I mean it's just another wing and he's a pilot and has way more time in just one type than the OP has total to date.

The problem is I enjoy the company of my old man and want him to enjoy his retirement.

It's called the Hillbilly Hop N Pop dude.
If you're gonna be stupid, you better be tough.
That's fucked up. Watermelons do not grow on trees! ~Skymama

[jacketsdb23 45]

We can beat on guys like this all day long, it doesn't help.

I can't wait until DZO's just stop letting jumpers like this on the plane. If the DZO doesn't know about a situation at your DZ...TELL THEM. I've done it at my DZ and it required the jumper to borrow a larger canopy from the DZO before he would let him on the plane again.

To the OP: I hope you have fun and don't get hurt and don't hurt anyone else.

Losers make excuses, Winners make it happen
God is Good
Beer is Great
Swoopers are crazy.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

I can't wait until DZO's just stop letting jumpers like this on the plane.

It already happened, and it's what started this thread when the OP complained that it wasn't fair. It's happened before, many times, but the problem is that it's only in these 'obvious' circumstances that it doesn't fall through the cracks.

If the guy had more jumps, or a slightly lower WL, it might not have been enough to raise suspicion. If there were a lot more jumps or a lot lower WL, and the problem was the attitude of the jumper (something you usually can't tell until after they jump), it also would have went un-noticed (until it was too late).

The real change is in the attitude of the jumping public at-large. We need to establish that pushing WL or a canopy progression is uncool and unacceptable. Lower time jumpers will argue that it's unfair, and infringing on their freedoms as a skydiver, but that's the same argument 'the opposition' made when low pulls shifted into the 'uncool' catagory. Years, later, low pulls are certainly uncool, and not tolerated one bit on any DZ I know of. Let's make stupid canopy choices suffer that same fate.

[ozzy13 0]

I agree with you for the most part. I'll play devils avicate on this. We figured out what was too low with some help of the FAA So how do we draw that line so it's safe for all? What Is to high of a wing loading? USPA says anything under a 150 is a high performance canopy. So this guy is above that. Yes people progress faster then others. We need to find that happy medium. No one said that they can't stay above that curve. But at least we would have a guild line. Their is going to be some talk at the board meeting about introducing a canopy course requirement for b or c. I don't know if that would get anywhere.

Never give the gates up and always trust your rears!

[Freeflaw 0]

To the OP.... Im sure you could learn how to fly that thing safely (as in one car on the race track vs racing with a bunch of other cars) if you just dedicated yourself to doing hop n pops and learned the canopy inside out. Why do you want to decrease your safety margin, when you know that making errors is vital part of any learning process (especially in a situation where the cost of those errors can be quite significant).
I'm still under my 190 at a 1 to 1 loading at 400 jumps. I'm sure I could fly and land a 150 no problem at this point, if not even smaller. But why? I have pounded myself in with my canopy learning to swoop. If I wanna go real fast, I take it downwind (good luck learning that on that beast of yours). I have done it multiple times on hop and pops for training and love it. My canopy has become too fast for me on more then one occasion. Suffice it to say I swoop better and know a lot more about canopy piloting then most of my friends who started with me and downsized to 150s and lower. My canopy is forgiving and thus allows me to push with a higher margin. This, I think is what allows for faster and safer learning (I may be wrong, who knows). If the cost is not high the bigger challenge may produce the bigger learning result, but since the cost is so high the loosing battles can't be fought for one to gain experience from them
I think logically, not based on any experience, that you could learn to land your canopy safely and even with elegance, but your skydiving would have to be completely limited to learning your canopy. You can't just go jump with people... you would pose a significant risk to yourself and others (whole other skill set)...reaction and canopy understanding has to be completely intuitive but you gotta fly with your head. Your gonna bounce at some point... learn survival skills on fogriving things. To know the edge you have to have stepped over it or something. Here is a video for your viewing pleasure, not mine
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNbg-DD96rw&NR=1

p.s. worst injury severely bruised ankle from gopher hole at jump 25 or something and a couple of bruises here and there from experimenting (deep braked approaches, deep corner swoops, downwind tumbles, downdrafts)

[castrodavidd 0]

Quote

I agree with you for the most part. I'll play devils avicate on this. We figured out what was too low with some help of the FAA So how do we draw that line so it's safe for all? What Is to high of a wing loading? USPA says anything under a 150 is a high performance canopy. So this guy is above that. Yes people progress faster then others. We need to find that happy medium. No one said that they can't stay above that curve. But at least we would have a guild line. Their is going to be some talk at the board meeting about introducing a canopy course requirement for b or c. I don't know if that would get anywhere.

I have a suggestion, tell me what you think.
Each DZ or even the USPA could have guidlines for canopy selection, sort of like Germain's. Any jumper who does not fall with in that chart would have certain restrictions on what kind of jumps they can do with that canopy. From the most basic to advanced. ie. Hop and pops only, normal paterns with normal landings, Straight in double front risers. and so on. It would be sort of a long canopy control class. Each manuver would have to be demonstrated with consistant results. Once an Instructor was satisfied with that manuver they would endorse the logbook. If the jumper is caught going outside of these limitations they could be banned from the DZ or busted back to the first level.
A system like this would ensure a progressive canopy progression. While also allowing a higher margin of safety for him or herself and others. This would also place more infaces on the intructors critique, and wether the jumper has the ability to safely fly said canopy.

[d123 1]

What are your skydiving and canopy goals?

Lock, Dock and Two Smoking Barrelrolls!

[likestojump 3]

Quote

Quote

I agree with you for the most part. I'll play devils avicate on this. We figured out what was too low with some help of the FAA So how do we draw that line so it's safe for all? What Is to high of a wing loading? USPA says anything under a 150 is a high performance canopy. So this guy is above that. Yes people progress faster then others. We need to find that happy medium. No one said that they can't stay above that curve. But at least we would have a guild line. Their is going to be some talk at the board meeting about introducing a canopy course requirement for b or c. I don't know if that would get anywhere.

I have a suggestion, tell me what you think.
Each DZ or even the USPA could have guidlines for canopy selection, sort of like Germain's. Any jumper who does not fall with in that chart would have certain restrictions on what kind of jumps they can do with that canopy. From the most basic to advanced. ie. Hop and pops only, normal paterns with normal landings, Straight in double front risers. and so on. It would be sort of a long canopy control class. Each manuver would have to be demonstrated with consistant results. Once an Instructor was satisfied with that manuver they would endorse the logbook. If the jumper is caught going outside of these limitations they could be banned from the DZ or busted back to the first level.
A system like this would ensure a progressive canopy progression. While also allowing a higher margin of safety for him or herself and others. This would also place more infaces on the intructors critique, and wether the jumper has the ability to safely fly said canopy.

Will the said jumper be willing to pay the amount exuberant amount of money it takes to babysit them ? Will they be willing to place their estate into escrow or carry high enough liability insurance in case their actions cause the skydiving facility to get sued ?

If so, then you suggestion sounds reasonable.

[castrodavidd 0]

Quote

What are your skydiving and canopy goals?

To have fun, relieve stress, be free.

[d123 1]

Man, I know I'm putting more gas on fire or salt on a wond but given those goals why in the world you want to downsize so fast (compared with the "accepted" progression)?

Regardless of your real skills, you'll find this type of stressful reaction in most places you'll go.

Lock, Dock and Two Smoking Barrelrolls!

[castrodavidd 0]

Quote

Will the said jumper be willing to pay the amount exuberant amount of money it takes to babysit them ? Will they be willing to place their estate into escrow or carry high enough liability insurance in case their actions cause the skydiving facility to get sued ?

Realy? Be half way serious.
How many times have jumped where there is no one looking up at you, or watching you land. Most drop zones have a loader or other designated person watching for the sole perpose of knowing if someone landed off and in what direction. Should we charge jumpers for that too. I think we can agree that this would be a minimal inconvenance to the DZ.
To talk about law suits, thats what waivers are for. If anything a program like this would protect the DZ more because it would become an industry standard.

[ozzy13 0]

USPA has a camopy proficiency card. I dont know if someone alreay posted.

http://www.uspa.org/Portals/0/Downloads/Form_Canopy_Prof_Card_2007_04.pdf

Message on card

DROP ZONE MANAGER: USPA does not issue
advanced canopy ratings or qualify canopy
piloting course directors. However, this
Proficiency Card, when conscientiously applied
in a course of instruction as outlined in the
USPA Skydiver’s Information Manual, may
indicate a level of canopy proficiency as witnessed
by an observer self-qualified according
to SIM recommendations. USPA advises drop
zone management to verify the qualifications
of the course director and evaluators identified
in the signature and initial blocks, and if satisfied,
to recognize this program as a method of
improving safety in canopy flight.

CANOPY PILOT: By observing recommendations
outlined in Section 6-10 (and other related sections)
of the USPA Skydiver’s Information
Manual, you have exhibited a level of commitment
to safe canopy piloting.

Never give the gates up and always trust your rears!

[headoverheels 291]

Quote

How many times have jumped where there is no one looking up at you, or watching you land.

Thousands, if you mean some employee of the DZ was supposed to be doing it. Dozens if you mean that nobody at all saw me land.

[castrodavidd 0]

Quote

Man, I know I'm putting more gas on fire or salt on a wond but given those goals why in the world you want to downsize so fast (compared with the "accepted" progression)?

Regardless of your real skills, you'll find this type of stressful reaction in most places you'll go.

I got tired of my old canopy, Hard openings, short recovery arc, and wanted to go faster.

[danielcroft 2]

The reality is that the path you've chosen has lead you to the scenario you complained about. Take responsibility for the fact that you've chosen a VERY aggressive canopy progression based on your jump numbers/currency and (apparent) lack of dedicated training. A DZO who doesn't know you and hasn't seen you jump would be foolish to let you fly that at their DZ.

If you're going to fly something that far from the norm you're going to end up getting shut out - take responsibility for your own actions. You may be that good a pilot but you can't tell anyone that (you're not really an objective source) and all your numbers say otherwise.

As for your suggestion, it's too hard/expensive to manage for the DZ so the easier solution is "you can't jump that, go away", sound familiar?

[castrodavidd 0]

Quote

Will the said jumper be willing to pay the amount exuberant amount of money it takes to babysit them ? Will they be willing to place their estate into escrow or carry high enough liability insurance in case their actions cause the skydiving facility to get sued ?

Recently I gave a biannual flight review. It had been awhile so I bought a book so we could go over the manuvers. The book cost nine dollars. We did an hour of ground and an hour of flight. I charged him $0.00. Chalk it up to being a nice guy, helping another pilot out, what ever. the point I'm trying to make on this is that the commercialization of skydiving sucks. Yes DZ are a bussines and they have to make money I'm just tired of every 100 jumper wonder with a coach rating standing at manifest with his hand out. Do it because you love it, Do it because your helping a fellow skydiver. It jumping is your full time job sure make some money at it, just don't forget why you jump. And if it's still not enough money go get a real job. I paid 500.00 for my 10 jump AFF course try to find that now. Hell you will almost pay that for a tandem and video.

[castrodavidd 0]

Taken from the USPA website discussion about canopy saftey

Quote

Daniel Croft, C-37569 on 10/14/10 - 15:21:56

Canopy skills should be taught to students as part of the SIM (there's some good stuff in there already). Further canopy skills should also be tied to different licenses. Education should be available in a structured and relatively inexpensive format. I think some base wingloadings could be attached to licenses but there should be a method to allow people to exceed these restrictions based on training and or signoff from the S&TA or Canopy Coach/Instructor. People who exhibit poor control or decision making should be penalized.

I think we need to be realistic about what rules will actually be enforced. There are a lot of different issues here, many of which are just human nature. We're not going to make Skydiving perfectly safe because we all know that means not jumping at all. There have been plenty of incidents of very experienced, safety conscious pilots being hurt or killed as well as lightly loaded canopies being flown into the ground. The standard set of rules don't really apply in these situations. We all make mistakes and while general rules could limit the number of injuries and deaths caused in ways we've all seen before, it's never going to account for people screwing up. People are people, mistakes are what we're good at.

Making canopy flight an integral part of the SIM and all licenses is the best and first step to take in the training and education of skydivers. This will show people that canopy flight is an important part of jumping and should be taken seriously like any other skill in the ISP.

[castrodavidd 0]

Also from the USPA website
Background—Of the 300 fatalities from 1999 to the present, 158 (53%) were canopy-related. That is, 158 fatalities were due to accidents that involved a fatal landing while flying a fully inflated parachute during some (in the case of a collision), or all of the canopy descent. Additionally, the low cutaway/low reserve deployment category is also included in these figures, because many of those fatalities occurred after a jumper lost a large amount of altitude in a short time due to a spinning malfunction, under a highly loaded main canopy. The types of canopy-related fatal accidents are broken out below into five categories. Presented within each category are two types of averages (the mean and the median) of the number of jumps of each involved jumper. The mean is what most of us think of as the "average;" the median is the actual middle value in the list of jump numbers.

Intentional Low Turns—43 fatalities, typically jumpers with several hundred jumps or more trying to swoop. Number of jumps: Mean is 1,489. Median: 1,000
Canopy Collisions—38 fatalities, some caused by being too close on deployment but most are collisions at pattern altitudes. High-performance approaches resulting in striking slower-flying canopies are on the rise. Number of jumps: Mean is
1,490. Median: 850
Unintentional Low Turns—32 fatalities, typically trying to turn into the wind or avoid an obstacle. Number of jumps: Mean is 706. Median: 200
Landing Problems—32 fatalities, mostly striking obstacles and bad landings, many are related to off-field landings. Number of jumps: Mean is 1,419. Median: 450
Low cutaway/low reserve deployment—13 fatalities, many of the low-cutaway fatalities involved higher wing-loaded canopies where a great deal of altitude was lost in a short time under a spinning main canopy. Number of jumps: Mean is 922. Median: 96


I just reliezed these statisicts must be wrong. You can't have a mean more than twice the value of the median

[bofh 0]

Quote

I just reliezed these statisicts must be wrong. You can't have a mean more than twice the value of the median

Sure you can. What's the mean and median of (1, 1, 10) ? 4 and 1.

[YISkyDive 0]

Listen dude. You’re fucked for information on here so cut the shit, yes?

If you want to jump the canopy you want to jump then do it with the understanding you’re getting in over your head. You are more likely to get killed, hurt or die tomorrow under your current canopy than one that is one or two sizes larger and that's a fact, that goes for everyone.

So stop posting and make your own decisions and understand what they are. Most importantly, just don't hurt anyone else.

I followed your progression; not as aggressively but aggressively. I was under a XF2 1.4 : 1 @ 320 jumps and under a velo at 860 jumps. But - at the end of the day I got lucky a couple of times.

I had close to 3,000 jumps when this happened; I got real lucky to have a bummed ankle and the world’s most painful grass rash: https://picasaweb.google.com/Kramar.D/DonTGetInTheCorner#

Everyone misses - the question is when you miss do you have enough margin for error to get out alive and walk again, get lucky or just become dead. To add: And right now, you do NOT have that margin.

[crazydiver 0]

Quote

Quote

I agree with you for the most part. I'll play devils avicate on this. We figured out what was too low with some help of the FAA So how do we draw that line so it's safe for all? What Is to high of a wing loading? USPA says anything under a 150 is a high performance canopy. So this guy is above that. Yes people progress faster then others. We need to find that happy medium. No one said that they can't stay above that curve. But at least we would have a guild line. Their is going to be some talk at the board meeting about introducing a canopy course requirement for b or c. I don't know if that would get anywhere.

I have a suggestion, tell me what you think.
Each DZ or even the USPA could have guidlines for canopy selection, sort of like Germain's. Any jumper who does not fall with in that chart would have certain restrictions on what kind of jumps they can do with that canopy. From the most basic to advanced. ie. Hop and pops only, normal paterns with normal landings, Straight in double front risers. and so on. It would be sort of a long canopy control class. Each manuver would have to be demonstrated with consistant results. Once an Instructor was satisfied with that manuver they would endorse the logbook. If the jumper is caught going outside of these limitations they could be banned from the DZ or busted back to the first level.
A system like this would ensure a progressive canopy progression. While also allowing a higher margin of safety for him or herself and others. This would also place more infaces on the intructors critique, and wether the jumper has the ability to safely fly said canopy.

Sure that COULD work...except then you run into the issue that has come up here in this thread. A more experienced jumper (the DZO) has told you you cannot jump the canopy and you got your little ego hurt. Obviously the system wouldn't work for you because you'd get upset when someone told you no. I'll be honest with you...I've been that canopy pilot. I bashed in at jump 300 at a 1.4 wing loading. I was 18 at the time. I am forever greatful to the universe that I was able to make it through my "full of piss and vinegar" days. Hell...I'm 26 now and still have to fight my ego. My thesis for graduate school focused on the importance of humility in skydiving and knowing our limitations.

I'll be frank here...when I started reading this thread, my guess (from your asinine posts) was that you were a guy between the ages of 18 and 24 until I saw your jump number progression and realized you were probably much older. Then you mentioned you had a wife and two kids...and now I just feel bad for them and their potential future. I have 5000 jumps. My wife doesn't skydive and she knows my experience level and is still nervous about my habit/job/addiction/hobby. I try to downplay the risk involved to her, but the reality is...I don't even believe myself! We've got a risky sport here, especially swooping, and that is exponentially higher for someone of your experience level jumping what you are.

You're going to have to grow up and work on some humility. I literally thought you were 18 years old. I hope we never see bad news about you in the incidents section.

Cheers,
Travis

[likestojump 3]

Statistics are great. Please also look up the stats for recovery times from major and minor trauma due to impact.

Thinking outside the box, your 1.54WL on a 169 puts you exiting at 260lbs.

Are tall and fit ? Are you short and fat ? Are you in between ?
Those things matter. Big boys just hit harder, there's no way around it.

[piisfish 135]

Quote

Big boys just hit harder, there's no way around it.

and then our planet gets its orbit modified....

scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

[davelepka 4]

Wth regards to the statistics, they only show the fatalities, not the injuries. You might not fit the profile of a dead guy, but maybe you're right on track to ride a wheelchair for the rest of your life.

Speaking of the rest of your life, can you work the toe brakes on anything with a fused ankle? That doesn't take a big mistake on a fast canopy, so you make a small mistake, and then how do you feed your family.

Forget feeding them, let's say you finances are in order. How do you participate in their lives to the fullest from a wheelchair, or with a back/neck pain? What are you going to miss out on just because you were 'bored' with your other canopy, and because you're a pilot you figured you could handle any old parachute?

Lastly, even if you go by the statistics, all they do is point to what usually happens, and who generally gets hurt, but they do nothing to guarantee that you won't end up in a box. Even if the 'vast' majority of jumpers killed under an open canopy have over 1000 jumps, there is still a small minority that are under 1000 jumps. Knowing that you 'most likely' would have been OK is no solace to your daughters who might have to grow up without a father (or with half a father).

[castrodavidd 0]

Some people have implied that my attitude and ego about this sucks. So in conclusion, I write this.
I wanted everyone in my last post on this thread to know I just used the top of a ladder as a step. Even though I'm sure thousands of people have been injured or even died "hence the do not sit or stand". I have prevaled, against all odds, and common wisdom of using ladders, I have successfully returned to the surface of the earth without injury.
Blue Skies