Round and round we go

[dks13827 2]

Another thing that can bite you is vertigo, nausea, and tunnel vision... happened real quick to me when I scuba dived when I was getting over the flu......... Heavy surf and steep rock face on the shore to climb up in Okinawa. Not sure I would have made it without my brother there to bail me out. Way scarier than anything that ever happened to me jumping or flying. I won't scuba again except in very benign conditions ( I am not a youngster any more.)

[dks13827 2]

And similar to Chris Martin, I guess, Ted Strong at PIA once talked about an identical type test jump spinning mal that he almost could not cutaway from. I worried for him after I heard that story. And, as far as I know, a bad spinner on that fatal ATV jump is what got Ted, while the other jumper on the vehicle was able to get off of it.

[superstu 0]

As you might guess i've had plenty of spinners on all sizes of canopies and yes 99% of the time I can feel them start spinning or come off the back fucked up. However, this 1 particular incident of mine I had no chance, it was immediate, I didn't even have time to get my hands up to the risers once it stood me up. It was the most violent opening I've ever experienced, spinners on my 79 don't even come close. Hell, I've had toggle fires on my 71 and those aren't even close. Definitely weird...still don't know what caused it though.

Also, I got a message from someone about this incident and was asked about if i jump with an RSL and I don't. I also don't hook up my skyhook and I don't have an AAD if anyone was interested.

Slip Stream Air Sports
Do not go softly, do not go quietly, never back down

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

As you might guess i've had plenty of spinners on all sizes of canopies and yes 99% of the time I can feel them start spinning or come off the back fucked up. However, this 1 particular incident of mine I had no chance, it was immediate, I didn't even have time to get my hands up to the risers once it stood me up. It was the most violent opening I've ever experienced, spinners on my 79 don't even come close. Hell, I've had toggle fires on my 71 and those aren't even close. Definitely weird...still don't know what caused it though.

Also, I got a message from someone about this incident and was asked about if i jump with an RSL and I don't. I also don't hook up my skyhook and I don't have an AAD if anyone was interested.

You never hear the one that gets you, right?

I don't jump with an RSL either. The RSL debate has been beaten to death on DZ.com and I still think they're good for the majority of jumpers out there.

The last violent spinner I had (that wasn't a bad tension knot on a tandem) was one that I got my hands about 1/2 way to the risers before I was launched onto my back and made a HARD rotation. That was quickly chopped. (Then I remembered that there weren't any dive loops on my reserve risers)

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

[davelepka 4]

Quote

That canopy was heli-ing, not "spinning" in the sense we are discussing here. still not good.

-HUGE- difference.

Indeed. It had been awhile since I saw that video, and all I remembered for sure was the canopy spinning (rotating is more like it) at a high rate of speed. It was indeed a heli, and you can see the jumper hanging almost motionless under that mess.

Still fun too watch, especially with the 'questionable' plan the video guy and instructors had after the student opening on that jump. I worked out good for us that everyone just dumped in place without even turning away, but it's not how I would have played the bottom end of an AFF jump.

[Marisan 0]

Quote

The post you were reading was full of inaccuracies. That guy was just being a 'grumpy old man' and use broad sweeping strokes to paint certain canopies as being dangerous. Even bigger, student type canopies, under the right conditions, can put you out. If you have a spinning malfunction that you don't react to, the prolonged spin can induce GLOC. A bigger canopy will have a slower descent rate than a smaller one, but the G force of the spin might be similar, just for a longer time period.

There are very few canopies out there that can GLOC you so fast that you cannot cutaway. Chris Martin had this happen to him, but he was jumping an experimental 21 sq ft canopy (which he planned to cutaway before landing, and land a conventionaly sized canopy). Almost nobody jumps canopies under 50 sq ft, and the small number of jumpers who jump canopies under 80 sq ft are almost all young, in good physical shape, and aware of what they are doing. If you know your canopy will spin like a banshee if it mals, you're A) ready for that type of force, and B) aware that you need to cutaway in short order (also becauce you're probably losing altitude at a high rate).

Well Dave would you like to take my original post on HP from an old fart and tell exactly which one of the ten points I made are factually incorrect.

I await your response grumpily!

[davelepka 4]

Quote

Well Dave would you like to take my original post on HP from an old fart and tell exactly which one of the ten points I made are factually incorrect.

I await your response grumpily!

Fear not, I won't keep you waiting.

Quote

Any canopy, that has to be regularly opened at 4500' to give time to deal with high speed malfunctions is by definition lethal.

If such a canopy existed, you would simply deploy it above 4500ft, and it would not be lethal. However, no such canopy exists, so while this statement would be 'theoreticaly' true, it's not 'really' true.

Quote

Any canopy that can kill by a mere 90 degree wind change is by definition lethal

This is the same as the above. I guess it would be true if such a canopy existed, but it doesn't, so it's not.

Quote

Any canopy that turns and dives so fast as to make any attempt to clear airspace impossible is by definition lethal.

Again, no such canopy exists. Every canopy out there has the ability to fly straight with a range of speeds, and turn with a range of turn rates. None of them will take off on their own without pilot input.

Quote

Any canopy that can be totally collapsed by turbulence is by definition lethal

This is true, but it's true of all canopies. I'll give in that you got this one technically right, but not to the point that it serves your purpose of singling out what you believe to be HP canopies. The fact is, some canopies have more of a tendency to collapse due to very light loading, the exact opposite of HP.

At this point there's little reason to go on, as we've determined that every canopy is potentially lethal. They can all collapse due to turbulence, and they all do it at an unrecoverable altitude.

Just for fun, let's go on anyway -

Quote

Any canopy that can be docked on by a wingsuit is by definition lethal.

Any canopy that can exceed the parameters of an AAD is by definition lethal.

Any canopy that can cause a cutaway from a brake fire is by definition lethal.

Any canopy that with the slightest lapse of currency or attention can cause injury is by definition lethal.

I just lumped them all together, because again, none of the above perameters are things the canopy can do on their own, they are require some sort of action (or in-action) from the pilot.

The moral of the story, it's not the canopies, it's the pilots. Put any of the modern canopies in the hands of a qualified pilot, and it will respond properly to the input the pilot gives. From the outside looking it, you might think it's the canopies, but the fact is that they do what they're told. There are (literally) millions of jumps on the likes of Sabres, Stilettos, Sabre2s and Spectres, all without incident. It couldn't happen if the canopies weren't good, it couldn't happen if the canopies didn't do what they were told.

Get off the idea that the canopies are the problem. It's the pilots.

[Marisan 0]

Quote

Quote

Well Dave would you like to take my original post on HP from an old fart and tell exactly which one of the ten points I made are factually incorrect.

I await your response grumpily!

Fear not, I won't keep you waiting.

Quote

Any canopy, that has to be regularly opened at 4500' to give time to deal with high speed malfunctions is by definition lethal.

If such a canopy existed, you would simply deploy it above 4500ft, and it would not be lethal. However, no such canopy exists, so while this statement would be 'theoreticaly' true, it's not 'really' true.

Quote

Any canopy that can kill by a mere 90 degree wind change is by definition lethal

This is the same as the above. I guess it would be true if such a canopy existed, but it doesn't, so it's not.

Quote

Any canopy that turns and dives so fast as to make any attempt to clear airspace impossible is by definition lethal.

Again, no such canopy exists. Every canopy out there has the ability to fly straight with a range of speeds, and turn with a range of turn rates. None of them will take off on their own without pilot input.

Quote

Any canopy that can be totally collapsed by turbulence is by definition lethal

This is true, but it's true of all canopies. I'll give in that you got this one technically right, but not to the point that it serves your purpose of singling out what you believe to be HP canopies. The fact is, some canopies have more of a tendency to collapse due to very light loading, the exact opposite of HP.

At this point there's little reason to go on, as we've determined that every canopy is potentially lethal. They can all collapse due to turbulence, and they all do it at an unrecoverable altitude.

Just for fun, let's go on anyway -

Quote

Any canopy that can be docked on by a wingsuit is by definition lethal.

Any canopy that can exceed the parameters of an AAD is by definition lethal.

Any canopy that can cause a cutaway from a brake fire is by definition lethal.

Any canopy that with the slightest lapse of currency or attention can cause injury is by definition lethal.

I just lumped them all together, because again, none of the above perameters are things the canopy can do on their own, they are require some sort of action (or in-action) from the pilot.

The moral of the story, it's not the canopies, it's the pilots. Put any of the modern canopies in the hands of a qualified pilot, and it will respond properly to the input the pilot gives. From the outside looking it, you might think it's the canopies, but the fact is that they do what they're told. There are (literally) millions of jumps on the likes of Sabres, Stilettos, Sabre2s and Spectres, all without incident. It couldn't happen if the canopies weren't good, it couldn't happen if the canopies didn't do what they were told.

Get off the idea that the canopies are the problem. It's the pilots.

Ok Dave, How about we agree that some canopies are less likely to hurt you than others when you stuff it up?

Over both of these threads I now agree with you that it is the pilots. So what are you going to do about it? (I don't mean you personally but the people like yourself that have the knowledge and skills)

[davelepka 4]

Quote

I now agree with you that it is the pilots. So what are you going to do about it? (I don't mean you personally but the people like yourself that have the knowledge and skills)

Me personally? I try to give good advice here on DZ.com, and when I'm on DZ.real-life, I try to watch others under canopy, and offer advice when I see areas that need improvement, or report to the management when I see areas that could cause injury.

Beyond that, I've posted my ideas for fixing the 'big picture' several times, and back when I first developed the ideas, I forwarded them the USPA BOD member in charge of the Safety and Training committee, who proceeded to do nothing with them. According to another BOD member I know (who was not on that committee), the ideas, or anything like them, ever surfaced at a BOD meeting.

Since then, I have reposted my thoughts many times, and they have been read by many BOD members (many of them are members here), and still no realistic action has been taken.

So what do 'we' do? I don't know, I don't know what it will take to get the USPA to pull it's head out of it's ass, but they spend an awful lot of time (and money) on things that have no bearing on the FAAs desire to 'keep an eye on things', which is hard to believe. Considering that the letter from the FAA was featured prominently in the USPAs own magazine, the fact that they don't seem to be addressing the #1 problem in skydiving is just plain dumb.

All 'I' can do is try to keep things on the right track in the little patch of grass I call home. I guess if more jumpers did the same, maybe we would have less of a problem, but that's not the answer. That requires a large number of people to indentify the problem, form a solution, and put the solution into practice with no real reason for anyone to listen to them. If the USPA would step up, on the other hand, it onyl requires the BOD to identify the problem and come up with a solution, then the large number of people step in to enforce it, this time with some 'teeth' behind them.

[Marisan 0]

Quote

Quote

I now agree with you that it is the pilots. So what are you going to do about it? (I don't mean you personally but the people like yourself that have the knowledge and skills)

Me personally? I try to give good advice here on DZ.com, and when I'm on DZ.real-life, I try to watch others under canopy, and offer advice when I see areas that need improvement, or report to the management when I see areas that could cause injury.

Beyond that, I've posted my ideas for fixing the 'big picture' several times, and back when I first developed the ideas, I forwarded them the USPA BOD member in charge of the Safety and Training committee, who proceeded to do nothing with them. According to another BOD member I know (who was not on that committee), the ideas, or anything like them, ever surfaced at a BOD meeting.

Since then, I have reposted my thoughts many times, and they have been read by many BOD members (many of them are members here), and still no realistic action has been taken.

So what do 'we' do? I don't know, I don't know what it will take to get the USPA to pull it's head out of it's ass, but they spend an awful lot of time (and money) on things that have no bearing on the FAAs desire to 'keep an eye on things', which is hard to believe. Considering that the letter from the FAA was featured prominently in the USPAs own magazine, the fact that they don't seem to be addressing the #1 problem in skydiving is just plain dumb.

All 'I' can do is try to keep things on the right track in the little patch of grass I call home. I guess if more jumpers did the same, maybe we would have less of a problem, but that's not the answer. That requires a large number of people to indentify the problem, form a solution, and put the solution into practice with no real reason for anyone to listen to them. If the USPA would step up, on the other hand, it onyl requires the BOD to identify the problem and come up with a solution, then the large number of people step in to enforce it, this time with some 'teeth' behind them.

Here's an idea Dave. Who has the most to lose if the FAA follows through on it's implicit threat? (and it was a threat)

It would be the DZO's. They would lose their entire income.
They have the power to stop anything they don't like on their DZ's and they have the most to lose. (Except for the people that will die in the meantime)
Maybe a campaign to point this out to them might have some result?

[davelepka 4]

Quote

Who has the most to lose if the FAA follows through on it's implicit threat? (and it was a threat)

It would be the DZO's. They would lose their entire income.
They have the power to stop anything they don't like on their DZ's and they have the most to lose. (Except for the people that will die in the meantime)
Maybe a campaign to point this out to them might have some result?

Most of the BOD and the RDs are DZOs. They have knowledge of the problem and the risk, they also have the ability to effect industry-wide change, but they don't. Will other DZOs listen?

Interesting factiod, at least one BOD member/DZO I know keeps a tight reign on canopy selection and canopy control at their DZ. Why they don't insist (make a BSR) on this from every DZO, I do not know.

[Marisan 0]

Quote

Quote

Who has the most to lose if the FAA follows through on it's implicit threat? (and it was a threat)

It would be the DZO's. They would lose their entire income.
They have the power to stop anything they don't like on their DZ's and they have the most to lose. (Except for the people that will die in the meantime)
Maybe a campaign to point this out to them might have some result?

I know you've read this Dave but Airtawardo's translation is still relevant.

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4110809;search_string=FAA%20Letter;#4110809

Most of the BOD and the RDs are DZOs. They have knowledge of the problem and the risk, they also have the ability to effect industry-wide change, but they don't. Will other DZOs listen?

Interesting factiod, at least one BOD member/DZO I know keeps a tight reign on canopy selection and canopy control at their DZ. Why they don't insist (make a BSR) on this from every DZO, I do not know.

[ianmdrennan 2]

This is derailing into a Safety and Training thread. Stay on track, or if you'd like I'll happily move the last few posts to the appropriate forum and you can continue there.

Thanks,
Ian

Performance Designs Factory Team