coozer

I think you missed the term production. I also removed the Excalibur as that was a 7 cell.


No hate here, just a conversation to see what others are thinking.

I am pooped from skydiving all day .

Quote

every good design will be copied one way or another. The same goes for elliptical design, cross braces etc. etc.

This is what pushes the sport forward.

This sure is true.

If you look at the NZA website they clearly state that they used the technology that PD developed for the Excalibur, improved it, designed laser cutting technology and presto we had modern high performance parachutes.

The real key to this is that they gave PD the recognition of developing the idea and then they took that idea and improved on it.

PD don't seem to give the recognition and somehow claimed their parachute design (Peregrine) was in development before the NZA summer of love, even though they had never produced a production 9 cell cross brace.

I wonder if there will be any recognition this time round?

I believe that if they had have eaten some humble pie and gave some recognition then that would have gone a long way.

lol.

You can also read and reply to what you want. This is the beauty of free speech.

So it looks to me like PD have another copy cat canopy ready for release within a year of NZA releasing a cutting edge design.

It will be interesting to see how this one performs.

I have heard varying reviews from the limited information out there to date.

My opinion is that this is a copy cat design just like the Peregrine started out as...

What do you all think?

I made a poll so there is not a real need for commenting though they are encouraged to get at least an idea of what people are thinking about it.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/10494744_10152685449876293_6864183692847835058_n.jpg?oh=54dbe959e6544e1da6f5507617084e36&oe=54CF2587&__gda__=1420894968_9ea470101c1f0668ae97270fbe4df995

when the manufacturers follow their own recommendations then they can expect others to do the same.

As long as the container manufacturers continue to supply their goods to people/companies that use main and reserve canopies that are not recommended for the sake of profit, then why should anyone be expected to take any 'recommendations' seriously.

Having said that;

Read the title of the thread people, this was a canopy collision, please focus on discussing canopy collisions.

As you please, though I am still inclined to believe otherwise. bed on reports from those that were present in the area at the time. You and Obelix seem to have a vested interest in the matter.

However this is only taking away from the fact that this article is about a canopy collision that could have been avoided with some diligence on the instructors part.

The subject of hooking tandems has taken over and sadly people will continue to die every year from canopy collisions while a subject that has killed very few if any people continues to take the limelight.

Keep your head up people.

I do not really think a poll on dropzone.com is representative of reality.

Though it is a good exercise.


Most skydivers do not visit this website anymore.

Quote

diablopilot wrote:
Anyone defending the tandem pilot here is wrong, dead wrong, and if you don't agree, please stop skydiving before you kill someone.

a) low canopy has right of way. ALWAYS. Physics dictates that.

b) a tandem instructor and his/her actions are DIRECTLY responsible for the safety of another human life beyond their own. This means assumption (like assuming the blind spot below and behind you is clear) are deadly.

c) if you're a tandem instructor who does an intentional speed inducing turn to landing without clearing your airspace you're a selfish dick who has no regard for human life, and if you fuck it up and hurt someone, well in my view that's akin to attempted manslaughter.

I can agree with that for sure aside from the manslaughter part. But that part was subjective, the rest is spot on.

Quote

And I am quite sure you are not. The guy who drowned had nothing to do with tandems.

Well I did say definitely one and maybe two, I was told by someone I respected that was in the game at the time, maybe I was confused with fatalities total.

Quote

The TM was a close friend of mine, so pull your head in.

So was it your DZ?

The report I got from an old school TM that you probably know is that the first thing Bill Booth said when he saw the risers was "no wonder they died". They died due to a worn riser, a very worn set of risers, are you refuting that claim that is very well known?

Maybe Bill Booth can clarify that but I doubt he will contribute to this thread. This once again though is beside the point. People Hook Tandems every day, all day every day with no issue. had that student not have been there there would have been no incident.

The 180 is not the problem here.

This particular incident was a canopy collision and canopy collisions are caused by lack of awareness. Not all canopy collisions are 180's, but all canopy collisions are due to lack of awareness.

The subject of poor awareness has been overshadowed by people sour grapes with those that do 180 turns.

This is sad. Very sad because canopy collisions kill many people and have taken people I know or should I say, knew.

You need to pull your head in, you are not the only one to have lost friends here pal and if people are going to learn about canopy collisions then they need to discuss the actual problem and not vent their sour grapes.

Quote

Bullshit right there.

Quote

Also bullshit.

LOL, you sure do have a been in your bonnet.

I am quite sure that I am correct, though you may be able to correct me on it.

Both the incidents I refer to were in Taupo, you must know about them. If you can say where any other tandem fatality has happened then I would appreciate it.

There has been a statement from the NZPIA stating that this is the case also, so I m not the only one suggesting this is the case.

You and all you the nay sayers out there calling bullshit need to substantiate your claims. I have explained myself quite clearly and if you are going to refute something you need to at least do the same.

Quote

I watched the video, saw the collision, cringed, and immediately worried what happened to the second canopy that impacted hard. Amazingly, there is someone in the video going 'Oh yeah... Oh yeah...' while watching the carnage. As if they are enjoying the view... What the hell man. Go get therapy if you get your jollies from watching someone's pain.

I noticed that too. Quite disturbing.

Quote

When I asked, "What would that have looked like?" I was referring to the big picture of everyone's pattern and landing, not just how the tandem would have touched down. I think, once again, you appear to be too focused on this.

Lol, you ask an ambiguous question and expect a specific answer.

Well considering I have seen various places where tandems do 180's while other canopies do various other approaches I would not really find anything peculiar about it at all.

Separating landing areas is a great idea and not only high performance, regular sport canopies and tandem landing areas, student areas should be separate from tandem as they tend to land at a similar time due to similar opening heights and wing loading's.

As we see here they tend to land at similar times with vastly different landing patterns.

Quote

UPT and USPA knew about tandem hooks at Hawaii for years and they looked away. That's the main cause of the problem. It became the norm.

No one is going to police themselves to a safety. Manufacturer needs to step up and draw the line.

If the manufacturer knows that people aren't following their rules, just like it says on the manual they should take it back.
But they will never do that since that will put them out of money right?

Precisely.

This is what troubles me about those that quote the 'recommendations', you cannot have it both ways.

If doing 180's was that bad or putting other manufacturers canopies in was that bad that it was inevitable that someone would die, they would do something about it.

The statistics say otherwise and I believe that they simply need to be 'seen' to be doing the right thing to appease the minions like we see here in this thread.

Quote

Different DZ's would have an upper limit depending on their location. At my DZ, a smooth 20 knot westerly wind coming off the lake was OK. A 5 knot wind coming from the east kept everyone on the ground because of the turbulence it brought.

But at 25+ knots only the irresponsible would take off, and I don't know a DZO at the time who would have condoned that.

Well I can tell you that they do and have done so for at least a decade.

The rule at NZPIA DZ's is that the CSO has the say in what the wind limit is and a couple of places will jump up to and in excess of 27 knots.

I have been in the sport for 12 years and have circa 10k jumps. Half of which are tandems and I have worked in many places and in 8 countries. 180's and 25 knots is the norm.

In over 20 years (well over a million tandems ) of tandem skydiving in NZ there has only ever been one tandem fatality (2 if you count a drowning) and that one fatality was due to equipment failure. I do not recall an event of someone hooking themselves in under canopy on a tandem. Though it may well have happened.

Quote

Forget that the other canopy in this incident was going downwind. Imagine he was trying to land into the wind and the tandem was performing the same approach. What do you think that would have looked like?

Probably would have landed fine probably even came out a little bit high as they did even with an additional turn in the opposite direction as shown in the video.

But the point of my entering this discussion was to point out that the tandem did not look, if they did they would have easily seen the oncoming canopy.

It is clear as day that the student canopy was to the Tandems left and not directly behind them. T do 180 safely requires that you must look over your shoulder to see where you are going. This did not happen obviously.

Quote

Houston, there could be a problem.

You were a CSO in NZ, tell me the wind limit for tandems at NZ DZ's.

Surely you remember.

LOL, what I do and what this TM did are separate things.

the tun he did was more aggressive than what I would do and in turn not as efficient, but it was done at a reasonable height, they even came out a bit high.

You can always be safer, heck why not just stay at home.

Quote

You're looking at doing a low 180 hook-turn to final, and the safety aspects thereof, from only the perspective of the person doing the 180. Other jumpers in the sky are not just pylons you have to avoid on your way down. Operating successfully in a landing pattern and avoiding canopy collisions can't be achieved with the attitude of "do whatever you want, just make sure there's no other canopy in the way of your next turn."

And if tandems doing a 180 for landing is the norm like it is in many places?

What is UPT's stance on using Precision reserves and Hop or Icarus mains in their gear?

Why do you think they continue to sell their containers to companies/people that they know do not use the recommended parachutes?

one needs to be consistent if one wants to be taken seriously.

A perfect 180 has quite some room for error and it need not be a radical toggle whip. I in fact do not really approve of radical toggle whips on any canopy, it is a commitment that once performed must be carried out. A nice carved 180 is best, give you time to see where you are going and gives you an option to deviate from your course if something that was not planned were to come into your flight path, as in something like this particular incident.

One thing of which I am reasonably certain, Pacific skydiving will not be telling all their instructors to do only braked approaches as it gets quite windy there and contrary to what some in here think, it is better, more accurate and often (competent staff) more safe to do a 180 into 25+ knots than it is to do a braked approach. If they had to do braked approaches you can guarantee their numbers for the year would be slashed.

Once again though, we are deviating from the cause of the incident and this is a subject that should be installed into every skydivers mind from the offset like it was with me.

GENERAL AWARENESS.

Know who you are in the sky with, look around under canopy, and on approach make sure your path is clear. This is first jump course stuff.

Pretty darned simple.

Those that want to preach the manufacturers recommendations had better start lobbying the manufacturers to stop selling containers to those companies that they know for sure are not using their recommended Main 'and' Reserve canopies in them.

In a couple of cases companies that I have worked for have over 100 sigma containers are using both main and reserve canopies that are not recommended by the said manufacturer, but UPT continue selling them the containers and spare parts knowing this is the case.

Do you really think UPT (or Strong or that matter) don't know that they are using precision reserves and Hop or Icarus canopies in their gear. If they were so adamant that people follow their recommendations then they would stop selling gear to them, but that would not be good for the bottom line now, would it.

Some of you need to keep it real and come back down to earth.

Once again, it was not the 180 that caused this accident.

It was the TM's not looking where he was going and not being aware of his surroundings, not following what he was or should have been taught in his first jump course.

That is it, simple.

Should his rating be pulled? Maybe.

Suspended for a bit at the minimum to give him time to reflect his actions. But that is just my opinion that I am entitled to.

Ahaha,

Tell that to the hundreds of TM's that do 180's over 1000 times a year.

Heck I have worked at DZ's that will not put you on the roster if you are unable to fly their pattern which is in fact a 180 turn into a very small area. Kooks need not apply.

Lets just stick to our own places eh.

Quote

I'm a Kiwi but haven't lived in NZ for 13 years or so. Started (with a partner) and ran NZ's first commercial tandem DZ as CSO from 1987. Been around the block a few times.

So you are old school, it shows.

Professionalism is the ability to conduct ones self consistently and safely. Doing a 180 is not unsafe if it is done correctly.

Obelix, you have a kiwi flag... are you a NZ TM?

Do you suggest that you and all of your comrades do only braked approaches? I have worked in NZ and Aus. and I can safely say that 90% of the tandem landings I saw there were 180's.

Do you also suggest braked approaches have never injured anyone and that a 180 is always dangerous?

What is your point actually?

Ahaha, so you think it is OK teach people to fly into the landing pattern in the wrong direction, or perfectly acceptable for people to do that, great.

You need to take some lessons in comprehension as you quite clearly have not grasped what I have said, or what the reason for a landing direction is.

Good day. I think my point is clear now so no need for any further comment.

Quote

100% of the blame goes to the guy who has 1000's of jumps and above. 0 goes to the guy who has less than 10 and below.
If you can not agree with that, I never want to jump with you ever at same load.

You can blame it on Ti, not being able to see due to 180. That's really easy solution if one does 270's.

Bullshit.

the student (or whoever was in control of his position) was 'partly' to blame. I clearly stated that the majority of the blame goes on the TM.

If you land downwind into the traffic at any DZ you are going to get a butt whippin... well I really hope so anyway.

There is a really good reason you should not land in the opposite direction of traffic... what do you think that reason might be?

The lower canopy was to the tandem's left side as he approached, he only needed to look before turning...

I am all for 180's on a tandem if the instructor is competent, 270's should be left for wing loadings of more than 1.5 in my opinion. However this is subjective and is a tangent away from the lack of general awareness that was the 'major' cause of this incident.