FOF

Scott Miller will be hosting canopy skills camps at Skydive Chicago, The Blue Sky Ranch, and AerOhio Skydiving Center in September. Course Dates: Skydive Chicago, Ottawa, IL - September 4-5, 2004 (Essential and Advanced Courses). Blue Sky Ranch, Gardiner, NY - September 11-12, 2004 (Essential Skills Courses). AerOhio Skydiving Center, Rittman, OH - September 18-19, 2004 (Essential and Advanced Courses). Visit www.freedomofflight.tv for more information.

I agree with you. And you can probably eliminate 97% of all malfunctions by packing correctly and deploying in a perfect body position. But sometimes we make mistakes while packing or deploy with our shoulders uneven. That's why we wear reserves. And less experienced jumpers often make mistakes under canopy, which is why they need to jump more forgiving canopies. - Scott

I'm sure it is, and that's a good thing, but I've recently seen a few instances where people actually downsized that far in a short period of time. Their only apparent reason for doing so was to reach a wing loading that was compatible with others doing CRW. I'm concerned that this will happen more often if people don't stop to consider the consequences. Unfortunately that is very true in some cases, but when a jumper is going to fly a specific canopy, the recommendations published by the manufacturer of that canopy are the ones that should be considered. If someone is jumping a Lightning, PD's recommendations for the Lightning are the ones that apply, not Atair's recommendations for the Cobalt. Square vs. elliptical only matters if you are talking about canopies that are similar in size and wing loading. A Lightning 126 loaded at 1.3 to 1 is far more aggressive and far less forgiving than a Stiletto 190 loaded at 1 to 1. A huge drop in size and huge increase in wing loading can cause serious problems with any type of canopy. A small, highly loaded Lightning is not going to be forgiving just because it is square. - Scott

There certainly are differences between 7-cells and 9-cells, and between specific 7-cells like the Lightning and specific 9-cells like the Sabre. If we are comparing canopies that are similar in size with similar wing loadings, then these differences are important. I'm concerned about something very different. You mentioned a newbie on a Sabre loaded at 1 to 1. Suppose that person started jumping a canopy almost 70 square feet smaller, increasing their wing loading by 40%. How would that affect their risk of making a serious mistake during approach and landing? Even if they made this transition over the course of a few months, jumping a few sizes in between, would they really be ready for that much change if they had a relatively low number of jumps to begin with? What if the manufacturer specified that the smaller canopy should only be jumped by expert canopy pilots at that wing loading? What if the person did not feel very confident landing the Sabre loaded at 1 to 1 to begin with? These are the types of situations I've seen, and this is what I'm concerned about. - Scott

I'm not a regular visitor to the dropzone.com forums, but I did write the e-mail that started this particular discussion and I do owe some people here the courtesy of a reply. I really like CRW, although I haven't done enough to consider myself an expert. I do have several friends who are current and past CRW competitors and record holders, and I've always admired people who've reached that level of proficiency. I have even greater respect for those who take the time to teach others. CRW is a great way to learn about canopy flight in general, and so many people need to learn more about their canopies. I was surprised and disappointed when I started seeing relatively inexperienced jumpers flying small, highly-loaded CRW canopies in an attempt to be compatible with more experienced people. It doesn't happen everywhere, every day, but I've personally seen it more than once. It's true that these low-time jumpers weren't being forced to jump those canopies, but they definitely were being encouraged. One or two obviously should have been told "you need to jump something bigger," but they weren't. I'm used to seeing people in the general skydiving community receive poor advice and make poor choices about downsizing. It's not right, but it is undeniably a common problem. For some reason I expected CRW coaches and other experienced CRW jumpers, who make canopy flight their main focus in the sport, to give better advice. I was hoping they would be some of the people working to solve the problem. When Mike Ennis told me that a mutual friend had been seriously injured while jumping a small canopy, I was irritated and frustrated. It was not the first time this happened to someone I knew, and sadly enough I'm sure it won't be the last. This time I chose to vent my frustration. Some have argued that canopy size and wing loading were not significant factors, but there are causes and conditions leading up to every accident. A jumper does not simply materialize out of thin air, 50 ft. above the ground, and crank a 180 degree turn. There will always be a series of decisions leading up to that action. People make mistakes. We misjudge, miscalculate, and get distracted. Sometimes we become overconfident and push the limits too far. Less experienced jumpers are more likely to make these mistakes. They are also more likely to compound one mistake with another, causing a bad situation to get worse. Small, highly loaded canopies fly faster, descend faster, and react more quickly to control inputs. This gives us less time to think, less time to react, and less time to correct errors. A larger canopy with a lighter wing loading gives an inexperienced jumper more time to think. He or she will be less likely to make a mistake, and the results of mistakes will probably be less devastating. The wing loading recommendations and sizing information published by PD and other manufacturers reflect these facts. Coaches and instructors should understand these recommendations and encourage their students to follow them. Although some novice CRW jumpers are getting good advice in this area, it appears that some are being guided by a different set of priorities. No matter what the circumstances, I should not have sent Mike the type of message that I did, and should not have encouraged him to post it for other people to see. I should have put things in perspective, chosen my words more carefully, and addressed specific issues in a constructive way. Instead I gave in to my frustration, and even though my message has drawn attention to this issue it's fueled more disagreement than discussion. I only hope people will see that the issues at hand are important enough to discuss rationally, and will not follow the poor example I set with my earlier message. My thanks go to the people who criticized that earlier message, for reminding me to choose my words more carefully. I'm also grateful to those who supported what I said in spite of how I said it: particularly Mike Ennis, who took a lot of heat on my behalf. Not many people would stand up for themselves that way, much less for someone else. - Scott Miller

It's not a bad idea at all to practice making flat turns this way, along with all of the other ways mentioned, at a high altitude. It's good to know how your canopy reacts to each type of input. It's a very bad idea to practice any maneuver close to the ground unless you already know how your canopy will react. All of this is true, and are some of the reasons why I primarily teach people the "brakes first, then turn" method. However, practicing the "turn first, then brakes" method prepares you for a situation where you have already initiated a turn, then find you need to flatten it out. It's obviously best to avoid this type of situation altogether, but it doesn't hurt to prepare for it by practicing up high. This is really the key to the whole discussion. Reading about flat turns in this forum, or hearing about them somewhere else, doesn't teach you how to do one. Practicing them once or twice under canopy doesn't prepare you to do one in an emergency. You need to experiment with them up high until you have a very good understanding of how your canopy responds to them, then continue practicing until they become automatic. Good things to point out, tbrown. - Scott

I'm glad to see TB99, Hooknswoop, billvon, and others continue the effort to educate people about flat turns. Information about flat turns has been available for years, but unfortunately many skydivers still do not get exposed to this information. EVERY skydiver should learn how to do them correctly, practice them frequently, and be able to do one any time it becomes necessary. This can vary depending on canopy size, type, and wing loading. It's more important to realize that flying in 1/2 brakes will significantly reduce the rate of descent on most canopies. Since you are descending more slowly, you will have more time to make a turn. As several people have mentioned, flat turns from 1/2 brakes (chest level) can safely be done by smoothly letting one toggle up, pushing one down, or by doing both at the same time. We should practice all of these methods and learn how the canopy responds to each one. If you are flying in 1/2 brakes and pull a toggle down very quickly, or pull the toggle down as far as you can, you might stall one side of the canopy and get line twists, but you shouldn't be moving the toggles that far or that fast, anyway. If you are practicing flat turns from 1/2 brakes and making smooth, controlled toggle movements, the risk of stalling or getting line twists is very, very minimal. It's also a good idea to practice the method billvon recommends: On most canopies, pulling both toggles down causes an increase in lift (lower rate of descent) at first, followed quickly by a decrease in forward speed. This may be just what you need in some cases. Practicing all of these suggested methods will prepare you to use whatever type of flat turn works best for a particular situation. Also, keep in mind that you may or may not have enough altitude to let the toggles back up after making a flat turn. If you are at, or just above, your normal flare altitude, and still in 1/2 brakes, letting the toggles up may cause the canopy surge toward the ground. It may be better to flare from 1/2 brakes without letting the toggles up, and do a PLF. Turning with rear risers does not decrease your rate of descent as much as turning in brakes, and will not allow you to make as "flat" of a turn. Rigging65's "changing lanes" analogy is valid, to an extent, but sometimes turning with the least amount of altitude loss is your main concern. We shouldn't be "tailgating" each other under canopy, anyway. You should be able to make a flat turn if necessary without another jumper running into your rear bumper. This is true on some canopies, to a certain degree, but other canopies dive significantly in a back riser turn. The idea behind practicing flat turns is to train yourself to react correctly instead of making a panic turn. These points should definitely not be lost in this discussion. Flat turns can get you out of trouble, but it's best to learn how to stay out of trouble in the first place. - Scott

Looking for something interesting to do this summer? The Freedom of Flight School is holding a series of events at Skydive DeLand and other DZ's: Jimmy Tranter and Hunter Roberts will be travelling with PD and The Relative Workshop to orgainze freefly jumps at The Blue Sky Ranch, Perris Valley, and Skydive Dallas. Scott Miller will be holding Summer Canopy Skills Camps in Texas, New York, Connecticut, Delaware, Ohio, and Wisconsin. Hunter and Jimmy will also be holding monthly Boogie Camps at Skydive DeLand throughout the summer. You can find information about these events on our Calendar at www.freedomofflight.tv. Blue Skies! The Freedom of Flight Team Jimmy Tranter Hunter Roberts Rickster Powell Scott Miller