Pulse

The short answer is YES. But not much of this happens on student canopies. In fact, I've never heard of it. But I don't want to say never since something may have happened somewhere that I don't know about. If you progres to smaller canopies this can become more of a factor. But not if you fly them well. Fly smooth, fly smart, and you won't have any issues. There's also nothing saying that you HAVE to fly parachutes that are easier to malfunction after they have opened. "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

Sure DZ's can regulate whatever, but they too need to inform their clients what their 'measure' is. If they are telling people their logging device is showing too low of an opening altitude that's what they should state. Forget about pack-opening, deployment, whatever. All they need to tell people is that their altimeters need to show at least 'such and such' altitude. You can't use the altimeter to judge the altitude USPA states you should have pack-opening by. Also, some sense has to be involved here. USPA states that the decision to cutaway should be made by 1,800 feet and actions should be taken by 1,600 feet. Is this really acceptable with a minimum pack-opening of 2,000 feet? Then again. I've heard jumpers talk about being open at 1,500 feet and saying, "But I pulled at 3,500." As though that is acceptable. They should have been under their reserve by 2,000 feet in that instance. It makes me wonder, when does it become a malfunction? "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

I agree with you that our 'system' sucks. (Though we really don't have a healthcare system.) But I can't say your experience is really an example that really shows why it's not working. "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

Take a look at THIS. Yes, I read this when it was posted earlier. I'm not finding much of an application for it though. Pay attention to the 'spot' on the ground that shows your glide. Do this, experiment, and you've got it made. "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

It is, the string shows slip angle "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

True, but you still should be touching down at a slow speed. Extra speed can make things easier but only because it buys one more time with a descent rate of zero. "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

I'm not sure I'm following how wind changes the technique used to get one's best glide out of their canopy. Parasite and induced drag work inversly to one another. If you were to plot them out on a chart in relation to speed, their lines would intersect at some point. Where they intersect is the best glide. Slow enough where parasite drag doesn't take over and fast enough for induced drag not to take over. This will be the same regardless of wind direction. (Canopy doesn't know whether it's flying into or with the wind.) But in a headwind slowing the parachute down WILL limit your forward movement. Unless you're very sparing on the controls. If I'm making any forward progress into the wind I might add a touch of rear-risers or brakes to see if I can do any better. This brings me to my main point. We focus a lot on half-brakes, quarter-brakes, rear-risers, etc. Learn the 'accuracy trick' and pay attention to it. It's really that simple. Many times in deep brakes you will have your doubts because it doesn't feel like you're going anywhere. Looking down won't tell you much, look for that spot ahead of you that gets bigger and closer. "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

What do you think that 'you' deserve to win? I don't even know what you mean by this. I wouldn't say that anyone 'deserves' to win anything. And if it truly is a war on 'terror', how can it possibly end? Peace is going to come now? The world will no longer be 'dangerous'? When, in the history of man, has the world been 'safe'? eh? You asked the a question so I asked you one back. You appear to expect to win more than a Stuffed Pony - why? Your government started a morally and legally ambiguous war against Iraq, has been responsible for the deaths of countless innocent people. The prize that it has won (this far) is a mountain of debt and the lowest level of esteem from the rest of the world.. Suck it up. Uhm, I was being sarcastic. "I have my doubts" it will be more than a stuffed pony. Meaning there is little to win and that I was never for this war. Or Bush for that matter. "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

What do you think that 'you' deserve to win? I don't even know what you mean by this. I wouldn't say that anyone 'deserves' to win anything. And if it truly is a war on 'terror', how can it possibly end? Peace is going to come now? The world will no longer be 'dangerous'? When, in the history of man, has the world been 'safe'? "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

Still doesn't really apply. The jumper isn't 'pulling' anything. Also, what about face to earth impacts? What's that? You've got pretty good tolerance if the only issue you have at -2G's is a tickle in your tummy! "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

I'm still very interested to find out what we will 'win' if in fact we were to actually 'win' in Iraq. I hope it amounts to more than a stuffed pony. But I have my doubts. "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

I believe Viper pilot's have to maintain concsiousness at 9 G's for at least 30 seconds in the centrifuge. 'Positive' G's and applied when an aircraft is in a regular turn and the pilot is pushed down into the seat. Hence, blood pressure to the brain is lost. 'Negative' G's are applied when the aircraft is making a 'downward' motion and the pilot is pulled out of their seat. Aerobatic pilots routinely reach 5 or so negative G's during their displays. Hence, the blood-shot eyes. The terms 'positive' and 'negative' don't apply in what we're talking about here. I guess if a jumpers were sit-flying all the way to impact, it could be called 'positive'. But it really doesn't matter. They're dead anyway. "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

I'm not saying we should bring rounds back. I already stated that under the vast majority of situations square reserves are good. I made the original round comment in reference to skydivers telling me the only reason they have an AAD is for if they're knocked unconscious. This line: "I trust myself. But I have it in case I'm knocked out." If I saw them with a large, docile square on their back that would be one thing. But that's not it. Usually they have a ridiculously small reserve that they would need to fly. It's very simple. Would I rather jump off the back of a pickup truck when it's standing still? Or when it's going 40mph? If I had to make a jump where I could not control the canopy would you want a round or a square loaded at 1.9;1 fps? "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

We are in closer agreement if we're comparing rounds and 'large docile' squares. Not if we're looking at what people are jumping today. If you hit an object and don't have that several yards to roll out you're going to be worse off with the higher speed of a ram-air. Especially with a downwind landing. No disagreement here. But when round reserves were the norm, people weren't going in year after year from malfunctioning reserves. I've seen them used enough in drop tests, unstable deployments of other jumpers, and off my own back to have a fair amount of faith in them. Seems we have about the same jump numbers on both, but I don't have as many reserve rides. I guess my point is that I see rounds as being able to handle a 'passive' passenger. You don't see ram-airs deployed in any situations without some sort of guidance system. I'm not trying to change anyone's opinion. Just giving a point-of-view. "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

My point exactly. Though this has been discussed many-a-time in the round vs. square debates. It comes down to the fact that there are times that a round is more suitable. But for the vast majority of times that skydivers use their reserves a square is just fine. Even a fairly small one at that. It comes down to playing the odds. But make no mistake about it. Someone jumping a tiny reserve is taking that extra chance. If that's what they're willing to do, that's fine. But if I hear that jumper with the tiny reserve say they only have their AAD for if they're unconscious....I'll be all over them. I myself would want a round in THAT situation. "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

I was on a dive once with a woman whose right shoulder was dislocated on the exit. So she deployed the only thing she could: The reserve. She wasn't able to properly flare, so the landing resulted in a broken femur, which was worse than the initial problem. I'm pretty sure she would have liked a bigger reserve. This brings up a GREAT point that I don't think many think of. Since your reserve is going to be used in less-than-desirable circumstances. It seems it would make sense to get a reserve that could land you if you were incapable of flying it. Could each of us REALLY say we would be safe under our reserves if we couldn't touch the toggles? "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

Late comer here, but I just saw this thread. I've seen and heard a few 'bounces'. It's strange because it really depends on the situation. One went in with a pilot chute in tow. He was not in too bad of shape (relatively speaking). Face smashed in but he just looked like he was laying there. Another went in as a no-pull. And contrary to what's been said in this thread...he pretty much exploded. Both the main and reserve were deployed on impact and organs were measured to be in excess of 20 feet from the point of impact. The difference between them was the PC in tow impacted a plowed field in the middle of summer. The other impacted cold hard ground in the late fall. I can't imagine their impact speed was too different from one another. Sorry if this is a bit graphic. But it's what happens. I find that being 'sugar-coated' does nothing in this sport. It's better that people know what they're getting into. "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

Student Gear (Manta): 1-30 Raven 3 (240/7cell) loading 0.75: 30-200 Tomcat 150 loading 1.2: 200-500 Jonathan 136 loading 1.43: 500 - 1600 Jedi 136 (prototype) loading : 1600 - current Velocity 103 loading 1.99: 2700 - current Along the way I've jumped Fury's, Polaris, Para Commanders, T-10's, Sierra's, Paradactyle's, Cruiselite's, Falcons, Turbo Z(X)'s, Robo Z, Sabre's, Extreme's, etc... "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

25-30 years ago, fatalities were about 50% students and novices. The common refrain was "time in sport:1 day, cause of death:impact." Widespread use of AADs and RSLs, along with better training, has improved the lot of the student jumper since then. I hope the spike of canopy control deaths is safely behind us. Possibly Darwin has finished weeding his garden and surviving is once more the goal of sport jumpers. Hehe, I guess we have different ideas of 'some years ago'. I was going back about 15-20, now I'm with ya. I can't say it's over. All it takes is the next major change in equipment or the next fad. I still see too many novices jumping way too small of canopies. I still see 'experienced' jumpers uttering, "You'll want something smaller". As for AAD's, I think the best part there is, as I say, we can talk to the corpse. Those who for all practical purposes should be dead can now tell us about their experience. Why they bounced, and that kind of storytelling is priceless. "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

True. But induced drag doesn’t affect speed so much as it does the amount of lift the wing produces. It also becomes less of an issue as speed increases. Either way, we’re talking very minimal changes. His 12% increase in wing-loading would be a much bigger factor. We seem to think that canopies are radically different from one another but they really are not. The performance range from ‘low performance’ canopies to ‘high performance’ canopies is probably the smallest range found anywhere in aviation. "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

Experienced jumpers have always held the majority of fatalities. "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

Wha? I think the extra forward speed is coming from something other than being elliptical. That doesn't do anything for speed. "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

When talking about 'feeling uncomfortable' it really could be any number of things. You can go up on the same day, same conditions, same canopy three times and have three different experiences. Turbulence isn't particularly predictable. It could also be that you felt more comfortable under the 150 because you had already been there. Who knows? "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

I'm not pointing to any one incident. But it seems turbulence has become more of a discussion factor in them. I'm just saying that since smaller canopies have become popular a growing number of people seem to think lightly loaded canopies are just flat out dangerous. The past doesn't show this to be true. People were NOT dying of collapsed parachutes 20 years ago when an 'extreme' wing-loading was what novices seem to be jumping today. And I'm using the term 'smaller' as a highly-loaded canopy. "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

Seems that history does not back up the smaller is better in turbulence philosophy. That's not to say people didn't get hurt in turbulence periodically in the past. But people weren't dying in the numbers they are now under canopy, in ANY fashion, as they are now. I see this as one more way to 'justify' high wing loadings rather than calling it what it is. "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."