• Content

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback


Community Reputation

0 Neutral


  • Main Canopy Size
  • Reserve Canopy Size
  • AAD
    Cypres 2

Jump Profile

  • Home DZ
    Skydive Oppdal
  • License
  • License Number
  • Licensing Organization
  • Number of Jumps
  • Years in Sport
  • First Choice Discipline
  1. Okay people! I am sorry for leaving the discussion here for a while. Went to Elsinore to do some skydiving ;) Anyways, the Norwegian board has come up with new rules. Fortunately, they made some changes from the first proposal they brought up, but I still find it poor. The new guidelines are very conservative, which for some will be a good thing, for many a bad... Lighter jumpers like myself will not be able to jump smaller canopies than a 135 until more than 1000 jumps. For a skydiver who focuses a lot on acquiring canopy-skills, this seems unfair. The new rules also misses out on the currency-question, which IMO is as important as jump numbers itself. A jumper with 600 jumps a year will be a better pilot than a 2000-jump skydiver who did only 20 jumps last year. You hopefully get my point. Anyways, I'm attaching the link to the table. Again, it's in norwegian. Weight-classes are in kilograms, and canopy-sizes in sq.feet. Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting: Holy shit..what a ride!
  2. Yes, it has. I bragged about it earlier when my friends and I were asking for your votes in a competition. I believe I spammed the forum for weeeeeks. ;) Didn't win it, though. Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting: Holy shit..what a ride!
  3. Dear Brian :) I could not agree more! As mentioned, these charts are not of my making. It's the norwegian federation that made them... And they are way too simplified! I actually attended one of your courses when you visited us at Oppdal in Norway, do you remeber? I was still a student at that time :) Would love to meet you if you come back. I hope you'll announce when and where so we'll get the chance to attend your fabulous courses (if you're doing them while here). IMO; your chart is way better, and I hope our federation will look to your chart instead of inventing their own (and worse) chart. Sincerely, Linn :) Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting: Holy shit..what a ride!
  4. HAHA!!! That was what you noticed with that scenery?! It's like noticing the shoes on a drop-dead gorgeous lady going **** on you. Hahaha... Awesome. FYI: I got them fixed last summer ;) Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting: Holy shit..what a ride!
  5. To go along with Robin's points, I want to ask: What training does Norway do to help young jumpers acquire canopy flight skills? Here, we have: - an A-license progression card that requires students to do only one showing each of only a minimal number of canopy flight skills. - an requirement at each license level for a minimum number of accuracy landings - Canopy courses that are optional and, like the A-license requirements, only ask students to do one round each of a minimal number of canopy flight skills. Everything else that they may learn comes from other jumpers who may, or may not, be giving relevant and accurate advice.Quote Same here... as in the states, there are many canopy courses one can attend. Be that as it is, I've always found it weird how much attention the free-fall is given the entire period of your student status and a-license compared to actual survival-skills... When 80 percent of our fatalities occurs under good canopy, it seems backwards to focus only on the 20% that involves tumbling in the sky.. Nevertheless, a good thing we have a lot of here in this (freezing!) country, is the so-called "innhopps". Entire loads are flown off the dropzone, usually to amazing and beautiful places like steep valleys, mountains, tiny islands and such, and when the off-landing area is big enough, they allow a-licensed jumpers to attend. The only information that is given before the jump, is stuff you need to know in order to be safe, other than that it is always a brand new place, new circumstances and conditions - it is incredible what I've learned from those jumps. Also, there's a lot of famous innhopps like the one's they do in Voss, where the requirements are higher. Those also functions as a "carrot" for the rookies; by training hard they get to experience more advanced innhopps, and this truly is motivating when practicing canopy-skills. (For those of you who haven't done an innhopp, I'm attaching a couple of files of a jump I did this fall. I still get excited remembering the truly magnificent and sublime experience it was to have mountains on both sides of you, far above you, at 5000 ft. ) I believe this i a good thing; the jumper gets to step out of the comfort zone of landing in the same and familiar dropzone every time, but within a controlled environment. The briefing is always thorough, and the jumps have almost always been done by experienced jumpers before they allow rookies. E.g. one innhopp I attended (had around 100 jumps) we landed at a field only 130 feet long and 65 feet wide. It was a real challenge to have to put down the canopy in that area. The river around it made any options undesirable ;) Before I was allowed to participate in the jump, instructors required that I did precision-landings at the dropzone. Even though I managed that easily, it was a big difference when one came down to land, and realized that you had to do it correctly. I, personally, believe these kinds of jumps are an incredible tool for inexperienced jumpers. As mentioned, there's something that happens with you when you realize that the skills you're practicing at the dropzone actually is practiced for a reason. If one has jumped only at huuuge dropzones like e.g. Elsinore, you have like a million feet of landing field in front of you either direction. It makes it easier to just don't give a fuck where you put down the canopy IMO. :) Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting: Holy shit..what a ride!
  6. Dear fuddy-duddy, the OP (me), can inform that the final edition of the rules will be made public tomorrow. The rumor says they have inserted a column for jumpers from 60-70 kilos as well, which should help, if that is correct Let's hope they've changed the upper end of the scale too so a 51-jump-skygod don't get to fly a 1,4 wingload ;) That could prove to be very interesting. But, please, continue the debate! Always good to argue some ;) Aaanyways, I will of course inform you about the new and final rules asap. Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting: Holy shit..what a ride!
  7. Okay, obviously we were not discussing the same thing here. My bad. I had general downsizing in mind, and Becka was far better at expressing what I felt as I really wanted to hear about the lighter wingloads with smaller canopies. I'll lean to hers more reflected points :) You are correct, and I agree. Again I failed to express myself clearly. Using conservativeness as an argument is ridiculous, seeing that so many fail in this... I agree. Again, see Becka's point. Here my frustration was showing: I had the question of downsizing with tiny humans in my mind. And I agree, using landings as an argument is futile. Thank you for asking, it's a valid question. Yes it does. I have practiced accuracy landings a lot, and it has been extremely helpful. The tradition of "innhopps" (planned out-landings in new areas) have also given me the opportunity to get out of the comfort zone, adapt to changes and put down my canopy wherever I want it to. I'm not saying I'm an expert, but I have practiced as many scenarios as possible, and it has given me great input. Do I find it easier with more wingloading (and again, let's remember that the one I had before, is within what the SIM advice for students), yes I do, as I have more "power" in the canopy. I'm afraid my english skills is imperfect to explain what I mean.. let me try: As I commented earlier, the slightly higher wingload gives me more to go on with the flare. I find it easier to fly on slower speeds with it, flat turns and so on, if I have to, because it does not "die" on me so easily. So when I needed to put it down in a tight area, this felt more controlled, versus before. Obviously this has to do with the amount of training I've put in in canopy skills as well :) Absolutely. Again it's my lack of communication skills that is hindering me in expressing myself clearly. Thank you for addressing this very important factor. One should not downsize if one it not able to put down the canopy at any type of landings and weather conditions. That should be rule one, regardless of number of jumps and wingloading. I could not agree more :) If I experience a radical versus a conservative answer, I'd go with the most experienced with the conservative respond (They usually are the most experienced ones). Hehe.. yup. as you said yourself; my frustration is showing. You have given me lots to think about, and I thank you for that. I was frustrated when we obviously were not on the entire same page. Now we are, to some extent at least. No, probably we can't. Again, I'll let Becka do the talking here, as she is far better to address my concerns. Was meant as an ironic comment on my defensiveness... Thank you for the tip, it's a great learning exercise, which I have done multiple times. I try every single landing to decide up front exactly where to land. It's helpful in learning to get to know the limits of yourself, the canopy and control in general. It also proves to be an excellent exercise when finding out what you need to work on. Regarding you last comment, I see what your point is. I have not had a higher wingloading than what I am at now, so I can't really comment on that. Again, Becka seems to be better in expressing what I had in mind. I agree lighter wingloads are easier to handle safely in general, but several tiny people do express that they feel more in control when they have wingloading, so to speak. That's what I had in mind... :) Thanks for the input, eh? :) Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting: Holy shit..what a ride!
  8. I obviously made a mistake here, thinking that exaggerating a tiny but would be understood. Obviously it is not the case that all landings happened this way. Same goes here, "getting stuck" was perhaps poor choice of words.. but when you fly a navigator 260 and got a wingload on 0.5, it really does feel like you're stuck. Nothing, but there are other factors to consider as well. E.g.: I jump at a dropzone with a lot of turbulence and variable winds, all the time. Lighter wingload makes the canopy more likely to collapse, or have I been taught wrong? obviously, that is why I am asking you guys this question. I would love to get some constructive feedback on this... ... probably. However, with a 0,5 wingload as a student, it's kinda hard to avoid, even in light winds.. it works, alright, but the effect isn't exactly big... Now you're just being difficult with me ;) Trying to fly on risers with a big canopy, is not without effort. The effort was given, believe me. However, with a bit smaller canopy (and we're not talking about a death-machine exactly, but a sabre2 with a 1,25 wingload) it was easier to use other types of input, and the learning curve was sky-high compare to before. I agree. However, I argue I do not fall under that category though, despite the impression you might got of me from my last post. My point is that a lot of the time when wingloading is debated, it is always whether or not too much is dangerous. One rarely discuss it the other way around. I'm gonna be bold here and also assert that a lot of the time when one argues whether light is good or bad, the ones that are in favor of lighter wingloads/or does not see the problem, are average jumpers size-wise that never really had to worry about not coming down from the sky... I am not saying this goes for you, but if you're an average guy, and flew standard-size student canopies, it's likely you had a bit more in wingload than a tiny girl did. That is just taken out of it's context. Again, see the entire post... Every canopy can be flown aggressively or docile. Downsizing is not equal with death. It can be, but it does not have to. At least that's what I've been taught... Why is it either or? Either you are in a slow and safe canopy, or you're playing with death. The difference in speed from a 150 to a 135, is not that big. It is less forgiving, yes, but still, it's not a death machine when treated conservatively. You can kill yourself in a navigator 260 as well, and in a 135, and in a 78. Flying a 135 does not mean that one is pushing it, automatically. In my case, It's not like I'm doing 240 hook-turns just because I downsized. 'Miscalculate' is a key word here. Fortunately, so far you have been able to correct in time. Faster gives less time for corrections, obviously.Quote Of course. Just as more energy also makes it easier to adjust the angle of attack. I personally found it easier to land when I had a bit more wingload. Am I the only one? I'd like to hear others thoughts on this, that have experienced similar things... As mentioned above, I think one should also consider what type of landings you are doing. I am not skilled enough to do hook-turns, so I don't. Be that as it is, can't I fly a canopy with a bit more wingload when I do straight-approach landings? These debates tend to go this direction. Faster canopies = higher risk. Of course they do. But as in all other aspects of this sport, risk can be minimized by advancing gradually, with the help of more skilled instructors on so on. One should be able to question wingloading-issues without being identified as a crazy soon-to-be-statistic. Also, I believe there are more factors to be considered than the number itself, e.g. amount of focus piloting has been given, coaching, skills, attitudes and so on. Or perhaps I've been a "lucky" skygod with mad skillz, cheating death every jump :) I think my instructors would've stopped me if that was the case, but then again. Perhaps they're just skygods too with imagined mad skillz.. Darn.. Thanks for the feedback though. Agree with a lot of what you're saying in general, except for the comments regarding myself. (As does every self-obsessed skydiver). I'd like to hear some comments regarding lighter wingload versus heavier, instead of comments derived from my lack of communication skills. I am really an extremely conservative pilot, even with a 135, so it feels kinda unfair to get arrested on false premises based on my exaggerated statements (bad judgment on my part, definitely ;) Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting: Holy shit..what a ride!
  9. Yes, please. It would be great to hear your opinions on this matter. As Becka says: I too fall under the category of "smaller jumper", and I spent my entire student status landing backwards due to winds and low wing loading. When I got my A-license I did some jumps on a 170, before I downsized to a 150, which I did 250 jumps on. I never felt this was a dramatic downsizing, also because I discussed this with all my instructors before I bought the 150. Now I have 300 jumps and just started on a 135 Sabre2, which I plan to stay on for a long time. My point is: I spent my first good 200 jumps feeling controlled by the canopy. In wind and turbulent weather, I got stuck. I could forget any input on both harness and risers - it was way to heavy. When I got on the 135, I suddenly felt like I was the pilot. My landings improved dramatically, as in I suddenly had the speed to really fly out the canopy, with our without wind. I finally got to learn how risers can be used, how harness-input can help in turbulent days and so on. I thoroughly feel I am a safer and more skilled pilot now because the canopy gave me the opportunity to really fly with it. Not just hang under it as a helpless little toy. I have a 1,25 wingload on my 135. Does that makes me a dangerous daredevil? Am I pushing it? According to the new suggestion, I am. Yes, my canopy is smaller, and behaves differently than a 170 loaded 1,2. However, should I have stayed on the 170 when that made me feel out of control? Where I had to learn backward accuracy-landings because I drifted backwards in my landings? Wait till I had 800 jumps before I could ever bother trying to touch the risers? I believe an important factor in learning to master your canopy is feeling comfortable and in control. Increased wingloading and speed gave me that. That being said, I was one of those who always loved canopy-piloting, and really wanted to get good at it. And I could not wait to downsize, so it would be possible for me to fly the canopy, instead of hanging under it. I have attended canopy courses, and used my coaches and instructors when deciding what level I should go to next. The point is: if the rules misses out on this, a smaller jumper will have the bare minimum of wingload, and in many cases IMO, feel that he or she barely controls the thing above their head. Is that safe? I don't know with you guys, but you feel pretty helpless hanging in a canopy that barely moves forward. I do not mean that speed is everything, obviously, but it does matter. And the speed I have on my 135, isn't exactly mind-blowing. It just gives me the speed so that I can actually fly it above the ground for a while, I can use the risers, and I can lean in the harness and stuff happens. Also, the speed makes it easier to land. If I miscalculate, I only adjust. With my spectre 150, I had to hit the exact sweet spot for it to land as smoothly as my 135 does every time. Look forward to hearing more experienced thoughts on this matter. I still consider myself a rookie, but try hard all the time to learn as much as I can. Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting: Holy shit..what a ride!
  10. You don't need new rules. You need new THINKING. Instead, you and your association are following the tired old and provably unproductive path of imposing more rules that make ever more demands not just on the jumpers who are doing this for FUN but on the association that allegedly serves to encourage said fun. Seriously, your association is proposing to embark on a path of creating a complicated clusterfink of largely unenforcible rules that will not change anything for the better because you're targeting the parachute, not the pilot, If you instead took all of the time, treasure and brain cells you're proposing to burn through on this many-times-proven useless exercise and invested it in helping your jumpers to learn how to fly better, this would all go a lot better. 44 He he... I just need to make something extremely clear here: I am not part of the "you" you are referring to ;) I started this discussion as a mid-experienced jumper interested in learning about your opinions on the matter. There have been several interesting responds here, which I am grateful for. That being said, and this have also been mentioned above, I, and many other jumpers, believe the suggested new rules are way to static and misses out on a lot of important factors - one of them you mention: we should focus on the pilot too, not the canopy alone. Just needed to get that off my chest. I'd like to respond to all of the comments in here, some I agree with, some I totally disagree with. Especially the part where "you should be able to do whatever". As long as our sport includes taking up air-space from commercial air traffic, that no one makes money on, we're a pain in the ass. As long as we continue to die, negative attention is given us, and it reflects badly upon the sport. It's not a given (at least not in Norway) that we are allowed by the government to practice our activity as freely as we do. With all the focus pollution and such is given, it just takes the one asshole that figures out by himself that we practice (in society's eyes) a completely meaningless activity, and we could be shut down, or given so strict restrictions that skydiving will be close to impossible. (In Norway, this is already a huge problem, around the bigger airports, we are hardly allowed to skydive anymore. That's why our biggest dropzones are placed in god-forsaken places). I'm just saying, and I know people will give me crap for this, that us having fun in the sky, is not a "right we have". It's a privilege that can be taken away. The more people that kill themselves and others in this sport, the harder it gets to argue that it's a good thing. That's how society's become. Risk is seen as unnecessary... Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting: Holy shit..what a ride!
  11. What units are they using for canopy size and WL? . I'm afraid I don't understand your question completely... the numbers for canopy size are in square feet, as normal, and wing load in pounds per square feet. Was that your question or am I being blonde here? ;) Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting: Holy shit..what a ride!
  12. As far as I know, foreign jumpers will be able to jump whatever as usual. I find it unlikely that they will have to abide with the norwegian rules for norwegian licensed jumpers :) No worries! Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting: Holy shit..what a ride!
  13. Because that's worked brilliantly so far. (!) John, you let your natural bias against any sort of rules colour your thinking IMO, and it's beginning to show in all your posts which detracts from any real useful message you could get across from your experience. Chances are if the rules are reasonably leinient they'll be no problem to 95% of normal people like you - but they'll catch the nutters out there. Unreasonable rules either don't pass inspection, or simple wipe themselves out over a short period of being implemented. You can't assume everyone is rational and right-thinking. To the OP; I'm not in favour of having canopy sizes simply dictated by jump numbers and wing loading. It's too complex a series of variables for that. If you have to have that sort of hard and fast rule, it needs to be a 'at no time will anyone, ever, exceed these numbers', and then it just becomes arbitrary - why 1200 jumps for a crossbraced canopy? What happens on that magic jump after 1199 that suddenly makes someone 'ready' for a crossbraced wing? I don't think there's a simple answer that you can apply in broad strokes to everyone. We have to change the overall skydiving culture of small canopies being cool, of people having access to buying them when they shouldn't, and a united front from the dropzone operators on each individual - no regulation works if some DZs are more lax than others. The impetus has to come from the jumpers, not the national bodies. Coaches and instructors who refuse to jump with people who are unsafe. Regular jumpers who refuse to get on a plane with the 200 jump wonder who's just bought a 99. Downsizing is about jump numbers and weight. It's also about aptitude, practice, time spent flying, physique, intelligence, reaction to instruction and a thousand other things. Maybe people shouldn't be able to buy their own canopies... maybe they need to have counter signitures from instructors, coaches or Operators to say 'yup, I agree this guy is ready for this next canopy'... at the very least, it would force the jumper in question to vet their choice through at least one other individual. (And no. I know this wouldn't work in the states because everyone would sue each other...We really need a rolling eyes smilie... ) Hehe, I could not agree more. The ideal skydiving community is one where everyone do whatever they want, and don't die. But when people hook themselves into the ground consistently, and we keep losing people in canopy collisions (which is even more of a disaster), something must be done... Natural selection and all that have never really done it for me. As long as people are stupid it reflects on the rest of the community. And that is a bad thing. I also want to know that there won't be skygods on the same load as me that is gonna kill me along with him/her. There's tons of good input here guys but I do have some more information that will somehow neutralize this (to an extent): I do want to make something clear here: the suggestion is really only that. The committee put it out on the web so that everyone would have the chance to comment and suggest better changes. I believe this will be the case. Also, something I forgot to mention, is that they are also suggesting to implement a new canopy course that everyone with a minimum of 200 jumps must undertake if they want to aim for the more demanding canopies and high-performance landings. This course is meant to teach basic/advanced canopy-techniques in practice and theory. I believe this is a very sensible suggestion, and I hope it's gonna go through. I learnt insanely much at the canopy courses I took along the way, and I also believe these courses might be able to stop some of the skygods out there... Some of you also mentioned the fact that the entire community should be clear about their attitudes towards those with imagined mad skillz. I could not agree more. I firmly believe that attitude and knowledge derives from those around you, not from a rule-book. An example: you don't avoid stealing from someone because it's illegal, you do it because you know it's wrong, and that people will think badly of you. This is actually something I am doing a research on in my thesis in social anthropology, on skydivers. (That's also why I am so interested in having this discussion. Yes, I have an agenda;) The thesis in short terms discusses how skydivers affect each other's attitudes and knowledge and I also consider the methods they use to mange the risks that are inherent in the activity. During the thousands of debates about safety in the community I witnessed during my research, never once was the rules mentioned - the result of one's idiocy on the other hand was a common debate ;) Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting: Holy shit..what a ride!
  14. As far as enforcing goes: this is a little more routinized in Norway perhaps. As a norwegian skydiver, you have to be member of a skydiving club, and the chief instructor of the club/dz is generally aware of who everyone is at his dz (we're kind of a tiny country with tiny clubs, compared to you guys). When earning new licenses these things will be checked. Every year you also have to register all over, where the gear and information/licenses will be checked. When coming to a new dz, again - everything is checked. The weight as such is usually not checked, but if you crash into the ground jumping something you're not allowed to, your insurance will not cover you and you will lose your license... When it comes to the canopy e.g. ripping: yes, you're gonna have to buy a new one within the same weight class .... Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting: Holy shit..what a ride!
  15. Pchapman: you are correct. The chart is for body weight, without gear. And as the PD-guidelines goes: we could, but no, not gonna happen it seems. The system in Norway is way stricter than in the states. Where you have the SIM, we have the "handbook", where there are rules, instead of guidelines. When it comes to the comment about downloading in general: absolutely. Unfortunately, there seems to be a trend where people are unable to do this. We have experienced a distressing increase in serious incidents, and the safety committee feels something has to be done... Thanks for all the comments. Please keep 'em coming! Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting: Holy shit..what a ride!