DaVinciflies

There is no doubt that the margin for error (including not reacting fast enough or over-controlling the wing) does increase with more aggressive planforms and higher WL, but it does not have to be too small. There are ways to approach HP landings that are designed to maximize the margin for error, such as using front risers vs. toggles, carving turn vs. whips, being prepared to abort, starting from zero after every downsize to re-calibrate to the new wing's performance envelope and recovery arc. A major part of the problem (as you acknowledge in your later post) is that many people either don't know about this stuff or don't take the time to learn/apply it. HP canopies are fun to fly and I think it would be a shame to ban them, but they need to be treated with respect and learned carefully with dedicated canopy jumps.

Are you drunk? What does any of that have to do with the prevalence of fatalities in a given year? This is not a discussion of landing fatalities, but of all skydiving fatalities in the US in 2011 and how it compares to other years. I think I am done responding to you.

Who said we're segmenting it like that? And if we are, what about people who don't leave enough exit separation, pull at an altitude different than the one specified, track poorly, track in the wrong direction, backslide up jump run as they learn to sitfly etc, etc, etc All of those are situations where "an element of additional uncontrolled risk was introduced at some point during the dive" and you haven't allowed for those. At least the swooper is planning to swoop. Those others are unintentional.

Swallowing your pride and posting here so that others might benefit from the learning experienced is a very dignified thing to do. Glad you're ok. That video scared me.

I would say that skydiving fatalities are more "acceptable" than pedestrian fatalities because we all choose to participate in what we know to be a risky activity. Most people have no option but to cross the road many times each year. Of course, I am not saying that we shouldn't try to reduce our fatalities, but equally we should not be surprised when they happen. We got less than 24 hours into 2012 before we lost our first. In terms of how safe a year it was, I think deaths per 100,000 jumps is really the best measure. Absolute numbers like 24 deaths are really not that useful in terms of calculating safety/danger on a like-for-like basis.

Yes I do because it is really pushing the boundaries of what is possible. Swooping on the other hand is an established part of the sport with official competitions. As such I don't think swooping is pushing the envelope per se. It's just some of the muppets that try to do it that are pushing their own personal envelopes.

Define "pushing the envelope".

Right. PD exists.

You're proving my point EXACTLY. Stop acting like a dickhead, you're devaluing these threads.

In my experience it's older RW jumpers who are really the worst culprits for spiraling and complete disregard of a pattern, although of course, nobody is immune.

Have you considered a career in diplomacy? I don't think "winging it" is something to be proud of, and crowing about it is not helping those if us who are trying to change the culture of canopy control to the point where people are proud to be predictable and controlled. Once again your off-the-cuff attempts at comedy might have been better kept to yourself.

Absolutely agree. I (and I imagine you from your post) take pride in flying a well-executed, pre-planned pattern, whether it results in a HP turn to final or not, and regardless of whether I am the only one in the air. It's another sign of our dysfunctional culture (there's that word again) that such self-controlled flight is not held in higher esteem by many jumpers, and that same lack of self-control appears to be involved in at least some of the incidents where people have hooked themselves in. The self-control to say "I'm not sure about this, I won't hook it this time", rather than "I think I can make it".

This may be true, but is not the same as only letting "elite" jumpers swoop, in fact it could be seen as supporting the opposite as the Sabre2 guy is safe but not jumping an elite canopy. What you're saying here is that there should be some restriction on the canopy type and/or WL people are allowed to jump, which is a different discussion. I am in favour of some form of type-rating system for canopies where you have to qualify to jump a certain WL or planform. I believe it should be related to demonstrated skills though, not jump numbers.

Like a manufacturing defect, you mean? Well technically, it would still be as cocked as it could get!

..provided it is made correctly and not modified from that configuration. If the tapes are tight, then surely it is definitely as fully cocked as it can be? Admittedly, it may not collapse as it does not check the integrity of the kill-line.

Haha! Ok - fair point, let be much more specific: If the tapes are tight and the kill-line is loose then the PC is totally cocked.

How are you going to define "elite"? How do you police this? You don't just start "elite" at something, there has to be a progression. That's the whole point of this thread, after all. What's the progression? I am not sure that swooping requires raw, innate talent. I think it is a trainable skill. The problem comes when people (and as you say, far too many people) try to short cut that training. The hundreds of jumps learning smaller turns on bigger canopies, the dedicated canopy jumps, the coaching all have to be there for safe progression. It may be that likes of Tagle, Drennan, Moledzki, Batsch do have some innate ability above the rest of us, but I believe swooping can be safe enough to be acceptable for the rest if us if approached correctly and I think the correct approach is through managed progression rather than marginalization to a small elite group. I don't know how civilian aircraft display teams filter their applicants. But if you look at the Red Arrows and similar US display teams. It is only the cream of the crop that are selected and then undergo intensive training. I just think that to many of us skydivers believe we are good enough when to be blunt we are not and never will be. It is not so much a matter of progression and I think the statistics back this up. It is just that to really swoop, you need to be talented. I don't have the knowledge to propose how the selection is done.

This fall I did, very thin ones and it was ok. But in the summer I do not but I'm told I should for safety. There are two schools of thought on gloves, and you should go with your own opinion on this. Personally, I hate jumping with gloves and have never suffered an injury where gloves would have helped, but that does not mean that type of injury does not exist. If gloves are impeding your ability to perform (eg. getting your hands into your toggles) then that is a factor you need to consider. Are you comfortable steering on the rears after opening to start heading back and avoid others? If so, you have plenty of time to get your hands in the toggles. Clear your airspace, head back to your holding point and take your time getting your hands into the toggles.

Do you normally jump with gloves?

I just ordered the VSE Party Bag for my Infinity. Looking forward to jumping in the New Year. I'll report back here when I have enough jumps to have an opinion, but everyone else's experiences seems to be very positive. I never use a packer so I don't have any concerns about this, but that would be my only worry (particularly as I jump a pull-out, too - that's a not a good combination for packers!).

How are you going to define "elite"? How do you police this? You don't just start "elite" at something, there has to be a progression. That's the whole point of this thread, after all. What's the progression?

abso-fuckin-lutely. That is all you need to know

That would still be a good start, right? And you could make it available to existing instructors who want a canopy flight endorsement on their rating. This is a valid point. Mayne then we make it a Canopy Coach rating, rather than a Canopy Instructor rating. Well, there's the question. The best swoopers may not be the best teachers. Indeed, they may not even know enough about why they do why they do. I know a great swooper who was asked to do a canopy course and refused on the grounds that he did not understand the science behind canopy flight well enough. With the introduction of a canopy rating, the answer to your question would be clear. There would be an official, sanctioned subject matter expert. Where are you getting the idea that someone can get a coach rating with 50 jumps? Not really following you on this one. I really don't understand why you are so against this. Nobody would be forced to get the canopy rating, but the ones who did get it would be a known source for canopy instruction and information having been trained with approved material instead of the sort of ad hoc crap that gets passed down by the bonfire currently.

I don't know why there is resistance to S&TAs being responsible for the Safety and Training of young jumpers! It seems to me that it might be rather a good job for that role!

Sign me up. I'd definitely go for that. At the moment, with the exceptions of the likes of Flight-1 and Brian Germain, young jumpers take a hell of a gamble asking instructors about canopy flight. Many otherwise competent instructors don't know even the basics such as the right control inputs to get back from a long spot, and a Canopy Instructor Rating would take the guesswork out of finding the right person to ask. I applaud this initiative.