Search the Community
Showing results for 'sangi'.
Found 460 results
-
sangi's alo the one that cranked the big turns that made you cringe on every video you saw of him. and that is what got him in the end. to keep it in your style, even a big idiot on a small wing like me could see where this was going. his video made the rounds even in my country, and when i remarked i knew the guy and made him go back from the katana, i got a pat on the back and the line "well done!!". perfect opportunity for every concerned fellow to say "uhm, so why you keep jumping what you are?". and i got none of that from my friends. now you can go and twist and turn that statement to bend it to your liking. it wont change the fact that that hasnt happened. sorry mate, but i'd rather trust their and my judgement than ANY posters on here. “Some may never live, but the crazy never die.” -Hunter S. Thompson "No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try." -Yoda
-
>and thanks; i believe i'll be just fine! Yep. I think Sangi used those words too.
-
>or do you suffer from selective reading like most of the posters here too? Dude, I don't care if you hate me, or think I'm clueless, or whatever. I do hope you survive your early career in skydiving, and that it doesn't take an incident like Sangi's to teach you what he has learned.
-
Bill, you'll strain the barrel of your rifle if you take long distance potshots from the rarified atmosphere of that pedestal. FWIW, my comment was only partly directed at Sangi, but perhaps it was too subtle for even you to grasp that point..... Be clear. I am definitely NOT one of those offering a friendly shoulder for Sangi to cry on. I'm glad he is alive, but I have no sympathy for his self inflicted misfortune. Having dealt a crushing blow to both his body and his ego, the sympathy vote is all he has left. He doesn't get mine though.... That might suggest he suffered an unfortunate accident through no fault of his own, which was clearly not the case. He is an example for his bulletproof peers, but that is about it. Like him, I doubt they will be receptive to his message though. Like him, they need to know there is no glory to be gained both before or AFTER they've tried the "damn the torpedoes" game and lost, no matter how humble they have suddenly become. I wish him well for his future career in the bowling alley. My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....
-
>Amazing the effects of a hard impact on the ears, radically improving the ability >to listen. Also seems to have triggered an ability to impart common sense to others. Agreed. Ironically one of the same people who was giving Sangi advice is now demonstrating that it will take the same hard impact to allow him to listen to the same advice.
-
Are you the real Sangi that screwed himself into the ground a few weeks back. If so how bad were the injuries and what's the prognosis? Be the canopy pilot you want that other guy to be.
-
Okay...who the fuck hacked Sangi's account?! Good to see a on here kid, hope it is going well for you. ..
-
>The problem is...we all think we're not that "guy" or "gal"...just ask Sangi... Well, Virgin Burner is a better example; he is doing all the "well, yes I am better than most but everyone tells me I am" things. Sangi, against our expectations, has learned that very important lesson. I just wish he didn't have to learn it in quite so dramatic a fashion.
-
Bryan has always had sage advice...he's given some to me that's saved my life. The problem is...we all think we're not that "guy" or "gal"...just ask Sangi... Addendum to Murphy's Law...if you figure for every scenario...there will inevitably be at least one more you didn't think of... hangdiver "Mans got to know his limitations" Harry Callahan
-
I don't think that'd make any difference in this case. It didn't make any difference to Sangi did it? I think the saddest thing about this incident is that there was a lot of calculation that went into where Denis pulled and the only mistake was that he sniveled through AAD firing height a little too fast. He's just playing everyone by saying "I learned to pull higher". He kinda did but not the way we're all assuming. It's pretty obvious that we all learn about hard decks as students and minimum pull altitudes "pull higher" when you are sailing through 2k glancing at your altimeter isn't really a case of "I lost altitude awareness". I'd love to say you guys got through to him but he's just another Sangi waiting to go splat.
-
It'll take however long it's gonna take. Like the sky, the healing process won't bend to the force of your demand. Perhaps 6 weeks, perhaps 6 months. Your doctor is the only one who can say, once the hardware is out. You've already indicated you're "babying that leg." This is with a TI on your back, one who is significantly taller than you and managing the entire landing process for you. Tandems are a terrific means to enjoy the sky without putting yourself or others at greater risk. You have people wanting to jump with you/do RW with you as a tandem. This is as safe as skydiving gets. Are you sure the new insurance company will support skydiving, the hardware, hardware removal, future injuries related to this particular injury? Have you checked on pre-existing conditions with them? Mixing impatience, hyperactivity, and the sky are a potential recipe for big problems. Sangi, Ted Nelson, and several others are examples of this. Toss in a previous injury and significant trepidation, it's not a good environment for happy landings without some deep mental, physical, and emotional re-training. Take your time. As hard as that is for you, take your time.
-
Tell him to read the Sangi story....from when he was bulletproof, and the advice he was given, till when he found out about "consequences"..... My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....
-
>That would be great. But what could you have said to Sangi to make him do less stupid shit? Saying things obviously doesn't work too well. I'm just not convinced that wing loading restrictions alone will make that much difference unless you are pretty draconian with them. I think having a hook turn ban on anyone under X jumps and a 90 degree limit on anyone with less than Y jumps etc. would work better and be just as enforceable as wing loading restriction.
-
>I'm not convinced that restricting wing loading on its own will solve this kind of >problem. Not completely, no. It's at best a partial solution. >Yes, a high wing loading makes for faster crashes but if Sangi has lowered his wing >loading by 0.2 or whatever, would he still have hooked in? Probably - but his injury would likely have been something like a broken wrist or ankle. Had it been under a Velocity or Katana he would be dead. A large part of the "don't downsize so fast kid" rationale is to allow them to survive the mistakes they make so they can learn from them. >Restricting wing loadings may reduce the severity of the injuries or it may not but I'm >not convinced it tackles the root cause of the problem, which was essentially just plain >old crap flying. Agreed 100%. It just mitigates the mistake. >Maybe it would be better to try and restrict the severity of the stupid shit people can >do instead of just trying to make stupid shit slightly less deadly. That would be great. But what could you have said to Sangi to make him do less stupid shit? Fortunately he upsized and that at least saved his life. What do you say now to Virgin-Burner (or whoever the latest pre-swoop-victim is) to make him do less stupid shit? If you tell him to be less aggressive he'll tell you "my instructors all have a bazillion jumps and I'm not going to listen to some Internet/visitor/non-instructor idiot tell me blah blah blah . . . . " Again, perhaps you can't do anything - but getting him to upsize might just save his life. And that's not a perfect solution, but it's a lot better than the alternative.
-
I think it's a bad idea because it is. I know it is because that's the current state of affairs. and we continue to see open canopy incidents as the number one documented killer of skydivers, with countless other non-fatal incidents which are not documented. Is there another system in place (in the US) that I am not aware of? Last time I checked, unless the USPA has a BSR in place to cover a situation, what is or is not allowed to happen on a DZ is left up to the DZO. Canopy selection is not covered by the USPA, and as such, the DZO is the one who has the final say. Do you think it's working? No, the discussion is about reducing all open canopy related incidents, not just collisions. Just as much as I don't want to see canopy collisions, I also don't want to read about another jumper in a coma who may or may not wake up, and if they do, may or may not walk again. Half of Sangi's problem was his equipment selection, and half was his attitude. Introducing WL limitations and required canopy control training does three things, with the first two being obvious. -It limits the WL of a jumper such that it's always conservative relative to their jump numbers. As their experience grows, their tendency to make 'rookie' mistakes will be reduced, and then they can advance to a faster canopy. -It requires additional training, and forces people to apply themselves in some way toward being a better, safer, more informed pilot. The third, less obvious, benefit is that it gives new jumpers the impresion that canopy selection and canopy control training is important. We require jumpers to practice EPs when they are students, and go through live water training to get a license because these things are important and worthwhile. By making canopy selection and training an official 'requirement', it lends credibility to the idea that this is an area to take seriously, and not the place to push the limits. How it effects me aside, that's an extreme measure and along the same lines of 'why not outlaw jumping, that would stop the injuries'. There are many jumpers who are qualified and trained to jump canopies smaller than 150 sq ft, that's why we don't need to limit every jumper to bigger canopies forever. That's what you're suggesting, that not one jumper is ever allowed to jump anything smaller than a 150 for the rest of time. Compare that to my idea, which is that for the first 3 or 4 years and 400-ish jumps in the sport, that jumpers have a restriction on the size and type of canopy they can jump, with those restricitons becoming less and less as they progress through that time. In the end, they are then 'free' to jump whatever they please. Your suggestion is absurd and all-encompassing. My suggestion is reasonable, currently in use in at least a dozen other countries, and is a temporary situation that only applies to newer and low time jumpers. Do you really need to ask why your idea is different than mine?
-
I'm not convinced that restricting wing loading on its own will solve this kind of problem. Yes, a high wing loading makes for faster crashes but if Sangi has lowered his wing loading by 0.2 or whatever, would he still have hooked in? I reckon he would have and that's because the root cause of his accident wasn't too high a wing loading but rather too much of a rotation done at far too low an altitude. The thing is Sangi deliberately set up his pattern that way. He got away with it a fair few times (and many people fall into the same trap) until one day he didn't. Restricting wing loadings may reduce the severity of the injuries or it may not but I'm not convinced it tackles the root cause of the problem, which was essentially just plain old crap flying. Maybe it would be better to try and restrict the severity of the stupid shit people can do instead of just trying to make stupid shit slightly less deadly. Just a thought. I think you are correct. There is a saying that seems popular in the US "you can't fix stupid". By restricting wingloading you hopefully allow people to bust a bone or bruise their ego, on the path of learning. It should reduce fatalities. Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.
-
I'm not convinced that restricting wing loading on its own will solve this kind of problem. Yes, a high wing loading makes for faster crashes but if Sangi has lowered his wing loading by 0.2 or whatever, would he still have hooked in? I reckon he would have and that's because the root cause of his accident wasn't too high a wing loading but rather too much of a rotation done at far too low an altitude. The thing is Sangi deliberately set up his pattern that way. He got away with it a fair few times (and many people fall into the same trap) until one day he didn't. Restricting wing loadings may reduce the severity of the injuries or it may not but I'm not convinced it tackles the root cause of the problem, which was essentially just plain old crap flying. Maybe it would be better to try and restrict the severity of the stupid shit people can do instead of just trying to make stupid shit slightly less deadly. Just a thought.
-
Sangi is an example of something, but it is not a canopy collision, so it is not very relevant to the point being made. Quote Pretty good example of a high-speed canopy collision with the planet...it's a prime example of downsizing faster than his ability to safely do so. It's that what's being discussed? ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~
-
And what POV is that? Some sort of god-like over view of the whole world and every jump that is made, or are you just reading the fatality reports like everyone esle? It is not necessary to post in such an aggressive, snidey skygod way, but to answer your question; by "from my POV" I meant "in my opinion" or "from what I have read". I was using the term to acknowledge the fact that this is my opinion of what I have read - not some kind of fact. What the fatality reports don't tell you is about every non-fatal incident, every near miss with another canopy, and every time an injury is narrowly avoided. Sangi is an example of something, but it is not a canopy collision, so it is not very relevant to the point being made. This may or may not be true. If they are not reported it's hard to tell. What has been reported recently are cases involving highly experienced pilots under small canopies and collisions involving students on perfectly reasonable wing loadings. I am not opposed to limits. What I said was why not leave it up to the DZOs? You did not address why you think that is a bad idea. ***So do you honestly believe that restricting WL will not reduce open canopy incidents/injuries? When was the last time jumping a slower canopy was the casue of injury? Beyond that, even if you doubt the ability of a WL limit to help, what harm could it possibly do? Even if the chance is only slight that it will help anyone, why not put it into use for the benefit that it might provide? If that's your opinion, then why not limit WL for everyone and outlaw any canopies of 150 sq ft or less? I imagine you would be against that because now it affects YOU.
-
Can we get a post stickyfied with the links to Ted and Sangi's and other people who have been TBTB at the top of Canopy Control? Actually, I don;t know why I ask, it won;t change anything.
-
And what POV is that? Some sort of god-like over view of the whole world and every jump that is made, or are you just reading the fatality reports like everyone esle? What the fatality reports don't tell you is about every non-fatal incident, every near miss with another canopy, and every time an injury is narrowly avoided. Take Sangi, for example. He's a textbook case of being in over his head, and it resulted in an incident including severe injuries. At one point it wasn't a guarantee that he was going to come out of that coma, and if he did, it wasn't clear that he would ever walk again. Despite the significance of the incident, it will never appear on a fatality report, or really any report, so 'officially' it never happened. Of course, we know that it happened, and that others like it have also happened, and that less severe incidents have happened, and that near misses have happened, and that many of them involved newer jumpers on canopies and at WL they should not be on. I'm not surpirsed you're opposed to the idea of some oversight in the area of canopy selection. Fitting right into the historical pattern, I maintain that you are a new jumper who has done extensive reading and garnered the bulk of your info from DZ.com, and not 'DZ real life'. As such, you stand to be effected by any rules limiting canpopy selection, and of course are opposed. It's very hard to argue that the idea of limiting WL and canopy type for newer jumpers would not reduce incidents of all kinds under open canopies. It's also vey hard to argue that at the vey least such limitations would 'do no harm', despite that, you're still opposed but surprisingly you have not addressed those two points. So do you honestly believe that restricting WL will not reduce open canopy incidents/injuries? When was the last time jumping a slower canopy was the casue of injury? Beyond that, even if you doubt the ability of a WL limit to help, what harm could it possibly do? Even if the chance is only slight that it will help anyone, why not put it into use for the benefit that it might provide?
-
Maybe you need a link(s) reference to Sangi? Apparently, you have not learned even yourself, that ANYTHING
-
now take a guess why my instructors, once i've mentioned dizzy.com, told me to never-ever take anything serious from here - 4 1/2yrs ago!!? Isn't it a huge coincidence that it's full of good advice when it matches the message you want to send, but as soon as it's not what you want to hear nothing on it can be taken seriously? You can't have it both ways. At the moment, everytime you post, you're sounding more and more like a child, and worse, a 100 jump wonder. You've been around enough, both here and in the real world skydiving that you know 'My instructor with x thousand jumps says I'll be fine' is a standard response from newbies who are pushing it. You also know that the advice on canopy progression here comes from people with far more experience and who have put far more thought into those recommendations than whoever you're taking advice from has, yet you ignore it because, well, you just don't like it. That's just childish - it's the DZ equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going 'LALALA I can't hear you!' How do you not see the similarity between you and Old-Sangi?
-
Watching out for newbies [was - hard impact at Nats]
NovaTTT replied to virgin-burner's topic in Safety and Training
Sangi, you made it hard to be surprised this happened to you, as you well know, but your candor and honesty with yourself and us has shown you have real character. Not saying you're not thick-headed, just saying you've shown some real integrity!! Something that's never mentioned, AFAIK, is that dying is not the worst thing that can happen to a skydiver. An incident like yours demonstrates that dying is the quick and easy way out. I feel for you and hope you hang in there, work with your doctors and physical therapists and get as well and recovered as you can. It's going to be painful, arduous and will take a long time - keep your courage up! There will be dark times and negative thinking - ignore that shit and keep surviving, keep working and get yourself back together. PMA is good medicine. Good luck and get better! N "Even in a world where perfection is unattainable, there's still a difference between excellence and mediocrity." Gary73 -
Watching out for newbies [was - hard impact at Nats]
P-dro replied to virgin-burner's topic in Safety and Training
Hi Sangi, I juste discovered the tragic event that followed our last exchange here. I wish you a full recovery, and I know you will be a different person from now on. You've been given a second chance, make the most of it. Hoping to see you back in the sky some day....
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
