Wing Loadings - who is over?

[jumpingjimmy 0]

In light of somebody telling me that Americans place more importance on wing loadings than Europeans do, who on here is jumping a wing loading more than the BPA/USPA recommends for your jump number?

and more importantly, why do you feel you don't need to listen to their advice?

[packing_jarrett 0]

I don't know it seems at the DZ I jump at we don't stress over who's over wingloading. We're pretty safe and haven't had many accidents knock on wood. but when I go to other dropzones they look down upon me for what I jump. I don't blame them.

to answer your question when I was off student status I went right to a diable 135 (1.2:1) but have grown up and have been jumping a batwing 116 (1.5:1) once I got to 100. I'm comfortable where I'm at right now and probably stay in this range of canopies for the rest of my skydiving career. don't quote me on that.

Na' Cho' Cheese

[Meux 0]

I'm over.

I went through a canopy course and did a methodical step down program. I fly my parachute the same way I fly my 757 loaded with 224 passengers, very carefully.

My jump numbers are low, but somehow I think that 10,000+ hours of flying a number of sophisicated jets translates into some kind of awareness of handling qualities.

Exit weight of 215 on a Spectre 190 with 92 jumps. Hopefully thats not too extreme. It is over though.

Every day is a school day.

Cheers,

MH

[justinb138 0]

Quote

I'm comfortable where I'm at right now and probably stay in this range of canopies for the rest of my skydiving career. don't quote me on that.

That's probably true, but not for the reasons you think it will be.

[jumpingjimmy 0]

i see it a bit like this......

the manufacturers and people deeply connected with the sport give overly cautious wing loading advice to stave of the odd injury claim that is going to happen anyway

bit like sell by dates on food, the food processors always give very conservative dates for food going past its sell by date to try and stop ALL food poisoning claims..... if they know most food of a certain type will be ok to eat by a certain date, why take a risk that the tiny minority will get ill by eating it on the very last day.... so they give a date that ALL the food of that type will be ok to eat

canopy manufacturers give conservative wing loadings to try and stop the tiny few who will biff in a canopy no matter what size they have from making a claim/hurting themselves.

not many people want to say the truth and actually say that generally you'll be fine to fly a higher wing loading than the manufacturer recommends for fear of the getting a verbal roasting from the people who are safety paramount types.

thats why i'm genuinly curious as to how many people actually fly higher wing loadings than recommended by the establishment

[edited for spelling]

[dharma1976 0]

tahts cause pound for pound we are over weight

Dave

http://www.skyjunky.com

CSpenceFLY - I can't believe the number of people willing to bet their life on someone else doing the right thing.

[bigway 4]

Jimmycricket, how do i find out the BPA recommended wing loadings for jump numbers?

.Karnage Krew Gear Store
.

[Buried 0]

i think the key word is recommended. there are other factors which should indicate if you are under or over and then that may still be for only a period of time (student or as you downsize). skill level (some are better than others), dz location all can play a part of the canopy one should choose/jump.

Where is my fizzy-lifting drink?

[bob.dino 1]

Quote

thats why i'm genuinly curious as to how many people actually fly higher wing loadings than recommended by the establishment

There was a poll here late last year (I think). About 30% were over. Do a Search.

[billvon 3,109]

>the manufacturers and people deeply connected with the sport
>give overly cautious wing loading advice to stave of the odd injury
> claim that is going to happen anyway . . .

I'm pretty deeply connected to this sport and I support canopy loading guidelines that you would consider conservative - because I _have_ seen lighter loadings prevent injuries and fatalities. A stupid move under a Sabre 170 is a learning experience; a stupid move under a Katana 120 means that I (and a lot of other skydivers) get to go to yet another funeral.

It's something I suspect you might agree with in time.

>canopy manufacturers give conservative wing loadings to try and stop
> the tiny few who will biff in a canopy no matter what size they have
> from making a claim/hurting themselves.

They're not that conservative. Look at PD, one of the bigger canopy manufacturers out there. Take the Katana 120, a canopy intended for aggressive canopy pilots:

Advanced 1.35
Expert 1.8
Max 2.03

There's no way anyone can claim that 1.8 on a Katana is conservative.

Take the Mamba 124, a new HP canopy from Aerodyne:

Advanced 1.8
Max 2

Again, the claim that a 1.8 loading is conservative doesn't make much sense.

>not many people want to say the truth and actually say that
> generally you'll be fine to fly a higher wing loading than the
> manufacturer recommends for fear of the getting a verbal roasting
> from the people who are safety paramount types.

This, to me, is akin to saying "not many people want to say the truth, and say that generally you'll be fine driving home after drinking 12 beers." That _is_ true, most of the time. It's the 1% of the time that it's not OK that causes all the trouble - and is the reason most people understand it's a bad idea.

Likewise, you can put most skydivers on canopies that are way over their heads, and 9 times out of 10 they will be fine. It's that 10th time, when someone cuts you off at 100 feet or collides with you at 200 feet, that causes the problems. If you have good canopy training, a decent amount of experience, have practiced canopy control etc then you will likely end up with a harrowing story. If not, you will end up in the Incidents forum.

[jumpingjimmy 0]

some fair points

but how much more difficult can it be to land a canopy that is say ? 50 square foot smaller than you're used to?

it can't be that hard going from a 190 down to a 150, it's not like you're jumping from a 210 down to a 120 or anything. I genuinly think that there are some scare tacics in canopy sizeing. I'm pretty sure that once i get under my 190, it won't take me hundreds of jumps to get down to something that has a bit more zip around the sky. I'm not saying i think a 190 will be boring and slow, but it's not going to have the fun factor of a 170 or a 150 is it ?

[dharma1976 0]

Quote

some fair points

but how much more difficult can it be to land a canopy that is say ? 50 square foot smaller than you're used to?

it can't be that hard going from a 190 down to a 150, it's not like you're jumping from a 210 down to a 120 or anything. I genuinly think that there are some scare tacics in canopy sizeing. I'm pretty sure that once i get under my 190, it won't take me hundreds of jumps to get down to something that has a bit more zip around the sky. I'm not saying i think a 190 will be boring and slow, but it's not going to have the fun factor of a 170 or a 150 is it ?

dude they are not scare tactics

talk to the titanium in my ankle

and I could hand you a list of phone numebrs of people who will tell you the same thing my friend with 960 jumps under a canopy that was 1.3-1.4 wailed herself into the ground...not even flying that aggressively...pelvis, femur, T56 Vertebrae, ribs, swelling in the brain, they had her in the hospital in a chemically induced coma for ages...

so to answer your statement seriously they are not scare tactics...just people like you making sure that you dont kill yourself before really growing into this sport...

Dave

http://www.skyjunky.com

CSpenceFLY - I can't believe the number of people willing to bet their life on someone else doing the right thing.

[NickDG 23]

>>My jump numbers are low, but somehow I think that 10,000+ hours of flying a number of sophisicated jets translates into some kind of awareness of handling qualities.<<

Air awareness does translate from flying machine to flying machine somewhat, but a good friend of mine, and a high time 747 Captain for British Airways was killed in Florida when he got into a rotor (the skydiver's microburst) over some trees.

In that case some extra square footage over his head may have made a difference.

NickD BASE 194

[jumpingjimmy 0]

sorry to hear of your friend

i know the basics, like don't bury a toggle near to the ground or you'll turn too much and lose too much height, or sit with a toggle buried all the way down for any length of time and then suddenly let it back up.... as long as you're not stupid under canopy and just take it steady, you'll be fine.

i know people can cut you off on landing, but if you've set yourself up in plenty of time and made sure you're ok then this really shouldn't happen. i always give myself plenty of room to land, i'd rather land in the middle of the airfield with nobody around than risk landing near the clubhouse around other jumpers

[bigway 4]

Jimmy, are you playing the fool?


Man, if you are not, you need to go speak to a CCI. LOL
I am sure you are just playing the ignorant fool card.

.Karnage Krew Gear Store
.

[jumpingjimmy 0]

nope, not playing the fool at all

i seriously think that wing loadings are too conservative. Yes, some people hurt themsleves from flying canopies loaded too aggresively, but i'm pretty sure they are the tiny minority

you never hear of the people who load too high and never have any incidents

[bigway 4]

Jimmy, you need to speak to your CCI and pay attention this time.

.Karnage Krew Gear Store
.

[bigway 4]

Why are you 'pretty sure'? where did you learn this?

.Karnage Krew Gear Store
.

[jumpingjimmy 0]

how many jumps per year are there? and how many incidents per year are there? and how many people are jumping over the recommended wing loading....

stands to reason that the majority are jumping fine

[ntacfreefly 0]

Quote

i seriously think that wing loadings are too conservative. Yes, some people hurt themsleves from flying canopies loaded too aggresively, but i'm pretty sure they are the tiny minority

Go read the last 5 years statistics. at least HALF of the landing accidents were people like you. "I'll be conservative". "Don't bury a toggle".

The very problem with your attitude is that it reeks of "it'll never happen to me". It can happen to ANYONE.

Blues,
Ian

To the mind that is still, the whole universe surrenders. ~ Lao-Tzu

It's all good, they're my brothers ~ Mariann Kramer

[crotalus01 0]

i am over the recommended WL for my jumps, 50 jumps at a 1.23:1 WL. i have been called all kinds of shit, DGIT, CWFGC etc (but only from folks on here who have never seen me fly - i bought what my S&TA recommended to me). i am also a conservative canopy pilot or so i thought. my last jump i turned downwind a bit late (about 750 AGL) and found myself having to flat turn to get into the wind (conscious decision, i knew i was way low for the turn). bottom line was i stood it up, but looking back i also scared myself quite a bit. if i had been in a box i would have been fucked. am i going to upsize? no. will i be a hell of a lot more conscious as to my altitude when getting ready to start my base leg (and my entire pattern for that matter)? youre damn right.
lucky for me about the whole muscle memory thing - i have never been a toggle-monkey so i have no reflex to yank toggles down.
edit to add i am jumping a Sabre 190, not planning to downsize before around 500 jumps or so (if then). i just dont want to upsize because of the expense (secondary) and because i am used to flying this canopy and i like it (primary).
flame away.

As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD...

[kelpdiver 2]

In light of this and your other thread today (skyhook on the Wings you purchased), maybe it's time for a vaguely accurate profile?

If anything, I think your premise is backwards and that Americans tend to overload more. We don't actually have any standards in rules, aside from a couple DZs and perhaps a majority of DZOs that will prevent outrageous wingloadings. Whereas many European nations do have stricter rules on canopy choice and AAD usage.

Early on after I got my A I saw the range in performance/scariness just between 1.0 and 1.2. The latter was no joke landing on a hot, turbulent day at Elsinore.

A lot of people are fine....until the one jump where they're not.

[iamsam 0]

JumpingJimmy - please read billvon's post again, specifically the beer drinking analogy in relation to your last post.

Dude I'm even greener than you so feel free ignore me but if I were you I'd re-read ALL THE POSTS in this thread from canopy pilots way more experienced than you or I...

Whatever your skill level, surely flying a high wing loading increases risk? Barring acts of god, it's your experience that determines the outcome of an incident... I seem to be paraphrasing billvon again, so ignore me, scroll up, read his post again.

I also would of thought that canopy manufacturers pretty much cover themselves as do all skydiving equipment manufacters with statements something like 'parachuting is a sport that carries risk of serious injury or death blah blah blah..' , maunfacturers wingloading reccomendations are, I think, just that.

Hope I meet you safe and well one day...

Sam

but what do I know

[packing_jarrett 0]

HEY! whats more IMPORTANT? be safe OR have fun?









I was just joking. Ignore this post.

Na' Cho' Cheese

[Brian3576 0]

i think you're an accident waiting to happen