What's more conservative?

[Jib 0]

Is it more conservative to wring the most performance out of a canopy or come straight in (no front risers) under something smaller?

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

[flyinchicken 0]

This is going to be very interesting. I'm sitting on the fence on this one. I'll be watching though.

"Diligent observation leads to pure abstraction". Lari Pittman

[AggieDave 6]

If neither are in the ability of the jumper, then neither are safe. Generally speaking a straight in approach is safer; however, if in this question, the smaller canopy is beyond the jumper's ability, then its a moot point.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Is it more conservative to wring the most performance out of a canopy or come straight in (no front risers) under something smaller?

You'll be more likely to accidentally over-control the smaller canopy (note
incident reports reading "he/she was not a hook turn type person"), and it will be going faster when you're not current + landing out in some one's back yard.

On the bigger canopy you can choose a slower approach when the landing area, weather, your currency, or a hang-over call for it.

[MarkM 0]

I voted "270 under something bigger", because you may end up needing those 270 skills some day if you're in a bad situation. But if you're always flying in straight on a small canopy, you'll probably get into trouble if you ever end up in a landing situation that requires you really pushing your canopy to its limits.

[billvon 3,107]

> Is it more conservative to wring the most performance out of a canopy
>or come straight in (no front risers) under something smaller?

That's like asking "is it safer to drive a motorcycle at 120mph or hit an oil slick in a car?" Depends on a lot of other things.

Does the jumper have a lot of experience doing 270's on the larger canopy? Then the answer is probably the larger canopy. Can he pull off 270's on either canopy? Then it's probably safer to land the smaller canopy straight in. Is there a lot of traffic, and is he pulling high? Then the larger canopy is safer. If he's pulling low the smaller one is probably safer.

[Harksaw 0]

There will never be situation where anyone will be forced to choose between these two choices.

__________________________________________________
I started skydiving for the money and the chicks. Oh, wait.

[mr2mk1g 10]

I think the question you pose in your post is significantly different than what the poll choices would indicate.

You actually ask if it is more conservative to wring out the most performance on the canopy you are currently on or to downsize and try to “stay safe”. This is not really the same as “what is safer, a hook turn or a smaller canopy?”

Well I have to say learning your current canopy has to be safer, even if that involves learning HP turns on it. What are you gonna do, learn HP turns on the little canopy after a load more jumps? You’re gonna make a mistake on that learning curve at some point despite those extra jumps. You’re far more likely to walk away from that mistake if you’re on something bigger even if you have fewer jumps.

Now what if you’re landing off, amongst hazards? Under the big canopy you can simply not do a HP landing. Under the smaller one, what are you gonna do? You can’t suddenly go back to the plane and start again under something bigger. This same principal holds for the time your in bad traffic or get caught in squirrelly winds or whatever “bad thing” you can come up with.

In my lowly opinion, staying big and maximising your canopies performance will always be safer than downsizing quickly. You can’t undo your canopy choice when you find yourself in a bad place, but you will always have the option of not increasing the speed of your bigger canopy.

[PhreeZone 20]

Wanna bet? I know of at least 3-4 people that are jumping sub 110 canopies at a heavy loading but will only do straight in approaches, but then there are lots of people pushing the limits of their larger canopies and doing big hooks. The people on the little canopies like to go really fast under canopy, but they want an option to stop the ride and make it go slow again because they are terrorfied of hooking it in.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[mr2mk1g 10]

I think he means that no one forces them to choose between those two only. There's always the third option of landing the larger canopy straight in.

[Jib 0]

Quote

Wanna bet? I know of at least 3-4 people that are jumping sub 110 canopies at a heavy loading but will only do straight in approaches, but then there are lots of people pushing the limits of their larger canopies and doing big hooks. The people on the little canopies like to go really fast under canopy, but they want an option to stop the ride and make it go slow again because they are terrorfied of hooking it in.

That's what I meant. Is it really conservative to load up a canopy and only fly straight in or are big hooks more dangerous?

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

[mr2mk1g 10]

How about this simple scenario to answer your question?

Two people are on different canopies.
Person A is on a 135 loaded at 1.33
Person A is on a 190 loaded at 0.95

They are coming in on final; see another canopy hooking towards them, panic and turn hard and low.

Who is more likely to walk away?
Who made the more conservative choice?

Change the scenario to A and B both having to make an off landing in a back yard surrounded by a 6ft fence.

Who is more likely to walk out of that back yard?
Who made the more conservative choice?

Canopy choices should not be made on what you do in ideal conditions or where and how you would like to land. They should be made with the worst possible scenario in mind. If you think you can pilot the canopy though that worst possible scenario then it's a conservative choice. If not, then you are risking your life on it, because you may not have the opportunity to land in ideal conditions.

[WrongWay 0]

Quote

If neither are in the ability of the jumper, then neither are safe.

That about sums it up.

Wrong Way
D #27371 Mal Manera Rodriguez Cajun Chicken Ø Hellfish #451
The wiser wolf prevails.

[FrogNog 1]

I don't think conservatism can be applied to a single act with any value. (Or even a single act repeated, if that's what the poll question was asking.)

Conservatism is also misused a lot. Expanding one's abilities while taking precautions to keep the best safety margins possible is way better than keeping the same abilities but pushing some of the less obvious safety margins (like panic turn problems and malfunction frequency and descent speed). But I couldn't call one more conservative than the other just by watching.

BTW, those two plans are how I consider the comparison of learning to fly harder on a larger canopy before downsizing vs. downsizing first and staying alive long enough to figure out how to fly it hard.

-=-=-=-=-
Pull.

[sabr190 0]

Quote

If neither are in the ability of the jumper, then neither are safe. Generally speaking a straight in approach is safer; however, if in this question, the smaller canopy is beyond the jumper's ability, then its a moot point.

Totally agree with AD on this one............too many varibles................moot point.

"The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few, or the one" - rehmwa

[Ron 10]

The 270 is better than jumping a smaller canopy..

You never accidentally will do a 270, but you might have to turn on the smaller canopy thus blowing your small canopy straight in idea all to hell.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[cvfd1399 0]

Aggie man pick a avatar lol I seen 3 this year lmao
(edit for drunkeness)

[damion75 0]

Quote

I voted "270 under something bigger", because you may end up needing those 270 skills some day if you're in a bad situation. But if you're always flying in straight on a small canopy, you'll probably get into trouble if you ever end up in a landing situation that requires you really pushing your canopy to its limits.

Surely if you need to turn 270 to land into wind or whatever, you could achieve that by turning 90 the other way?!

***************

Not one shred of evidence supports the theory that life is serious - look at the platypus.

[mjosparky 4]

It sounds like you are trying to get downsizing to fit in with someone telling to be conservative on canopy choices. With your experience level, if you go from you 210 to a 120 elliptical and do straight in's it is not conservative, it is foolish.
Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals