I did it

[lisamariewillbe 1]

I finally downsized to a properly loaded canopy. A few of you know I was thinking of using a weight vest to get to a 190 mostly due to fears of downsizing. I spent a bit of time at the DZ being taught why my bigger canopy was just as dangerous as a under loaded one. Needless to say because I have had consistent landings on the over loaded one they felt I was ready. I went to a Pilot 188 and I must say, I for the first time felt like I was flying the canopy instead of it flying me. There was no going backwards when the wind was above 10 mph or so and I felt confident in steering and landing. I am still under loaded but only enough to where I have a end cell or two closed upon deployment. It felt really good, and I noticed (above 2 grand) that if I want to it can be fast and exciting, where as the 230 turned so slow I always had to start several seconds before I wanted to be turned.

I had thought I wanted a radio to help me with flare timing and one of the instructors asked "do you really want a radio?" I said no... With the better wing loading it helped in my flare timing as well, I didnt realize it but on the bigger canopy and coming more down with less glide, made it harder to determine and so I had to run out more landings. I just seemed to grasp the distence much better on final.

Later in the day, someone else was renting the rig so I went back to the 230, now that was hard. I flared early, had to hold it and plf. I think that this size will take me for quite awhile.

Sudsy Fist: i don't think i'd ever say this
Sudsy Fist: but you're looking damn sudsydoable in this

[woodpecker 0]

Congrtadulations. Its a great feeling when you actually fly your canopy and it doesnt fly you. See you in GA in a few.

SONIC WOODY #146

There is a fine line between cockiness and confidence -- which side of the line are you on?

[Thanatos340 1]

Congrats girl. You flew that 188 just fine (And looked much better under it than its Owner!!).

[jumpchikk 0]

You did awesome under that canopy. You rock girl!

[lisamariewillbe 1]

Thanks sweety, I think I did okay but i slid it in once so that brought my stand up landing avg down... Ill get the hang of it a bit better.

Sudsy Fist: i don't think i'd ever say this
Sudsy Fist: but you're looking damn sudsydoable in this

[skybytch 273]

Question - what's your exit weight?

I strongly disagree with those who say that lightly loaded canopies are dangerous. If that were the case then why do we put students under them? Why do BASE jumpers fly them? How the heck did those of us who started jumping in the days when no one loaded a canopy over about 1.1 survive?

Any piece of gear is dangerous if it's operated outside it's limitations. The limitations of a light wingloading include a lack of penetration into winds. The solution to that problem is not to jump a light wingloading in windy conditions.

If you were getting consistent landings on the 230, I don't understand why would anyone say it was dangerous for you to jump it.

Please note - I'm not saying that I think you shouldn't be jumping something smaller. My issue is with the words used to convince you that it was okay to go smaller...

[lisamariewillbe 1]

Quote

Question - what's your exit weight

Out the door im about 165

Quote

Any piece of gear is dangerous if it's operated outside it's limitations. The limitations of a light wingloading include a lack of penetration into winds

That wasnt the only issue... with the penetration, I often had to stay in breaks just to get back to the dz as I went straight down and a few times went backwards.

Quote

If you were getting consistent landings on the 230, I don't understand why would anyone say it was dangerous for you to jump it.

I had consistent landings yes as in I stood them up, but I also fought to control that canopy, I could not use the rear risers if upon deployment I needed a quick turn to avoid a collosion, my normal toggle turns were extremley slow, the canopies reaction time was slow since it was light loaded. Also on my landings I did not have any glide, I went straight down, which was at least for me and now that I have something to compare it to not good because it effected my depth preception.

To prepare for the downsize my weight was taken into consideration as well as my jump numbers, I sat with several of the DZs instructors and asked a million and one questions, I was downsizing in the same class canopy and in addition I was jumping a 6000 hop and pop alone and I spent 4 grand practicing 1 and 2 stage flares, as well as 180s and 360s , since I was hop and pop I had the landing area to myself.

I was not brought to an unacceptable wingloading, and if I am not mistaken my previous wingloading was under reccomendation when comparing to my out the door weight.

The only reason I was on such a low ratio to begin with is because I am very tall and slender and thus the only rigs that the harness fit rental wise were the bigger ones in the beginning. Now that I jump other places, gear options have opened up.

Sudsy Fist: i don't think i'd ever say this
Sudsy Fist: but you're looking damn sudsydoable in this

[BillyVance 35]

Quote

If you were getting consistent landings on the 230, I don't understand why would anyone say it was dangerous for you to jump it.

The main reason it would be dangerous is if the wind kicks up considerably while a load is up and the jumpers aren't aware of it. I've gotten blown past the DZ, backwards, once because of that and I ended up with two sprained ankles on the landing. I was jumping a 235 with an exit weight of 160, so naturally, I downsized to something more 1:1 loaded. It was time anyway, I had about 80 jumps.

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[skybytch 273]

Quote

Out the door im about 165

So you're at about 0.7:1 on a 230. That's neither ridiculously aggressive or ridiculously conservative for a student; my student jumps were done under a canopy I loaded at 0.65:1.

Quote

with the penetration, I often had to stay in breaks just to get back to the dz as I went straight down and a few times went backwards.

Then they often had you operating that canopy outside it's limitations.

Quote

Also on my landings I did not have any glide, I went straight down

I guess I'm confused. I've done several hundred jumps on canopies that I loaded at less than 1.0 - my first canopy was loaded about .8. The only times I came straight down was when I jumped in higher winds - ie when I was operating the canopy outside it's limitations.

Quote

I was not brought to an unacceptable wingloading

Again, I'm not saying you were. I'm saying that lightly loaded canopies are not in and of themselves dangerous as long as the limitations of the canopy at that wingloading are respected.

[lisamariewillbe 1]

What would you have suggested if you feel I was not ready to downsize?

I have spent much time going through different articles on when and how to downsize as well as in depth conversations with my instructors who have seen me fly and who have seen me land.

I would like to hear your suggestions.

Sudsy Fist: i don't think i'd ever say this
Sudsy Fist: but you're looking damn sudsydoable in this

[wmw999 2,584]

Skybytch made it pretty clear that she wasn't addressing whether you were ready to downsize, just the assertion that jumping a large canopy is "dangerous."

I too have several hundred jumps at a wingloading of .7 or so. I appear to have survived them all. People jumping accuracy pretty much all jump large canopies.

They're different. You sound like you were eminently ready to jump a smaller canopy. It's just that it's not dangerous to jump a large one, and the assertion that it is has people who don't have very good skills end up on smaller canopies than they should "because it's better."

Have you seen Billvon's famous list of what you should be able to do to downsize?

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[lisamariewillbe 1]

Quote

Skybytch made it pretty clear that she wasn't addressing whether you were ready to downsize, just the assertion that jumping a large canopy is "dangerous."

Oh I understand I am completley open to ideas on here... but before I take advice I always talk with my instructors. I dont want to die... I have just been emcouraged to go to the 190 by everyone but my boyfriend, in regards to who has flown with me.

Quote

I too have several hundred jumps at a wingloading of .7 or so. I appear to have survived them all. People jumping accuracy pretty much all jump large canopies.

For me personally, trying to practice steering with rear risers (in case of emergancy on deployment, as I practice all available EPS when I can) It was hard and almost impossible, to move them on a 230...

Quote

They're different. You sound like you were eminently ready to jump a smaller canopy. It's just that it's not dangerous to jump a large one, and the assertion that it is has people who don't have very good skills end up on smaller canopies than they should "because it's better."

I once had to land backwards because of wind changes , for me there was a fear of both the 230 and the 190.

Quote

Have you seen Billvon's famous list of what you should be able to do to downsize?

Yes, I have read most articles on here. Just so everyone doesnt think I was completley reckless in the downsize heres where I am at.

38 jumps
31 stand ups
14 had to run out
I pull high, am very well aware of my area and others around me, I have yet to land off the dz, if winds are above 10 when I am on the ground I dont even jump...

Sudsy Fist: i don't think i'd ever say this
Sudsy Fist: but you're looking damn sudsydoable in this

[skybytch 273]

Quote

What would you have suggested if you feel I was not ready to downsize?

Please reread my posts. I am not saying that I think you weren't ready to downsize.

[lisamariewillbe 1]

I understand, I was just asking for suggestions. I wasnt being confrontational, I am just wanting to know why who what and how. I want to be safe in this sport.

Sudsy Fist: i don't think i'd ever say this
Sudsy Fist: but you're looking damn sudsydoable in this

[wmw999 2,584]

Quote

I once had to land backwards because of wind changes

The only problem with backward landings is that if your square is fast enough, a backward landing can guarantee that you'll be drug. You can PLF backwards (I also have a few hundred round jumps, so I know a lot about landing backwards).

Learn how. Learn how to deal with the situation that comes up. If you're going to land backwards, you can PLF, drop one toggle, and pull the other one in. It will collapse the canopy quickly, and then you're not being drug any more.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Reginald 0]

Quote

I was not brought to an unacceptable wingloading, and if I am not mistaken my previous wingloading was under reccomendation when comparing to my out the door weight.

I would like to know what resource you were looking at or who told you that told you there is a minimum weight recommendation for any given canopy?

"We've been looking for the enemy for some time now. We've finally found him. We're surrounded. That simplifies things." CP

[lisamariewillbe 1]

Does it matter? Because as soon as I give websites that say recommended weights for canopy sizes someone will still find a reason why it is wrong. If I gave names, someone would insult them. I am loaded at .8 I was informed by people who KNOW how I land, who KNOW how I am in the air, and who KNOW what is good for me because they have seen it directly and they have the YEARS of experience and they have the TRAINING I trust. The ONLY reason I was ever at a 230 was because of my height. I am 6 feet tall and weigh less then 140 without gear. I am sorry if I sound defensive.

Sudsy Fist: i don't think i'd ever say this
Sudsy Fist: but you're looking damn sudsydoable in this

[skybytch 273]

Quote

I am sorry if I sound defensive.

You do sound defensive, and for no real reason. No one is saying you shouldn't be on a 190. No one is saying your instructors are wrong for putting you on a 190. No one is saying your instructors were wrong for having you jump a 230.

All that is being said is that you may have been misinformed about light wingloadings being dangerous. Light wingloadings are not in and of themselves dangerous. What is dangerous is jumping light wingloadings when it's windy or turbulent. That's not a gear issue, that's a choosing to get on the plane issue.

Once again - no one here is saying that what you are jumping is dangerous. No one is second guessing your decision to downsize.

Not sure how much clearer I can make it, so at this point I'm giving up.

[lisamariewillbe 1]

I do not get on the plane in dangerous conditions, however that does not mean I dont deploy my pilot chute in dangerous conditions. Ive had no problem with what you have said, has given me things to consider. I have already stated that I dont get on the plane in high winds, hell if ANY one at the dz is staying on the ground cause of winds I stay on the ground.

Sudsy Fist: i don't think i'd ever say this
Sudsy Fist: but you're looking damn sudsydoable in this

[grue 1]

Quote

Quote

I once had to land backwards because of wind changes

The only problem with backward landings is that if your square is fast enough, a backward landing can guarantee that you'll be drug. You can PLF backwards (I also have a few hundred round jumps, so I know a lot about landing backwards).

Learn how. Learn how to deal with the situation that comes up. If you're going to land backwards, you can PLF, drop one toggle, and pull the other one in. It will collapse the canopy quickly, and then you're not being drug any more.

Wendy W.

I had that situation pop up at our boogie. Landed straight down on a Raven IV loaded at .86 or so, stood up the landing, then the wind said "Oh, hi!" and dragged me a few feet before I got my toggle pulled in far enough. It was interesting...

cavete terrae.

[Reginald 0]

You do sound defensive. I’m not questioning your downsizing, I’ve never seen you fly a canopy, and I’m not trying to give you canopy advice. In fact I think a 190 for someone with an exit weight of 165 at your jumps numbers is perfectly reasonable. That is not the issue I am addressing at all. The point is that there is NO minimum recommended wing loading for any canopy, which is something you said you based part of your decision on. If someone told you there is and you made a decision to downsize based on inaccurate information that is an issue. And if it were only an issue for you I might not be concerned. However, I am making the point because I think there is something other people can learn here. There is a little bit of an urban myth about “under-loading” canopies, which others have tired to address above, which appears to have fallen on deaf ears with you. That is the point. However, I am open to the possibility that I am wrong, so I asked if you could point me to the reference material you are using to support the “minimum loading” argument you based part of your decision on. I’m guessing it does not exist but if you could point to some support for it I would be open minded enough to take it into consideration and say that I might be wrong. Apparently though instead of supporting your prior statement and the facts you said you made your decision on you choose to be defensive and argue about things I did not question.

Honestly, based on your posts, it sounds like you misunderstand the issues of canopy WL in general and more specifically how they apply to you. Unfortunately, instead of being civil and trying to learn something, which people have been trying to help you with here BTW, you simply lash out.

"We've been looking for the enemy for some time now. We've finally found him. We're surrounded. That simplifies things." CP

[lisamariewillbe 1]

your entitled to your opinion, I already stated where I got my info, and I already stated that for me the issue with the previous loading. Go back and read my posts. Where in it do I act like I am unwilling to learn? Go back and read how I personally hurt myself because of wind changes and going backwards. Go back to where I say at length I talked with instructors about what was right for ME. Go back and read where I asked for suggestions. Go back and read before accusing me , I will defend my instructors and the choices both them and I make for my skydives. I will defend them as I would defend my children. If you read performance designs website they even state that the min weight depends on landing conditions. If you think I will name a name just so someone can trash their style of teaching and their decsion to help me downsize your crazy.

Sudsy Fist: i don't think i'd ever say this
Sudsy Fist: but you're looking damn sudsydoable in this

[Ron 10]

OK look you kinda know me....But you got some bad stuff in here.

Light WL are not dangerous for the most part if you observe some really simple things. I have over 1000 jumps on canopies loaded less than 1:1 and I am still here.

Anyone that tells you that a light WL is dangerous is full of it. *unless the DESIGN makes it so, and there are VERY few of those canopies.

At 165 out the door you are still at around .8...so its not like thats dangerous.

But .7 is not dangerous either.

Anyone that tells you that big canopies are dangerous has no real clue.

Quote

That wasnt the only issue... with the penetration, I often had to stay in breaks just to get back to the dz as I went straight down and a few times went backwards.

Barkes often hurt you more than it will help you. Brakes slow you down.

And riding brakes to get back to the DZ is nothing new, I had to do it several times at the Nationals just last week.

Quote

I had consistent landings yes as in I stood them up, but I also fought to control that canopy, I could not use the rear risers if upon deployment I needed a quick turn to avoid a collosion, my normal toggle turns were extremley slow, the canopies reaction time was slow since it was light loaded. Also on my landings I did not have any glide, I went straight down, which was at least for me and now that I have something to compare it to not good because it effected my depth preception.

None of that is dangerous. Slower just means slower. Faster can hurt you. Landing straight down is not dangerous either....I have jumped rounds and I bet I landed harder than you under a 230.

Not jumping on you since I don't think you were dangerous...But big canopies are not dangerous.

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

[Remster 30]

You need to lighten up girl.

Remster

[wmw999 2,584]

Quote

I spent a bit of time at the DZ being taught why my bigger canopy was just as dangerous as a under loaded one.

This is the statement that people are objecting to. I'm assuming that "under loaded" should be "over loaded."

An underloaded canopy (which is a judgement call) is probably not as good as the perfect canopy. However, the downsides of being on an underloaded canopy are:
1. the spotter has to be more accurate, or you might land off the dz, because you're going down and forward slower. Of course, that means you're also landing slower.
2. You probably can't riser turn as quickly when you're in congested air
3. you might back up on landing
The second and third are recovery items from poor planning in the first place (not separating enough, or jumping in winds that are too high). The first is a skill and convenience thing. People used to land on the DZ with rounds, which had considerably less forward speed than the vast majority of squares.

The downsides of an overloaded canopy are:
1. you go down a whole lot faster. Of course, that means you also land a whole lot faster.
2. you turn a whole lot faster.
3. your timing for flare has to be pretty accurate
Those are every-single-time things. Not contingency situations, but things that increase the possibilitiy of hurting yourself on every single jump.

We are disagreeing with the quoted statement alone. We have the right to do so, and some of us bring some noticeably experience to the table to disagree. You are free to trust your instructors with everything, and disagree with us. Such is life.

But understand that just because someone you trust told you something doesn't make it unequivocably so. I've heard that "dangerous to be underloaded" as a justification for putting near-students on 1.3-loaded canopies also. Does that make it OK?

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)