I did it

[Ron 10]

Quote

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 think I will name a name just so someone can trash their style of teaching and their decsion to help me downsize your crazy

That right there is why people are saying you don't listen.

Why would you defend someone who could be wrong...You honestly don't know if they are correct, but are willing to fight for them?

Again, no one said you were in danger, no one said that it was a stupid move. People HAVE said that underloading a canopy is dangerous is BS.

I can say that based on over 1,000 jumps on canopies loaded less than .9 (Startrack I) a PRO rating, and jumps on canopies loaded as high as 2.6 (69 FX).

You are willing to slam people based on your love of your instructors.

Thats not a very good reason.

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

[lisamariewillbe 1]

Quote

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?

thats why I was asking for suggestions. I just wanted more information to bring to the table next time I jumped. My information came from people I trust in the sport but it also comes from my own backwards landing.

I only did 10 jumps on the 230 cause I was in the downsizing stage, I had been on a 260 before.

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

[wmw999 2,550]

When I weighed 140 geared up (we didn't use weights in those days) I jumped a 230 sq.ft. canopy. That's about a .6 loading. It landed softer and closer than the round I had happily been jumping before that.

I think a 190 is a very reasonable choice. It's really just that "dangerous" statement that people are objecting to. It's wrong. And it's OK for your friends or instructors to be wrong -- they're no more perfect than anyone else. Or they might be misunderstood, or there could just be a better choice.

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]

It was dangerous for me because I couldnt control the canopy as well as I should have been able to. I couldnt turn on a dime if someone didnt see me under canpy and was heading to me. I couldnt land going forward if the inds gusted above 10 mph, for me is what I have been talking about. I guess I am not good at portraying things but regardless thank you for the food for thought.

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

[lisamariewillbe 1]

Who did I slam?

I question everything everyone tells me, I listen, then I read , then I make my own decsions, but I always talk with a instructor who knows my jumping skill or lack there of.

I feel my instructors are correct, but i feel they are correct in how this all correlates to me. I just wanted to share my excitement of finally flying a canopy.

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

[wmw999 2,550]

Note that while you can land in higher winds now and turn faster, that those are things you will also have to control and be aware of.

Being on a faster canopy makes it more important not to be with instead of against the wind. Being on a faster canopy means you might have a faster landing on a no-wind day. You don't want to start butt-sliding because of that (it's a skilled landing technique).

Being on a canopy that turns quicker means that it's going down faster when you're turning -- don't do it close to the ground. Really -- it'll hurt you worse than the 230 would if you do.

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

Note that while you can land in higher winds now and turn faster, that those are things you will also have to control and be aware of.

Im gonna continue to do some hop and pops while testing the canopy out. I landed it in no wind and up wind, but have yet to land it in cross or down.

Quote

You don't want to start butt-sliding because of that (it's a skilled landing technique).

I did have a butt slide on this canopy the last jump, I meant to plf and plan to practice more plfs now that I know the plfs change with the change in wingloading.

Quote

Being on a canopy that turns quicker means that it's going down faster when you're turning -- don't do it close to the ground. Really -- it'll hurt you worse than the 230 would if you do.

I still refuse to do anything under 300 besides minor corrections. I have not been forced to move drasticually yet to avoid a canopy. Its also why I will stick with hop and pops as I am getting the feel, that way I am alone in the landing area while I am learning to understand the canopy.

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

[EvilLurker 2]

I'm sure I'll get a load of flak for this one, but I agree that an underloaded canopy is dangerous.
(1) You're a lot more likely to end up landing out, going backwards, or both.
(2) The canopy is not fully pressurized and is more likely to have inflation problems (end cell closures) and problems with collapsing in turbulance.

I consider both of those to be more dangerous than a canopy that's loaded at an appropriate level (depending on the jumper's skill level).

And no, I'm not talking about .8:1, more along the lines of .65 or less. If low WL didn't matter, your main canopy would fly after a cutaway, eh? After all, it's loaded at around .02:1 or so.

I do believe there's a lower WL limit below which you're MORE likely to get injured vs. a smaller canopy.

Who wants to test-jump this 900 sq. ft. Sherpa and prove me wrong?

http://www.mmist.ca/Sherpa/specificationsS.htm

[lisamariewillbe 1]

Everytime I deployed first the 260 and then the 230 I had end cell closures, 3 times I had 4 left cells closed, and Ive had plenty of turbulance issues on final.

However the deployment issues have always been fixed with a flare or two, and some of that can be because of my body position.

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

[anewempire 0]

speaking of downsizing... i only have 18 jumps and have moved down to a 170 already. sounds like a lot of people are really hesitant to people moving down and this makes me wonder if this was a good move or not. i did like 3 jumps with a 190 from a 220 and then the 190 was in use at the dz so i used a 170 and loved it. i felt in so much more control and did a stand up landing. the 190 i was having problems and would come in hard and the flares never really seemed to work too good and i would have to sprint off the landings. but the 170 felt incredible in every way. do you more experienced guys think i'm moving too fast for the few amount of jumps i have? i feel extremely comfortable under canopy now. i don't do anything stupid on landings since i'm so inexperienced. well just wondering if you guys would recommend my progression or not.

[nate_1979 9]

I'm also gonna side with the "I feel safer under my higher loaded canopy" team....

When I was below 1:1 for my first 100 jumps there were things that I feel were less safe then what I jump now, .. One of them being how the canopy handles in turbulance, a higher loaded canopy is more stable, nuff said about that. The second being how long it takes to get down. With my lightly loaded canopy it drove me nuts when I was doing my landing pattern so much slower than everyone else, the rule is low person has right of way, well for me the low person changed all the time during my pattern due to the fact that everyone else came in so much faster than I did, this screwed me up way to many times making me adjust my landing for all the people who have suddenly ended up in front of me, even on final. I know you always gotta be prepared to change your plan, but when someone that you dont see bacause they were above / behind you is suddenly in front of you going to the spot that you had decided to land, it can get a bit frustrating.

Minor, yes, .. Issues less important than being at a safely landable wing loading for your skill, yes... But good reasons in my limited experience to downsize to a "normal" wing loading.

FGF #???
I miss the sky...
There are 10 types of people in the world... those who understand binary and those who don't.

[EvilLurker 2]

Quote

However the deployment issues have always been fixed with a flare or two

Yes, but try jumping a 500 sq. ft. canopy and they may not. You were just playing at the edge of what I'm convinced would become a dangerous issue. I used to have to pump out end-cell closures, too, on the Raven 4 and Manta as a student. Never saw it again once I went above .7:1 W/L.

I still say it's more "dangerous" than not having them, if you're following my logic.

[EvilLurker 2]

Quote

well just wondering if you guys would recommend my progression or not.

We don't have a clue without knowing how much you weigh. Know what I mean, Vern?

[skybytch 273]

Quote

(1) You're a lot more likely to end up landing out, going backwards, or both.

Only if you are operating the canopy outside it's limitations.

Quote

(2) The canopy is not fully pressurized and is more likely to have inflation problems (end cell closures) and problems with collapsing in turbulance.

End cell closure on opening is not dangerous. It's a minor problem that is easily fixed - simply flare (which should be part of a controllability check anyway, right?). The Manta I jumped as a student opened with the end cells closed on every one of the I put on it. The Fury I jumped for my next 300 jumps did the same thing. I survived without ever having to cut it away.

Problems with collapsing in turbulence are not a gear issue. Like backing up on final, that's a choosing to get on the airplane issue.

Any piece of gear can be dangerous if it is operated outside of it's limitations. The lesson is to learn and know the limitations of the gear you are jumping and operate within those limitations. Telling people that don't know any better that what they are jumping is dangerous when it's not is... well... dangerous.

[lisamariewillbe 1]

I agree, I enjoy that that issue is for the most part resolved, I still have to work on the other issues of the down size. I still on the 190 have end cell closure, just not as extreme.

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

[lisamariewillbe 1]

I understand everything you are saying. Im a bit confused about the "choosing to get on the plane" I have never gotten on the plane when the winds were above 10 mph. I am extremley scared of higher winds just for the simple fact of what can happen in high winds regardless of wing loading.

When I landed backwards the wind changed while I was in either the plane or in the air already.

I agree with deployment and end cell closures, they have only freaked me out once and that was when they were well half closed and appeared to be folded and flapping but since I was flying straight I chilled and flared like normal.

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

[billvon 3,080]

>but I agree that an underloaded canopy is dangerous.

I agree - if you're talking about seriously underloaded canopies, on the order of .5 to 1 or less. However, loadings that light are rare. I've successfully landed several canopies with loadings of around .45, and while they are annoying (it takes forever to get down, not much penetration, slow turn rate etc) they are not dangerous.

[lisamariewillbe 1]

standing on a scale with the 260 gave me a .6538 wingloading

standing on a scale on the 230 with gear gave me a .7217

at least at the time thats what I put in my logbook when I jumped both for the first time.

and the new 188 gives me a .86 although I did not get on a scale for that one to check the gear, mostley because im becoming less anal retentive about logging every single thing. I still log well , just dont write a complete novel.

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

[grue 1]

While I am still a newbie, I think it's important to note that for us newbies like lisamarie and I, what our instructors say has a lot of bearing on what we believe. I was jumping a Skymaster 290 for jumps 1-6, and I came up to do some jumps on a saturday, and all the static line rigs were out for repacks, except for one: A Skymaster 230. My instructor said that he thought I could handle it, but would leave the decision up to me. At that point, my naked weight was perhaps 215lbs or so, giving me an exit weight of, what, 245lbs? I decided to give it a try, since I'd had 5.5 standup landings at that point, out of 6 jumps (The .5 I stood up my first jump, then remembered I was suppsoed to PLF, so I did it after standing up for about a second. Thus, half a standup!).

Well, we rode up to altitude, I made my jump, and realised immediately that this canopy was a different ballgame. It was turning when I told it to, it was flaring when I pulled both toggles, and dammit, it was more fun! I came in for a basically no-winder landing and.... stood it up. Same with the next one, and the one after that.

Looking back, I don't know if I should have made those jumps, even though they turned out ok. However, I got a lot of of confidence from my instructor saying he thought I could do it. At this point, I put a lot more thought into what I read from certain posters on this site, because they are responsible in the information they give, but that doesn't mean I discount what my former instructors have to say.

After those jumps, I went back to a 290, because the 230 was in a container with a harness that was smaller than I liked using. Granted, the 290 is in a too-small harness as well, but I'm a freak. Right now, I'm using a Raven IV loaded lightly, and a light wingload + old and busted F-111 7cell makes for conditions where I stand down due to wind quicker than anyone else off of student status.

When the time came for me to order my rig, I was waffling a lot on what to get for a main canopy. After talking with instructors and having them watch my flights, it was decided that a 210sqft main would probably be a very good choice for me, and I ended up getting a 9-cell Fusion 210. That rig will be here in just a couple of weeks, and I think the timing is good, as the air will be cooler by then, thus lowering the density altitude, and making it easier to transition.

So, I guess after that long-winded speech, I guess I'm saying I know where lisa is coming from, and that while using the lightly-loaded main might not have been unsafe, it wasn't conducive to enjoyment of the sport, and certainly wasn't helpful in getting her in the air in conditions which shouldn't present a problem to most jumpers.

But then again, I'm just a 44 jump wonder.

cavete terrae.

[skinnyshrek 0]

Lisa, people on here will give you advice some good some not so good. the only people that can really give you any good advice are people that watch you land every week-end ie your instructors. Although a highly underloaded canopy is not dangerous( Ask any PJ ) Its irritating as hell. If you are happy with the pilot stick with it for a few hundred jumps. I think that wing loading is fine for now. I am happy that you found a canopy that you are happy and feel safe under.

http://www.skydivethefarm.com

do you realize that when you critisize people you dont know over the internet, you become part of a growing society of twats? ARE YOU ONE OF THEM?

[Thanatos340 1]

Lisa..

I respect your opinion on anythng gear related more than just about anyone on this forum.

I undersatnd that no-one has critized her choice to jump the smaller canopy as it was not inappropriate for her skill level and wing loading..

The 190 gives her a greater range, Has a better Flare, easier to land, more controll, better penetration into the wind, gives her the option of using rears in a bad situation, Allows her jump in more conditions, handles mild turbulance better and is not beyond her abiities and still loaded under 1 to 1.

I understand you point that an underloaded canopy is not dangerous in itself but wouldnt these other factors translate into the higher loading in this particular case being the better/safer option for her at this point?


I am asking to in order learn more here.

[lisamariewillbe 1]

Thanks J, Im pretty sure thats what they have been saying. Im just not good at correlating things online. Then again you can speak Lisamarie cause you know me in real life as well.

Im curious for the advice as well. Thanks for putting in words what was in my head.

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

[immanence 0]

Quote

You do sound defensive, and for no real reason ... 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

I have to disagree. Light wingloadings can be dangerous in and of themselves. If you don't step in the plane except on nil wind days, all you are doing is moderating what would be a dangerous or difficult (and yes, I know these two concepts are different) canopy to fly given a certain wing-loading.

In my view, an under-loaded canopy is as problematic as an over-loaded or aggressively designed canopy. Backwards landings on a square canopy? Are you serious, Wendy? Lisa Marie doesn't need advice as to how to collapse a square she lands backwards. She needs someone to recognise that no square should be landed backwards.

Why do students get canopies of the 230 variety? I'd wager part of it is because more men in the 1980s were in the sport (or joining the sport) than women. Standardization of student kits is a function of cost-efficiency. One size fits all. Yes, a lighter-loaded canopy is safer on a student than a Velocity. We all know this. There's no controversy there. But 230s are a throwback to the 1980s when I'm sure the gender balance was different. If DZs had no monetary restrictions placed upon them, I'm sure lighter girls would be given the option of jumping smaller canopies (though likely still at a lower wingloading than 1:1) from the first jump. We put the same students who weight 220lbs out the door as Lisa Marie who weighs 165lbs out the door. If we're worried about over-loading canopies for students, why doesn't someone question the 6'2", 200lb dude who is learning AFF on a 230 Manta?

Point: Lisa Marie should be on a smaller canopy. A relatively docile 180 sounds more than fine to me.

We also have to factor in canopy design. Take my reserve, a Micro Raven 150. I'll getting rid of it as soon as I can because, frankly, it's dangerous to jump at a loading of over 1.3:1. This canopy is coming out of the 1980s too. Thankfully, canopy design has moved on since then. I won't be glad to get rid of it so I can swoop my reserve. Believe me, I am a very conservative skydiver. But I sure won't be sorry to get rid of canopy that has next to no flare and has put more than a few experienced canopy flyers down backwards on their backs.

I'd also say that yes, landings apart, Lisa Marie has legitimate concerns being under a 230 in the air. Canopy progression should go hand-in-hand with one's skydiving. As one starts to jump with others (Category X being at least a 4-way) one is jumping in the same sky as others — possibly many others. Even if a 230 is not a danger to oneself in the sky, others can be a danger to you, and you may need, and fast, to get out of their way. A bulky, slow-moving boat in the sky may contribute to a collision situation which, as we know, may happen very fast, especially if the other pilot has a problem or is behaving recklessly. Let us also remember that without a load, a canopy will collapse. So Reginald, though there may be no stated minimum wing-loadings, perhaps there should be. If Lisa Marie is experiencing end cells closing on opening, one aspect of this is that the canopy is not flying at an appropriate loading (which relates to pressure, airspeed and inflation). I'm not saying it would not be pilotable. But it sure isn't optimal. It's not reckless for instructors to use such canopies on light girls. No one is saying that. But it's not an ideal weighting for the canopy, and I think canopy designers would likely agree. Nil wind days, okay. But how many of those do we see?

Personally, I think 0.7:1 is verging on being cripplingly conservative. It could never, Skybytch, be described as "ridiculously aggressive". Far better, in my view, to make canopy control an integral part of one's skydiving training. People should be taught, actively, those skills. In skydiving as it currently is, the skydive is the fall. People learn about stability and manoeuvres but in general, aside from the most basic information ("flare at the right time!") they are taught next to zero about the physics of canopy flight. I think this is unfortunate. With effective canopy training people can be trained to fly an appropriately sized canopy.

To emphasise again, for a student I wouldn't advise going over a 1:1 ratio. That would be the upper ceiling. But after 30 or 40 or 50 rides under that limit, I think 1:1 or 1.1:1 is fine, if balanced out with effective training. On the other hand, if I were the instructor, I'd much rather see a student go on their bum because a docile canopy comes in a little too fast than see a student blown around in the air, floating, possibly landing out or backwards. So yes, I think there should be a minimum weighting for canopies.

Some other brief points in response to some questions Skybytch posed: 1) Why do BASE jumpers fly them? They don't. They generally jump large, 7-cell, F-111 canopies. Why? Because 7-cells have a low aspect ratio (width versus length), open cleaner and more often on heading than 9-cells. Why large? Because generally BASE is in a restricted airspace. The function of the canopy is to be docile and get you down steeper, rather than to forward fly and cover ground. 2) How the heck did those of us who started jumping in the days when no one loaded a canopy over about 1.1 survive? Canopy design was different. They were designed for lower weight-loadings. The material used in canopy construction was different. The entire canopy piloting experience was different. Who glided in those days? The point is that the two are not really comparable. Canopy design and manufacture was pretty much revolutionized with zero-perosity fabrics, as was canopy flight.

Good luck with your Pilot 188, Lisa Marie, and fly it safely
Blue skies,
ian

"where danger is appears also that which saves ..." Friedrich Holderlin, 'Patmos'

[billvon 3,080]

>standing on a scale with the 260 gave me a .6538 wingloading

My take on that would be that that is not a dangerously light loading. However, a somewhat heavier loading at your stage (like the .85 you mentioned) would likely be OK as well.

[lisamariewillbe 1]

Thanks Billvon... thanks everyone, I will continue on my progression and continue to work on my survival skills while in the plane, all the way until my gear is off my back and being packed. Thanks for all the info.

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