VanillaSkyGirl 6 #51 September 13, 2005 This is going to be a long post...sorry. I am an example of having been on very, very lightly loaded canopies for my size. When I began jumping, my small DZ (now closed) only had student canopies from 260-300 in size. I weighed only about 95 lbs. at most as a student and wore no lead in freefall. My exit weight, depending on the rig size/weight, had been between 120-130. I was very lightly loaded, but for the most part, I was ok. We had very nice, consistent winds there. Sadly, the DZ closed down, and it moved to a new local for one weekend. My instructors encouraged me to jump (solo...jump 14), if I felt ok with it. I finally decided to do it, after watching everyone for a few hours. Well, as we were jumping out, the winds shifted suddenly and picked up strongly, making it difficult for anyone to make it back. (We had unexpected rain, afterwards.) Everyone landed out, and I, under a 280 main, landed miles away because my canopy flew backwards. I found the only out for miles. I had to downwind it into a plowed field with barbed wire fences around it. There was nowhere else to go, since the area had only scattered homes, trees, untamed brush, high voltage wires, ditches, etc. It was pretty scary for me, since I had only 13 prior jumps. My instructors told me that I did a very good job of finding the only out, and that I did the right thing by landing there. The DZ ended up closing down for good (money related, not due to anything else) right after that day, instead of staying in that new location. It was a nice group of people, but since it was finally closed, I had to find a new DZ. The next place that I went to was Perris. I was placed on a student rig with a 210 main, then they put me on a student rig with a 170, and I went back to a rental 190. After three coached jumps at Perris, I decided to try Skdyive Elsinore for my final jumps. I rented a 190 to finish out my "A" license requirements. I then progressed to a 170 after a few days of jumping the 190. I tried the Sabre 170, Sabre2 170 and Spectre 170. The Spectre 170 was great for me. At about 40 jumps, I took a canopy course. It helped me immensely. I finally bought and stayed with a Spectre 150 for almost 100 jumps. I weighed about 120 out the door. I wore no lead until after my 108 jump and first jump at Eloy. I felt comfortable adding the lead (about 10 lbs. back then) when jumping my Spectre 150. It was a nice transition. I still had times when the winds were too high for me at my wing loading, though. It's always best to sit those out. I was once drug through the desert in Eloy after landing due to high winds...very embarrassing. I eventually downsized to a Spectre 135 and was wearing about 12 lbs. of lead. I also took a second canopy course when I began to jump a 135. I had a silly accident during the canopy course (broke my ankle), but it was not due to being underloaded or highly loaded. (My right glove was loose, got stuck and toggle came out of my hands.) I think that I was a little bit initimidated of being on a 135 with 12 lbs. of lead, now that I look back on my mental state of mind from back then. I probably wouldn't have broken my ankle on my comfortable 150, since I was so mentally happy with my landings on it and would have reacted better to a sudden freak glove mishap. I am currently not jumping (haven't jumped more than twice early this year), but I will be jumping again someday and hope to begin with a 190 or so. I probably will not wear much lead in the beginning and will focus on my canopy control. There is no reason to rush downsizing. (I am not saying that you are, Lisamarie.) I have had many people telling me to downsize more quickly, throughout my jumping, due to my size. Still, everyone has their own personal progression with canopy size, and you should do what you feel comfortable with, even if it is a very slow downsizing progression. Lisamarie, like others have said, it is good to listen to your canopy instructors, specifically, to know what size canopy is best for you. Other instructors, coaches, experienced jumpers will offer advice, but as has been said, only your canopy coach really knows enough to give you proper advice. I hope that this post and sharing my mistakes have helped you a little. You are not alone with your downsizing dilemna. Good luck! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
immanence 0 #52 September 13, 2005 Quoteall the way until my gear is off my back and being packed That's a great way of putting it "where danger is appears also that which saves ..." Friedrich Holderlin, 'Patmos' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lisamariewillbe 1 #53 September 14, 2005 Your post was perfect and very insightful. This thread has all been helpful in its own way. I am glad that over all you are okay and I am also glad that I am nor have I ever been as under loaded as you. Good luck when you get back into jumping...Sudsy Fist: i don't think i'd ever say this Sudsy Fist: but you're looking damn sudsydoable in this Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
VanillaSkyGirl 6 #54 September 14, 2005 Thank you so much, Lisamarie. Have fun, and stay safe! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites popsjumper 2 #55 September 14, 2005 QuoteYour post was perfect and very insightful. This thread has all been helpful in its own way. ... Congrats Lisa Marie...have fun with the new stuff. Sorry your happy announcement turned into what it did. One other lesson learned is that there are anal retentive people that will pick one statement to death, ride into the ground and act as if they are God's own representative to the human race....over and over and over again. One contructive approach for them would have been: Lisa Marie, underloading is probably not dangerous. Go back and re-discuss this with your instructors - maybe even discuss it with several other local instructors too. Congratulations on getting gear more suitable to you. Here are some helpful hints on flying that size canopy under your particular wingloading...... We love ya' lady!My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skybytch 273 #56 September 14, 2005 Great post, thanks. My only issue here is with the blanket statement that lightly loaded canopies are dangerous. Oftentimes they are not ideal, for a number of reasons already pointed out here, but they are not inherently dangerous. I think that wingloadings below about 0.5 are ridiculously conservative, but I don't think that 0.6-0.8 is too conservative for a student, even on a zp nine cell. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lisamariewillbe 1 #57 September 14, 2005 I agree about my blanket statement and I apologize that I did not reiderate that I was meaning for me, and the landings Ive had as well.Sudsy Fist: i don't think i'd ever say this Sudsy Fist: but you're looking damn sudsydoable in this Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites immanence 0 #58 September 14, 2005 QuoteMy only issue here is with the blanket statement I agree. As Einstein said, everything is relative. I know I won't be flying a VX46 anytime soon ...... but we should keep an open mind, because we know its been done. One little thought to throw out (don't want to start a war, or hijack the thread: just a closing thought on my part ): conservatism is inherently safe; is that why we skydive? Maybe the tie dye pattern I have planned for my new V3 is going to my head ....... "where danger is appears also that which saves ..." Friedrich Holderlin, 'Patmos' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites woodpecker 0 #59 September 14, 2005 First, congrats again on your downsizing progression. If your more comfortable in the saddle under the new canopy and arent being too radical (going from a 190 to a 135) my vote it you made the correct decision for yourself. This is of course from just reading your post, I've never seen you fly. Second, like shrek said...(ask any PJ) an underloaded canopy is not dangerouse. You just have to know what to expect and fly withing that range.SONIC WOODY #146 There is a fine line between cockiness and confidence -- which side of the line are you on? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Erroll 80 #60 September 14, 2005 Quote I just wanted to share my excitement of finally flying a canopy. Stay safe & have fun! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #61 September 14, 2005 QuoteOne of them being how the canopy handles in turbulance, a higher loaded canopy is more stable, nuff said about that Thats just wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. QuoteThe 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 Thats not dangerous."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #62 September 14, 2005 Quote(1) You're a lot more likely to end up landing out, going backwards, or both. At a slower speed. And if you do land off you will not need a runway and a low turn will do less damage if you panic. 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 closures is not dangerous. Turbulance can take down a 747 and it has a higher WL than any canopy. QuoteI do believe there's a lower WL limit below which you're MORE likely to get injured vs. a smaller canopy. Id rather people be on too big a canopy than too small anyday"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #63 September 14, 2005 Lets look at this: You say this: QuoteI also took a second canopy course when I began to jump a 135. I had a silly accident during the canopy course (broke my ankle), but it was not due to being underloaded or highly loaded. then you say this: QuoteI probably wouldn't have broken my ankle on my comfortable 150, since I was so mentally happy with my landings on it and would have reacted better to a sudden freak glove mishap. That is why I hate it when people rush to downsize. Small problems like your glove break you instead of maybe just a rough landing."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #64 September 14, 2005 QuoteCongrats Lisa Marie...have fun with the new stuff. Sorry your happy announcement turned into what it did. One other lesson learned is that there are anal retentive people that will pick one statement to death, ride into the ground and act as if they are God's own representative to the human race....over and over and over again. Another lesson to learn is that people tend to only listen to advice they want. Another might be that bad information is out there and students just accept it even if it is wrong since they don't know better. Another is that poeple get defensive when they don't understand. Lisa said that big canopies are dangerous...And thats just wrong. Bytch pointed that out, along with others. Some people got all pissy and started trying to insult people "act as if they are God's own representative to the human race" comes to mind. There is NOTHING wrong with trying to prevent the passing of bad information."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites EvilLurker 2 #65 September 14, 2005 QuoteId rather people be on too big a canopy than too small anyday That wasn't the argument, it was an oversized canopy vs. a canopy that was smaller, but still within the jumper's capability to land safely. So, using your logic, someone should switch to a tandem (sized) canopy if they knew they were going to be jumping in high wind/turbulant conditions? Do you? QuoteEnd Cell closures is not dangerous. Having closed end cells IS more dangerous than not having them, because it inhibits the ability to steer the canopy until they are cleared and it's a distraction. QuoteTurbulance can take down a 747 and it has a higher WL than any canopy. Enough turbulance can "take down" any wing. A 747 wing does not respond in the same way to changing airspeed as a ram air canopy, since the leading edge of a 747 wing is sealed and the skin is rigid. It also passes through the turbulant area in a much shorter period of time due to the much higher airspeed. It's not a valid comparison at all. QuoteAnd if you do land off you will not need a runway and a low turn will do less damage if you panic. And getting dragged backwards through a barb-wire fence won't hurt as much either, I reckon. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites popsjumper 2 #66 September 14, 2005 Quote Another lesson to learn is that people tend to only listen to advice they want. Ron, How you say it has a large bearing on being accepted. What most people want is an instructor and mentor..not a verbal abuser. Quote Another might be that bad information is out there and students just accept it even if it is wrong since they don't know better. A good reply would have been talk to your instructors, or better yet, more than one instructor. You are fighting an uphill battle trying to argue every piece of questionable information. Quote Another is that poeple get defensive when they don't understand. Again..How you say it has a large bearing on one's becoming defensive - it's not the lack of understanding, Ron, it's the approach. Quote Lisa said that big canopies are dangerous...And thats just wrong. Bytch pointed that out, along with others. ....pick one statement to death, ride into the ground and act as if they are God's own representative to the human race....over and over and over again. Quote Some people got all pissy and started trying to insult people "act as if they are God's own representative to the human race" comes to mind. Ya' gotta ask yourself...does the shoe fit? If not then, like spam, ignore it. Quote There is NOTHING wrong with trying to prevent the passing of bad information. Whole-heartedly agreed...but look at your approach...it definetly needs some work. Since you continue to beat the "big canopies are dangerous" horse....over and over and over again. Point made...thanks.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites EvilLurker 2 #67 September 14, 2005 QuoteI think that wingloadings below about 0.5 are ridiculously conservative, but I don't think that 0.6-0.8 is too conservative for a student, even on a zp nine cell. I'd agree with that 100%. .6-.8 is perfect for someone to develop canopy control and landing skills, a 100 pounder under a 320 isn't going to be a better situation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites VanillaSkyGirl 6 #68 September 14, 2005 QuoteThat is why I hate it when people rush to downsize. Small problems like your glove break you instead of maybe just a rough landing. My glove didn't break. My glove was stuck and came half-off my hand, restricting it, and I lost my toggle in the process. I had never worn gloves before that day, due to improper glove fit issues. I decided to try to wear some new, small gloves, during my canopy class because I thought it would be safe to try them for the first time during my canopy control class. I think that my right glove became a bit loose without me noticing, when I threw my PC. My gloves obviously did not fit, although I had thought that these gloves did fit. (My hands are unusually small, and I had never found gloves that fit and stayed on.) You can think, that I rushed to downsize due to dissecting one of my posts, but that would be an extremely laughable statement for anyone who actually knows me, including my canopy instructors, to hear about me. I was not then and am not ever going to be in a rush to downsize. What I posted to Lisamarie was after countless rethinking for over a year about my injury and wondering if it could have been prevented in any way. That is my personal thought about it. Actually, I have often been told quite the opposite. I had been told that I should be on a smaller (when I was on the 150) canopy more times than I can count by coaches at various DZs, experienced jumpers, etc. Learning on the 260-300 mains as a student were not my fault because those were the only student mains that small DZ had to offer its students. We were on ripcords, as well. Anyway, despite being told, that I should be on a smaller canopy than my 150, I stayed on it for 100 jumps because I was trying to be cautious and not downsize, until I was physically and mentally ready. Now, I am being told that I was downsizing too quickly by you, Ron. I understand why you might think that, but you truly know virtually nothing about what I think about downsizing and/or how careful I have tried to be about downsizing. I included a sentence in my post on how I feel about my accident now, when looking back, but I don't know if anyone can truly make that judgement call now about what is best. I tend to blame myself and be overly critical, so I am second guessing myself. I honestly only shared my post because I wanted to try to help Lisamarie or anyone else in this situation. I don't want anyone to have to be hurt or to second-guess themselves. Still, if I have truly made a mistake in my downsizing progression, then I have paid for it already. Ron, try putting yourself in someone else's shoes and realize that we are all learning and trying to do what is best. Still, we are all only human, and we all make mistakes. All that we can do is try our best. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #69 September 14, 2005 QuoteThat wasn't the argument, it was an oversized canopy vs. a canopy that was smaller, but still within the jumper's capability to land safely. So, using your logic, someone should switch to a tandem (sized) canopy if they knew they were going to be jumping in high wind/turbulant conditions? Do you? No, the argument was that some think big canopies are dangerous...stick to topic. QuoteHaving closed end cells IS more dangerous than not having them, because it inhibits the ability to steer the canopy until they are cleared and it's a distraction. There is NOTHING dangerous about end cell closure. NOTHING. It does NOTHING. I have seen students have end cell closure till they flaired to land. It is NOT dangerous at all. QuoteAnd getting dragged backwards through a barb-wire fence won't hurt as much either, I reckon. Then in that case the jumper was jumping in conditions not suited for the equipment.... I tell ya what, you list all the accidents that were casued by being drug backwards, and then I'll list all the accidents caused by someone making a bad choice under a high WL. I bet my list will be MUCH longer. Hell, Im a good sport, please also include all the light WLs that went bad due to turbulance."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #70 September 14, 2005 QuoteRon, How you say it has a large bearing on being accepted. What most people want is an instructor and mentor..not a verbal abuser. Yep, go back and read these posts to see who abused who....hint you started with the whole "act as if they are God's own representative to the human race" not me. QuoteA good reply would have been talk to your instructors, or better yet, more than one instructor. You are fighting an uphill battle trying to argue every piece of questionable information Better to fight the good fight than just give up and let bad information grow. QuoteWhole-heartedly agreed...but look at your approach...it definetly needs some work You started with the insults hero, not me. Maybe you shoudl check yourself?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #71 September 14, 2005 QuoteMy glove didn't break. My glove was stuck and came half-off my hand, restricting it, and I lost my toggle in the process. I didn't mean to say your glove broke...I meant to say that our glove issue caused you to get broken. You admitted that you broke your ankle and that you think you would not have under a bigger canopy. Thats my point. You even said it yourself. QuoteYou can think, that I rushed to downsize due to dissecting one of my posts Never said that...I just pointed out how YOU think that if you were on a bigger canopy you would have been able to handle the minor glove issue. QuoteNow, I am being told that I was downsizing too quickly by you, Ron. Again I never said that...I just pointed out how YOU thought you would not have broken your ankle under the 150, but did under the smaller canopy. QuoteRon, try putting yourself in someone else's shoes and realize that we are all learning and trying to do what is best. Still, we are all only human, and we all make mistakes. All that we can do is try our best. Yes, and I have been in your shoes...I was 135 pounds under a 220. I landed backwards more times than not as a student. But the thing is bad advice seems to spread much faster than good advice. One of the reasons is that people want to be cool, another is people want to be accepted. Not saying this is the case here, or with Lisa, but it is QUITE common. Case study: I am looking to buy a Motorcycle. I had one in HS a 125. After reading some on here and talking to some people I trust, I am looking at a 250 sport bike. One of my friends told me to skip the 250 and get the 600. the sales person told me to skip the 250 and get the 600. I know several people that would just skip the 250 and get the 600. they would say that they were told they would be fine. They tell me that I can use the extra HP to get out of trouble, and as long as I am careful I will be fine.....sound familiar? Well this SAME story plays out at DZ when it comes to WL and canopy selection. People throw out stories about backing up into powerlines just like bikers use the "I had to gun it to avoid getting hit". However more accidents are from speed, not lack of it."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skybytch 273 #72 September 14, 2005 QuoteA good reply would have been talk to your instructors, or better yet, more than one instructor. The problem with that is many who hold pieces of paper that say "Instructor" or "Rigger" on them are the very people spreading myth and misinformation. imho, once a jumper gets an A license it's time to stop assuming that instructors know everything and are always right. Nobody knows everything, nobody is always right (even I've been wrong on occasion... ), we've all got things we still need to learn. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites popsjumper 2 #73 September 14, 2005 Quote... You started with the insults hero, not me. Maybe you shoudl check yourself? Ron....what a typical reply from you....You started it! You started it! See my point about defensiveness? See how you got defensive? It was the approach was it not? Live and learn Ron. Take my name off your "reply to" list, please. Since this thread has degenerated into a pissing contest, they would not be blamed for locking this thread.... But..IBTL...Good job so far on your progression, Lisa Marie!My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #74 September 14, 2005 QuoteRon....what a typical reply from you....You started it! You started it! And normal for you to attack people. QuoteSee my point about defensiveness? See how you got defensive? It was the approach was it not? Live and learn Ron. Gee a guy starts to attack people and acts all high and mighty about it.... QuoteTake my name off your "reply to" list, please. Don't attack me and there will be no problems huh? Quote"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites EvilLurker 2 #75 September 14, 2005 QuoteNo, the argument was that some think big canopies are dangerous...stick to topic. At some point, bigger is NOT better. Try jumping that 900 sq. ft. canopy I posted a link to and get back to me on how that experience goes. Wait for a nice windy, turbulant day. You should be fine. Now, that's about the W/L you get putting an 80 pound first-jump student under a Raven 4. Oh, and end-cell closures are not dangerous? Better contact the USPA and enlighten them, because this is from the SIM re. evaluation of end cell closures: Quotec. end-cell closure: (1) Pull both toggles to the bottom of the stroke and hold them until the end cells open, then release them smoothly. (2) Alternatively, hold down both back risers. (3) If the end cells can't be cleared, evaluate controllability and flare before reaching the decide-and-act altitude of 2,500 feet. Sounds like they recommend chopping a canopy when you can't clear the mal. Hmmmmmm. Sounds dangerous. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 Next Page 3 of 4 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
popsjumper 2 #55 September 14, 2005 QuoteYour post was perfect and very insightful. This thread has all been helpful in its own way. ... Congrats Lisa Marie...have fun with the new stuff. Sorry your happy announcement turned into what it did. One other lesson learned is that there are anal retentive people that will pick one statement to death, ride into the ground and act as if they are God's own representative to the human race....over and over and over again. One contructive approach for them would have been: Lisa Marie, underloading is probably not dangerous. Go back and re-discuss this with your instructors - maybe even discuss it with several other local instructors too. Congratulations on getting gear more suitable to you. Here are some helpful hints on flying that size canopy under your particular wingloading...... We love ya' lady!My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skybytch 273 #56 September 14, 2005 Great post, thanks. My only issue here is with the blanket statement that lightly loaded canopies are dangerous. Oftentimes they are not ideal, for a number of reasons already pointed out here, but they are not inherently dangerous. I think that wingloadings below about 0.5 are ridiculously conservative, but I don't think that 0.6-0.8 is too conservative for a student, even on a zp nine cell. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lisamariewillbe 1 #57 September 14, 2005 I agree about my blanket statement and I apologize that I did not reiderate that I was meaning for me, and the landings Ive had as well.Sudsy Fist: i don't think i'd ever say this Sudsy Fist: but you're looking damn sudsydoable in this Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
immanence 0 #58 September 14, 2005 QuoteMy only issue here is with the blanket statement I agree. As Einstein said, everything is relative. I know I won't be flying a VX46 anytime soon ...... but we should keep an open mind, because we know its been done. One little thought to throw out (don't want to start a war, or hijack the thread: just a closing thought on my part ): conservatism is inherently safe; is that why we skydive? Maybe the tie dye pattern I have planned for my new V3 is going to my head ....... "where danger is appears also that which saves ..." Friedrich Holderlin, 'Patmos' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
woodpecker 0 #59 September 14, 2005 First, congrats again on your downsizing progression. If your more comfortable in the saddle under the new canopy and arent being too radical (going from a 190 to a 135) my vote it you made the correct decision for yourself. This is of course from just reading your post, I've never seen you fly. Second, like shrek said...(ask any PJ) an underloaded canopy is not dangerouse. You just have to know what to expect and fly withing that range.SONIC WOODY #146 There is a fine line between cockiness and confidence -- which side of the line are you on? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Erroll 80 #60 September 14, 2005 Quote I just wanted to share my excitement of finally flying a canopy. Stay safe & have fun! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #61 September 14, 2005 QuoteOne of them being how the canopy handles in turbulance, a higher loaded canopy is more stable, nuff said about that Thats just wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. QuoteThe 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 Thats not dangerous."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #62 September 14, 2005 Quote(1) You're a lot more likely to end up landing out, going backwards, or both. At a slower speed. And if you do land off you will not need a runway and a low turn will do less damage if you panic. 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 closures is not dangerous. Turbulance can take down a 747 and it has a higher WL than any canopy. QuoteI do believe there's a lower WL limit below which you're MORE likely to get injured vs. a smaller canopy. Id rather people be on too big a canopy than too small anyday"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #63 September 14, 2005 Lets look at this: You say this: QuoteI also took a second canopy course when I began to jump a 135. I had a silly accident during the canopy course (broke my ankle), but it was not due to being underloaded or highly loaded. then you say this: QuoteI probably wouldn't have broken my ankle on my comfortable 150, since I was so mentally happy with my landings on it and would have reacted better to a sudden freak glove mishap. That is why I hate it when people rush to downsize. Small problems like your glove break you instead of maybe just a rough landing."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #64 September 14, 2005 QuoteCongrats Lisa Marie...have fun with the new stuff. Sorry your happy announcement turned into what it did. One other lesson learned is that there are anal retentive people that will pick one statement to death, ride into the ground and act as if they are God's own representative to the human race....over and over and over again. Another lesson to learn is that people tend to only listen to advice they want. Another might be that bad information is out there and students just accept it even if it is wrong since they don't know better. Another is that poeple get defensive when they don't understand. Lisa said that big canopies are dangerous...And thats just wrong. Bytch pointed that out, along with others. Some people got all pissy and started trying to insult people "act as if they are God's own representative to the human race" comes to mind. There is NOTHING wrong with trying to prevent the passing of bad information."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EvilLurker 2 #65 September 14, 2005 QuoteId rather people be on too big a canopy than too small anyday That wasn't the argument, it was an oversized canopy vs. a canopy that was smaller, but still within the jumper's capability to land safely. So, using your logic, someone should switch to a tandem (sized) canopy if they knew they were going to be jumping in high wind/turbulant conditions? Do you? QuoteEnd Cell closures is not dangerous. Having closed end cells IS more dangerous than not having them, because it inhibits the ability to steer the canopy until they are cleared and it's a distraction. QuoteTurbulance can take down a 747 and it has a higher WL than any canopy. Enough turbulance can "take down" any wing. A 747 wing does not respond in the same way to changing airspeed as a ram air canopy, since the leading edge of a 747 wing is sealed and the skin is rigid. It also passes through the turbulant area in a much shorter period of time due to the much higher airspeed. It's not a valid comparison at all. QuoteAnd if you do land off you will not need a runway and a low turn will do less damage if you panic. And getting dragged backwards through a barb-wire fence won't hurt as much either, I reckon. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #66 September 14, 2005 Quote Another lesson to learn is that people tend to only listen to advice they want. Ron, How you say it has a large bearing on being accepted. What most people want is an instructor and mentor..not a verbal abuser. Quote Another might be that bad information is out there and students just accept it even if it is wrong since they don't know better. A good reply would have been talk to your instructors, or better yet, more than one instructor. You are fighting an uphill battle trying to argue every piece of questionable information. Quote Another is that poeple get defensive when they don't understand. Again..How you say it has a large bearing on one's becoming defensive - it's not the lack of understanding, Ron, it's the approach. Quote Lisa said that big canopies are dangerous...And thats just wrong. Bytch pointed that out, along with others. ....pick one statement to death, ride into the ground and act as if they are God's own representative to the human race....over and over and over again. Quote Some people got all pissy and started trying to insult people "act as if they are God's own representative to the human race" comes to mind. Ya' gotta ask yourself...does the shoe fit? If not then, like spam, ignore it. Quote There is NOTHING wrong with trying to prevent the passing of bad information. Whole-heartedly agreed...but look at your approach...it definetly needs some work. Since you continue to beat the "big canopies are dangerous" horse....over and over and over again. Point made...thanks.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EvilLurker 2 #67 September 14, 2005 QuoteI think that wingloadings below about 0.5 are ridiculously conservative, but I don't think that 0.6-0.8 is too conservative for a student, even on a zp nine cell. I'd agree with that 100%. .6-.8 is perfect for someone to develop canopy control and landing skills, a 100 pounder under a 320 isn't going to be a better situation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
VanillaSkyGirl 6 #68 September 14, 2005 QuoteThat is why I hate it when people rush to downsize. Small problems like your glove break you instead of maybe just a rough landing. My glove didn't break. My glove was stuck and came half-off my hand, restricting it, and I lost my toggle in the process. I had never worn gloves before that day, due to improper glove fit issues. I decided to try to wear some new, small gloves, during my canopy class because I thought it would be safe to try them for the first time during my canopy control class. I think that my right glove became a bit loose without me noticing, when I threw my PC. My gloves obviously did not fit, although I had thought that these gloves did fit. (My hands are unusually small, and I had never found gloves that fit and stayed on.) You can think, that I rushed to downsize due to dissecting one of my posts, but that would be an extremely laughable statement for anyone who actually knows me, including my canopy instructors, to hear about me. I was not then and am not ever going to be in a rush to downsize. What I posted to Lisamarie was after countless rethinking for over a year about my injury and wondering if it could have been prevented in any way. That is my personal thought about it. Actually, I have often been told quite the opposite. I had been told that I should be on a smaller (when I was on the 150) canopy more times than I can count by coaches at various DZs, experienced jumpers, etc. Learning on the 260-300 mains as a student were not my fault because those were the only student mains that small DZ had to offer its students. We were on ripcords, as well. Anyway, despite being told, that I should be on a smaller canopy than my 150, I stayed on it for 100 jumps because I was trying to be cautious and not downsize, until I was physically and mentally ready. Now, I am being told that I was downsizing too quickly by you, Ron. I understand why you might think that, but you truly know virtually nothing about what I think about downsizing and/or how careful I have tried to be about downsizing. I included a sentence in my post on how I feel about my accident now, when looking back, but I don't know if anyone can truly make that judgement call now about what is best. I tend to blame myself and be overly critical, so I am second guessing myself. I honestly only shared my post because I wanted to try to help Lisamarie or anyone else in this situation. I don't want anyone to have to be hurt or to second-guess themselves. Still, if I have truly made a mistake in my downsizing progression, then I have paid for it already. Ron, try putting yourself in someone else's shoes and realize that we are all learning and trying to do what is best. Still, we are all only human, and we all make mistakes. All that we can do is try our best. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #69 September 14, 2005 QuoteThat wasn't the argument, it was an oversized canopy vs. a canopy that was smaller, but still within the jumper's capability to land safely. So, using your logic, someone should switch to a tandem (sized) canopy if they knew they were going to be jumping in high wind/turbulant conditions? Do you? No, the argument was that some think big canopies are dangerous...stick to topic. QuoteHaving closed end cells IS more dangerous than not having them, because it inhibits the ability to steer the canopy until they are cleared and it's a distraction. There is NOTHING dangerous about end cell closure. NOTHING. It does NOTHING. I have seen students have end cell closure till they flaired to land. It is NOT dangerous at all. QuoteAnd getting dragged backwards through a barb-wire fence won't hurt as much either, I reckon. Then in that case the jumper was jumping in conditions not suited for the equipment.... I tell ya what, you list all the accidents that were casued by being drug backwards, and then I'll list all the accidents caused by someone making a bad choice under a high WL. I bet my list will be MUCH longer. Hell, Im a good sport, please also include all the light WLs that went bad due to turbulance."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #70 September 14, 2005 QuoteRon, How you say it has a large bearing on being accepted. What most people want is an instructor and mentor..not a verbal abuser. Yep, go back and read these posts to see who abused who....hint you started with the whole "act as if they are God's own representative to the human race" not me. QuoteA good reply would have been talk to your instructors, or better yet, more than one instructor. You are fighting an uphill battle trying to argue every piece of questionable information Better to fight the good fight than just give up and let bad information grow. QuoteWhole-heartedly agreed...but look at your approach...it definetly needs some work You started with the insults hero, not me. Maybe you shoudl check yourself?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #71 September 14, 2005 QuoteMy glove didn't break. My glove was stuck and came half-off my hand, restricting it, and I lost my toggle in the process. I didn't mean to say your glove broke...I meant to say that our glove issue caused you to get broken. You admitted that you broke your ankle and that you think you would not have under a bigger canopy. Thats my point. You even said it yourself. QuoteYou can think, that I rushed to downsize due to dissecting one of my posts Never said that...I just pointed out how YOU think that if you were on a bigger canopy you would have been able to handle the minor glove issue. QuoteNow, I am being told that I was downsizing too quickly by you, Ron. Again I never said that...I just pointed out how YOU thought you would not have broken your ankle under the 150, but did under the smaller canopy. QuoteRon, try putting yourself in someone else's shoes and realize that we are all learning and trying to do what is best. Still, we are all only human, and we all make mistakes. All that we can do is try our best. Yes, and I have been in your shoes...I was 135 pounds under a 220. I landed backwards more times than not as a student. But the thing is bad advice seems to spread much faster than good advice. One of the reasons is that people want to be cool, another is people want to be accepted. Not saying this is the case here, or with Lisa, but it is QUITE common. Case study: I am looking to buy a Motorcycle. I had one in HS a 125. After reading some on here and talking to some people I trust, I am looking at a 250 sport bike. One of my friends told me to skip the 250 and get the 600. the sales person told me to skip the 250 and get the 600. I know several people that would just skip the 250 and get the 600. they would say that they were told they would be fine. They tell me that I can use the extra HP to get out of trouble, and as long as I am careful I will be fine.....sound familiar? Well this SAME story plays out at DZ when it comes to WL and canopy selection. People throw out stories about backing up into powerlines just like bikers use the "I had to gun it to avoid getting hit". However more accidents are from speed, not lack of it."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skybytch 273 #72 September 14, 2005 QuoteA good reply would have been talk to your instructors, or better yet, more than one instructor. The problem with that is many who hold pieces of paper that say "Instructor" or "Rigger" on them are the very people spreading myth and misinformation. imho, once a jumper gets an A license it's time to stop assuming that instructors know everything and are always right. Nobody knows everything, nobody is always right (even I've been wrong on occasion... ), we've all got things we still need to learn. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #73 September 14, 2005 Quote... You started with the insults hero, not me. Maybe you shoudl check yourself? Ron....what a typical reply from you....You started it! You started it! See my point about defensiveness? See how you got defensive? It was the approach was it not? Live and learn Ron. Take my name off your "reply to" list, please. Since this thread has degenerated into a pissing contest, they would not be blamed for locking this thread.... But..IBTL...Good job so far on your progression, Lisa Marie!My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #74 September 14, 2005 QuoteRon....what a typical reply from you....You started it! You started it! And normal for you to attack people. QuoteSee my point about defensiveness? See how you got defensive? It was the approach was it not? Live and learn Ron. Gee a guy starts to attack people and acts all high and mighty about it.... QuoteTake my name off your "reply to" list, please. Don't attack me and there will be no problems huh? Quote"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites EvilLurker 2 #75 September 14, 2005 QuoteNo, the argument was that some think big canopies are dangerous...stick to topic. At some point, bigger is NOT better. Try jumping that 900 sq. ft. canopy I posted a link to and get back to me on how that experience goes. Wait for a nice windy, turbulant day. You should be fine. Now, that's about the W/L you get putting an 80 pound first-jump student under a Raven 4. Oh, and end-cell closures are not dangerous? Better contact the USPA and enlighten them, because this is from the SIM re. evaluation of end cell closures: Quotec. end-cell closure: (1) Pull both toggles to the bottom of the stroke and hold them until the end cells open, then release them smoothly. (2) Alternatively, hold down both back risers. (3) If the end cells can't be cleared, evaluate controllability and flare before reaching the decide-and-act altitude of 2,500 feet. Sounds like they recommend chopping a canopy when you can't clear the mal. Hmmmmmm. Sounds dangerous. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 Next Page 3 of 4 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
EvilLurker 2 #75 September 14, 2005 QuoteNo, the argument was that some think big canopies are dangerous...stick to topic. At some point, bigger is NOT better. Try jumping that 900 sq. ft. canopy I posted a link to and get back to me on how that experience goes. Wait for a nice windy, turbulant day. You should be fine. Now, that's about the W/L you get putting an 80 pound first-jump student under a Raven 4. Oh, and end-cell closures are not dangerous? Better contact the USPA and enlighten them, because this is from the SIM re. evaluation of end cell closures: Quotec. end-cell closure: (1) Pull both toggles to the bottom of the stroke and hold them until the end cells open, then release them smoothly. (2) Alternatively, hold down both back risers. (3) If the end cells can't be cleared, evaluate controllability and flare before reaching the decide-and-act altitude of 2,500 feet. Sounds like they recommend chopping a canopy when you can't clear the mal. Hmmmmmm. Sounds dangerous. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
