Wing loading for first rig

[GrumpySmurf 0]

Yeah, he'll amputate instead.
"I don't care about my arm, just don't cut the rig, ok!?"

[Engovatov 0]

>The same isn't true for smaller, more elliptical canopies.
Hmm.. do not know.. It seems it is MUCH easier to safely land a Safire, then 50% bigger PO-16 Talka "The Death" rig. You mention PD-190 was considered a dangerous rig - but here I went through last 3 AFF jumps on it (well, I did jump long time ago before that) being 205 out the door...
Not saying about twisting risers to face downwind on a D5, smashing into frosted mud, then this thing yanks you back up into air, and pulls you through thorns, until you stop head on on a cow shit covered boulder and manage to pull down lines to kill the canopy and watch with satisfaction your buddies performing the same excersize, and consider this to be what "parachutism" is all about and it can not be any other way, and this idiots on ram-air rigs you have seen on some hot-shots are just a statistic waiting to happen... ;-))
Or well, that went for far too long - I do agree with you guys, anyway.. :)

[rhino 0]

LOL... That was good..
Blue Skies and Smooth Rides!!
http://www.aahit.com

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

The same isn't true for smaller, more elliptical canopies.

I was wondering about this a while ago. To what extent does the advancement in canopy design allow for or even require smaller student mains?
We're already seeing mildly eliptical or tapered 9 cell designs in the PD Navigator. Many DZ's are using Sabre 2's and Safires as first jump rigs.
In the future, I wonder if we'll see air-locked, crossbraced, or even air-locked AND crossbraced canopies designed for first jump use.
In the abstract, all of these advancements "improve the effeciency of the wing". If the wing is that more theoretically effecient, does this mean it can (or maybe should) be flown at a moderately higher wingloadings?
_Am
ICQ: 5578907
MSN Messenger: andrewdmetcalfe at hotmail dot com
Yahoo IM: ametcalf_1999

[PhreeZone 20]

Airlocked are already there for student/entry use. Check out the Lotus from Bigair Sportz. Flies similar to a Hornet/Sabre2/Safire and is airlocked. The cost of them is a bit high... but Its an option for anyone who wants Airlocks without going radical to get them. I've never heard of then in student use... but I can't believe they would'nt do great.
Cause I don't wanna come back down from this cloud... ~ Bush

[billvon 3,078]

>I was wondering about this a while ago. To what extent does the advancement
>in canopy design allow for or even require smaller student mains?
It is advancement in training that allows smaller student mains, not advancement in equipment. As a comparison, you couldn't just take a modern student rig, put it on a jumper 20 years ago, and do an AFF with him with two static line JM's. They just didn't know how to do that yet.
The reason we _can_ go to smaller/higher performing mains (and yes, when I was a student, a Manta was a higher performing, smaller main) is that we have better training. Sometimes (ideally) it comes completely from an instructor, as in the Skydive Chicago program. Usually 25% of it comes from instructors (who, by now, nearly all jump tiny mains) and the remaining 75% comes afterwards from coaches, mentors and friends in an unstructured environment.
But the same thing applies. Go back 20 years, take someone with 20 jumps on a DC5, and put them on a Safire 149 and you're asking for trouble.
>In the future, I wonder if we'll see air-locked, crossbraced, or even air-locked AND
>crossbraced canopies designed for first jump use.
Perhaps, but none of those things make a canopy harder to fly. Going smaller does.
-bill von

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

Perhaps, but none of those things make a canopy harder to fly. Going smaller does.

Would it be the case that this theoritical future student canopy would be just as easy to fly 20 or 40 sqrft smaller then a canopy built on current student technology?
Doesn't the efficiency of this future wing compensate in some way for the smaller size?
This is not a pointed or leading question. I'm honestly wondering how these high performance canopies would scale up.
_Am
ICQ: 5578907
MSN Messenger: andrewdmetcalfe at hotmail dot com
Yahoo IM: ametcalf_1999

[PhreeZone 20]

Effeciency don't mean squat your first time under canopy. What matters is the responcivenees, and the control that you were taught on the ground. Havign a canopy that can out swoop anything else around really does'nt help if you are not trained on how to use it.
Currently, with enough time you can train someone to jump a tiny canopy on thier first jump. If you had months of teaching you could learn all about getting around the corner and how to use the effeceny that your canopy offers you. The problem is there are few if any jumpers that are willing to take months of daily training before thier first and possibly only jump. Their are even fewer teachers that can pass this type of knowledge on to future jumpers.
Putting students out under smaller mains is perfectlly accptible to me as long as they are trained on them properly. And I'm not talking another 8-10 minutes in ground school. I'm talking about another entire ground school class devoted to just the canopy flight and none of the mals or anything. Not many people or teachers have the time and patiencence for this level of instruction to give to an AFF student that will probally never be back to do another jump.
The return to investment ratio is just not there for the majority of the DZ's. Places like Perris or SDC have the talent there and the sheer number of instructors needed to teach these skills to students willing to learn. But to a student does it really matter if they are jumping a 150 or a 190 for thier first solo canopy flight? They just want to fly and land safely.
Cause I don't wanna come back down from this cloud... ~ Bush

[billvon 3,078]

>Perhaps, but none of those things make a canopy harder to fly. Going smaller does.
-------------------------------------------------
>Would it be the case that this theoritical future student canopy would be just as easy to fly 20 or 40
>sqrft smaller then a canopy built on current student technology?
No, unless you negate the effects of the higher loading (i.e. you somehow make it smaller, but also slow it down, make it less manueverable, and make it more sinkable.)
>Doesn't the efficiency of this future wing compensate in some way for the smaller size?
No student ever got injured because their canopy wasn't efficient enough. They get injured because they get behind the canopy (i.e. it flies faster than their brain can follow) they ask more than the canopy can give (i.e. they try to land it downwind into a fence and expect it to stop them) or they put it in an unrecoverable situation (i.e. they flare at 50 feet then let the toggles all the way back up.) All of these get worse, not better, with a smaller, more efficient canopy.
Keep in mind that a primary attribute of a student canopy over a smaller canopy is that it lets you make mistakes and survive. A better flare? That might help in a student canopy. Better stability in turbulence? Also good. But making a canopy smaller is going in the wrong direction, unless you can keep it as docile.
Again, the one and only way that you can use smaller canopies in a student program is to have better training. A better canopy can not replace this, just as a reserve can not replace packing ability and an AAD can not replace altitude awareness.
-bill von

[Hooknswoop 19]

Sorry Phree- there is not enough time avaialbe to train someone to jump a tiny canopy for their first jump. A first jump student would have a 0% chance of landing un-injured under my VX-60.
That is like saying that you can take someone that has never flown and if you put them in a class room long enough they can fly an F-16. Not gonna happen. If it could, the Air force would save a lot of money by training pilots that way. Instead, they start out on simple, slow aircraft, and step by step move up to faster, more complicated aircraft as they demonstarte the ability to do so in a very structured enviroment.
Student canopys are an excersize in trade-offs. You want a canopy w/ enough foward drive to get a student back to the DZ if they fly downwind, but is slow enough for them to have the time to judge their approach and landing. It should open soft, but not snivel for 1200 ft because a student can very easily determine a snivel to be a malfunction. It should have plenty of flare power to set them down soft, but still set them down soft if they flare late/early. It should be as close as possible to their first canopy, but slow enough for a first jump student to handle.
You want the most performance they can handle, but still be forgiving enough for the student to make mistakes (and they will, part of learning) and not be injured. Pretty tall demands.
That being said, I have taught using large F-111 7 and 9-cell canopys, large 0-P, Large 0-P, 7 and 9 cell canopys, and large to medium 0-P 9 cells. The best results, (0 injuries, even 50 jumps down the road) was starting w/ large 0-P 9 cell canopys (.8-.9 wingloading) and progressively moving towards 1.0-1.2 wingloading w/ 0-P, 9 cells. Teach approaches, flat turns, riser turns, stalls, etc. Split the focus of the skydive between the canopy and the freefall. AFF is way to focused on freefall and severly lacks in canopy instruction. Landing a Manta 288 7 times and then buying a 0-P 190ish loaded at 1.0 is risky and un-necessary. The DZ accepts less risk (hard to get hurt under the huge student canopy) but then the student buys gear and is now on their own. If they get hurt, it is their fault. They are licensed skydiver, responsible for themselves. How many people buy a canopy that is the same or close to the canopy they jumped as a student? Very few. So how many people get more formal training on their new canopy? Very few. Not a good situation in my opinion.
Hook

[rgoper 0]

(i.e. they flare at 50 feet then let the toggles all the way back up.)
Bill:
i pulled that stunt "one time" on student status. i hated the result, i could've been hurt..............
Richard
"Gravity Is My Friend"

[PhreeZone 20]

Agreed on the VX60, when I was talking about tiny student canopies, I'm thinking more like 120's or 107's. Thats smaller then a lot of the jumping population jumps currently. Hell.... there are not many experienced jumpers that stand a chance on that 60.
Cause I don't wanna come back down from this cloud... ~ Bush

[skybytch 273]

Quote

I'm thinking more like 120's or 107's. Thats smaller then a lot of the jumping population jumps currently.{/quote] Even with hours of training prior to the jumps there is no guarantee that a student is going to perform as trained in the air. Without experience flying a parachute, there are very few people who would be capable of stayiing as ahead of the canopy as is needed to fly those size canopies safely.
***How many people buy a canopy that is the same or close to the canopy they jumped as a student? Very few. So how many people get more formal training on their new canopy? Very few. Not a good situation in my opinion.

I agree 100%. That's the biggest problem I see with the current state of student training. Pilots are required to be checked out in new aircraft; considering how many of today's canopies fly I think training and a check out dive on a new type or size main should be required too.
pull and flare,
lisa
--
I'll be in the bar... you'll find me...

[Hooknswoop 19]

Even w/ ground training people screw up landing large canopys on their first try all the time. Give me two months to train someone, I don't think I could talk that long, and put a 1st jump student on a 107 or 120 and they are going to get hurt. I agree that students should get more canopy training but I disagree that w/ enough training they will be ready for a small canopy right out of the gate. There is no way, w/ any amount of training, that I could have handled a 107 or 120 on my first jump. I recently had a student that was so nervous that on final approach he went to half brakes because the speed towards the ground scared him (this was under a Manta 288). The more I told him "toggles up" the more he flared, eventually landing on his butt uninjured. I asked him over the radio "which way is up?", he pointed up. The I asked him "which way did you move the toggles when I told you to let them up?". He pointed down. On another occasion, I took a doctor on a tandem jump. They were trained to read the altimeter and w/o and pull at 5,500 ft. They completely understood on the ground. Well, they didn't pull, so I did. As I am doing house cleaning chores under canopy, they start patting my leg, where the handle would be. I ask them "what are you doing?". "Looking for the handle to pull". I said "I already pulled it". "why?". "Well, because you didn't". "But you said to pull at 5,500 ft". I said, "Right". "But my altimeter only says 4,500 ft".
They were so sensory overloaded they thought the altimeter would go the other way. And this was on a tandem jump. After an AFF level 1 it is a wonder a student can do anything under canopy, much less handle a small canopy.
Hook

[rhino 0]

Damn... Interesting...
Blue Skies and Smooth Rides!!
http://www.aahit.com

[MarkM 0]

Heh, I always love talking to the people that radio down first time jumpers. You get some really interesting stories.

[skymedic 0]

Quote

Pilots are required to be checked out in new aircraft; considering how many of today's canopies fly I think training and a check out dive on a new type or size main should be required too.

Not that I disagree with what your saying, But big difference if I were to burrow my T-34 into some ones house as opposed to a napkin I was jumping....the plane will kill not just the pilot but has a good chance or ruining alot of peoples days...The super duper spinetto 107 will most likely just kill the pilot.....(unless he nails some spectator or someone else under canopy).....
marc
BSBD

[PhreeZone 20]

I've always thought AFF was placing too much of a demand on a student then some of the other methods of teaching do. I've always felt a tandem first makes the student easier to handle in freefall.
On the smaller canopy thing after thinking about what I typed and what I ment, you are right. No student could handle something like a 120 and most not a 150 or 170 right away. My original thinking was based on a student program I saw where the students start on like 190's-240's and are on 150's-170's almost consistantly at the end of their 20 jumps student training. They only have a few minute debrief after each jump to go over the canopy flying part, but its almost always they are cleared if they want to to go smaller. I'm sure some of the students would grab smaller gear if they had it too.
I'm thinking that if you had months and months and the Para-sim you could probally train a student to do a "smallish" (Like 135-120) canopy for a few jumps with out getting injured before they got off student status. Behond a few jumps and you are pushing it.....
I think before graduation, every student needs to go through another canopy flight course to get them ready to merge with the rest of the jumpers. First time I did a 4 way I was a bit worrid about 3 other canopies being that close. Closest I had ever seen another canopy was 1000 feet below and 500 feet out. All these were on level and at 500 feet. Stuff like canopy flight and patterns and crosswind landings and other vital skills need covered in a seperate class before anyone graduates IMHO. And I'm not talking about charging for this stuff either like some places.... Have a Free ground class, same format as a transition class for PFF or something and teach the basic skills not covered in intro to skydiving classes.
I think BillVon does this when he does his water training classes and that might be tthe best time to do it after a bit of thinking....
Cause I don't wanna come back down from this cloud... ~ Bush

[skybytch 273]

Quote

unless he nails some spectator or someone else under canopy.....

Which is the reasoning behind what I said. Just because we don't usually take buildings or large groups of people out with us when we screw up doesn't mean that we don't have a responsibility to the other jumpers who share the air and landing area with us. I'm lucky enough to jump at a dz where "state of the art" canopy control training is available; before I downsize again I'm going to take advantage of that.
pull and flare,
lisa
--
I'll be in the bar... you'll find me...

[crazymel 0]

Wish I knew about this site before I ordered my equipment a few weeks ago. Did my AFF Training with Skymaster230, did one jump with Predator 210 and I am jumping a Navigator 260 at the moment. I remembered that when I did the flare test in the sky with the 210 I thought "Aaaaaahh!!"....Totally different from the student 230. My exit weight (with full gear) is 140lbs and I just ordered a Sabre2 170 with a PD 160 reserve (Mirage container). I am planning to do at least 8 jumps with a 190 before my equipment arrives. This should be cool, right???

[Engovatov 0]

>This should be cool, right???
With 140 exit weight? I would have think you should have started training on 210 or less... And it looks like consensus around here is that up to 1.1 loading seems OK with proper training, and 1.0 is OK with more typical training.. And from what I observed 1.2 works fine for better then usual guys and training.. And 1.3 is really really pushing it, unless your last name is Knievel, and 1.4 is out of the question.. Did I understand that correctly from our discussion? But that's your body.. ;)
But - find a fatter friend with 190 something, who is ready to down size and give your new Mirage to him to jump in exchange - for about 25 jumps: so it packs easier afterwards, if it is an M4 size, 170 S2 is kinda squieezing it.. ;)
..I just calculated - some of my landings under rounds were faster both horizontally and vertically, then a no flare landing on many of the student mains.. or even in a slight turn... did not seem extreme at the time.. But maybe that what allowed me to not have any problems with what way is up for toggles, when I learned to jump here later... I think everybody should jump rounds - so that there is no whimpering afterwards.. ;))

[rhino 0]

There is really no reason one should go above 1.2 for a first canopy. And the only way I would say above 1.0 would be a o.k. idea is if they had ALL standup landings "first 30 jumps or so".
My 2 cents... Rhino
Blue Skies and Smooth Rides!!
http://www.aahit.com

[Engovatov 0]

>And the only way I would say above 1.0 would be a o.k. idea is if they had ALL standup landings "first 30 jumps or so".
I would actually second that. But I would also think that there is no reason to go BELOW 0.8, - that seems to be pushing it if wind goes above 12 mph - is not it also a factor?

[rhino 0]

When I was on student status and for a little while after that I was on a falcon 220 and a falcon 210.. I am 175 out the door. It actually felt dangerous in this canopy because of the slow response time.. And when the wind was up I never should have jumped. But I did.. I had one jump where I was actually moving backwards under a falcon220 and I was hanging on the front risers just to get the hell out of the air. About 30 or so feet off the ground I let go of one of the front risers taking me into a little carve that gave me JUST enough ground speed not to move backwards. Chuck at skydiveusa bet my friend I would not land on my feet as he watched me come down backwards.. I landed on my feet.. Too bad Chuck.. :) That was the LAST time I jumped rental gear at that dz.. I know it was my decision.. So I decided not to jump that gear again :) I think my first 50 jumps were on rental gear.. Anything from a 220 to a 150. Personally I appreciate the responsiveness of a higher performance wing.. I like to fly the canopy not let the canopy fly me. But students aren't ready for that yet.. 1.1 is a good starting point..
Blue Skies and Smooth Rides!!
http://www.aahit.com

[Engovatov 0]

>I like to fly the canopy not let the canopy fly me. But students aren't ready for that yet.. 1.1 is a good starting point..
Are they ready to be blown backwards into a bad spot? Sure, the answer would be they should not jump when the wind is high - but you never can be absolutely sure..
Personally, I felt that 1.25 loading gave me all the speed and maneurability needed to jump in any potential gusts, while not feeling too fast at all.. If I ever jump again I will never go above it, or below 1.1 on 9-c ZP..