dbattman 0 #26 June 22, 2004 Former jump wonder here, jp. I had the 200-400 jump 'thinking' I was a lot better than I was, knew a few things, and that I was doing ok. About 450 I realized I still didn't know a damn thing. Now I'm pretty good at keeping my mouth shut. Sure I jumped in some winds that were iffy, took some risks I shouldn't have, jumped when other people were sitting around. We've all been there. One thing I never did, was ignore the word 'NO' or get offended when it was said. It's still worth fighting, some of us do listen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kansasskydiver 0 #27 June 22, 2004 QuoteTree: right on. It trips me out to see someone landing a highly loaded Crossfire straight in, usually not very well. Bye bye, knees and ankles. I don't get it. Ya know I totally agree with your comment there and from experience I don't like it. I have a X-fire2 at almost 1.8 and it SUCKS to land straight in or level out too high. Hurts feet, knees etc<--- See look, pink dolphins DO exist! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dgskydive 0 #28 June 22, 2004 QuoteI, speaking for myself, don't want the FAA or the USPA to set wingloading limits. I want DZM's and O's to do that. The problem with that Duece (IMHO) is that if the DZ sends them away, they will just go elsewhere. Then the DZ gets a reputation as a bunch of canopy nazi's and people stop coming. There will always bee a DZ around that won't care. They just want the money. This is a USPA issue. Until they make some BSR's about wingloading then this will continue to happen over and over again. Then a DZ can tell someone "NO!" and not worry about him and 15 of his friends leaving for the next DZ because they will not be able to do it at another place. For the record I am very pissed at a lot of people about this incident, but in the end this jumper made his own choice against the advice of almost everyone on the DZ. I hate to admit it but some of us need babysitters, if not for themsleves but for the reputation and saftey of our sport as a whole! USPA needs to step up before the FAA does and then we are all gonna get screwed!Dom Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
headoverheels 333 #29 June 23, 2004 Quote This is a USPA issue. Until they make some BSR's about wingloading then this will continue to happen over and over again. Then a DZ can tell someone "NO!" and not worry about him and 15 of his friends leaving for the next DZ because they will not be able to do it at another place. A lot of us, including me, jump at non-USPA dropzones. Most BSR's are typically followed anyway, but I don't see that the USPA BSRs can be depended upon to "fix" the issue. I would be interested in whether even canopy coaching makes someone less likely to be injured, long term. It could be that the person seeking the training is more careful and safety conscious anyway. It could be that swoop coaching encourages more skydivers to do high performance approaches, so actually causes more injuries. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ManBird 0 #30 June 23, 2004 As an ironic side note, the only DZ in the area that has banned hook turns is non-USPA. No point to prove -- just saying, hey, that's ironic!"¯"`-._.-¯) ManBird (¯-._.-´"¯" Click Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
murps2000 86 #31 June 23, 2004 I have a X-fire2 at almost 1.8 and it SUCKS to land straight in...*** Why? Just curious. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ManBird 0 #32 June 23, 2004 QuoteI have a X-fire2 at almost 1.8 and it SUCKS to land straight in...Quote Why? Just curious.Higher wingloadings generally yield a faster descent. In a (properly executed) swoop, you're hardly falling at all when you put your feet down. Without one, you're just falling faster when you meet the earth, hence a harder landing. Knees and various parts of the feet generally take the shock and over time start to become very unhappy."¯"`-._.-¯) ManBird (¯-._.-´"¯" Click Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
murps2000 86 #33 June 23, 2004 Higher wingloadings generally yield a faster descent. In a (properly executed) swoop, you're hardly falling at all when you put your feet down. Without one, you're just falling faster when you meet the earth, hence a harder landing*** You sure about this? Landing straight in doesn't mean you can't flare, does it? Whether swooping or straight in, doesn't the canopy stop flying at the same airspeed? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ManBird 0 #34 June 23, 2004 QuoteHigher wingloadings generally yield a faster descent. In a (properly executed) swoop, you're hardly falling at all when you put your feet down. Without one, you're just falling faster when you meet the earth, hence a harder landing*** You sure about this? Landing straight in doesn't mean you can't flare, does it? Whether swooping or straight in, doesn't the canopy stop flying at the same airspeed?Yes, but the timing is trickier, and the full stopping power does diminish with wingloading a bit (which is why landings on higher WLs are often slid or run out -- even into the wind with a full flare). As a very extreme (to the max) example, do you think Luigi Cani would land the 39 straight in at the same descent rate as he would on a swoop? Less surface area, no matter which way you aim it (aka, flare), is still less surface area. Any canopy should be able to be landed straight in. I've seen a highly loaded VX 68 landed straight in. It can be done safely, but it takes its toll over time."¯"`-._.-¯) ManBird (¯-._.-´"¯" Click Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
headoverheels 333 #35 June 23, 2004 Quote Whether swooping or straight in, doesn't the canopy stop flying at the same airspeed? Yes, but extra speed at the entrance can give lift to allow killing the downward speed in the middle of the flare, before slowing to the minimum forward speed. Anyone complaining about the difficulty of landing straight in needs practice, and maybe a different canopy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skybytch 273 #36 June 23, 2004 QuoteMost BSR's are typically followed anyway, but I don't see that the USPA BSRs can be depended upon to "fix" the issue. There is no instant fix. I'm not sure there is a fix at all. What a BSR would do is help change the "culture" in the sport to one that encourages novice jumpers to choose canopies that they can learn on without the risk that higher wingloadings and aggressive canopy types add to the equation. A workable and reasonably "fair" proposed BSR was submitted to USPA over a year ago. In response to this submission and many letter supporting it we got a new section in the SIM. I wonder if the injured jumper in this situation had read it. As always, I'm 100% in support of a BSR that limits wingloading and canopy type based solely on jump numbers. Preferably one that includes mandatory post A license canopy control training and a way to "test out" of the limits, but I'll support nearly any proposal that USPA will consider. I don't know the injured jumper in this situation (I don't think....). This pisses me off too. But I debated posting this because all I can say is the same thing I've been saying for some time now... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ManBird 0 #37 June 23, 2004 I can't say that I have a stance on BSRs for wingloading, but I must say that they help with the wingsuit thing. When someone with under 200 jumps that is definitely not qualified to fly a wingsuit tries to convince me that we're "buds" enough to let them do it, I can say, "it's out of my hands." The problem with intervention without regulation is that it just plain isn't easy. From outside of the situation, we can say that it's easy to sacrifice friendship for safety, but that is rarely the case. I know people that jump canopies they should NOT be jumping. I don't want to see them get hurt. I and everyone else tells them not to jump that canopy. If I or anyone else physically removed the rig from the DZ, that'd be jacked. That's stealing in the jumper's eyes. When the DZO or S&TA tells them they can't jump, they leave. They go to another DZ and they are now bitter at us, when we're just trying to help. The next DZ over seems "nicer" because they don't give a crap about the "new guy" yet. Just some thoughts. I don't think any of the formal solutions to WL regulation are that great (license-based = NO in my book). Maybe a revision to 6-10 (is that what it was?) would be enough for us to use like, "the USPA says no higher than x:1 for your experience, and we follow these guidelines." I don't know. I don't have answers -- just some thoughts and not a damn thing to do at work right now."¯"`-._.-¯) ManBird (¯-._.-´"¯" Click Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Deuce 1 #38 June 23, 2004 QuoteThe problem with that Duece (IMHO) is that if the DZ sends them away, they will just go elsewhere. Then the DZ gets a reputation as a bunch of canopy nazi's and people stop coming. I want any woman jumper to step up and affirm or deny this. One thing we don't see much of in this sport is idiot women canopy pilots. News flash: the guys will jump at the dropzones where the girls are. Asking a new jumper to your DZ " How many jumps do you have and what is your canopy and wingloading?" Does not make a DZO, DZM, or gear store manager a freaking NAZI! God bless her. GravityGear's Bonnie immediately offered a young idiot an appropriately sized demo canopy when our DZM said he couldn't jump what he brung. That is not being a canopy nazi. It's love. Or maybe it's the selfish desire not to hear a sucking chest wound, or smell the insides of another person mingled with freshly churned dirt. In my old profession I saw a lot of broken, blown-up people. I don't want to start associating my new love with that hot copper smell. If you don't know what I'm talking about, you don't want to. Not you, so much, Dom, I just recommended you as an advisor to a newbie who is from your DZ. It's for the DZ's. Don't let these knuckleheads jump. If your DZ wants to put you on the fast track to seeing the insides of another person, go to the competition who will keep things on the smarter side of this very dangerous sport. Safe skydivers buy more tickets, and Tandems and AFF first jump students go where people simply don't die as much. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Courteney 0 #39 June 23, 2004 In total agreement there! A guy once told me that I hooked a little low on the previous jump, (did a chilled 90degree hook to a cool landing), jumping a Stiletto 135. Meanwhile on his previous jump he does this huge 270deg hook so high that when he planes out he loses all speed and lands straight in and level on his arse...I think it was a 99 Xfire2. His landings were so docile I couldn't figure out what the point was jumping that size. Ego...and I'm not talking about deoderant!...drags me down like some sweet gravity!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ianmdrennan 2 #40 June 23, 2004 QuoteYa know I totally agree with your comment there and from experience I don't like it. I have a X-fire2 at almost 1.8 and it SUCKS to land straight in or level out too high. Hurts feet, knees etc Haven't jumped a xfire at that loading but it should be easily landable straight in. I've landed other canopies highly loaded that way with a decent surf even. But I realize that's not the topic of discussion here. Just wanted to say it Blues, IanPerformance Designs Factory Team Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdfreefly 1 #41 June 23, 2004 I have landed my xfire2 straight in on several occassions. Never had a problem, and it's loaded at 2.1:1 Methane Freefly - got stink? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
johnny1488 1 #42 June 23, 2004 QuoteYa know I totally agree with your comment there and from experience I don't like it. I have a X-fire2 at almost 1.8 and it SUCKS to land straight in or level out too high. Hurts feet, knees etc Gotta chime in off topic here also. I have a xfire2 @1.7 and landing straight in is no problem. If your landings straight in or after planing out high are painfull, I suggest you start doing some braked approaches to learn the slow flight landing characteristics of the canopy. No landing should hurt. When I did a few jumps w/ scott miller a few years ago, the first thing he had every swooper do regardless of wing loading was land straight in. If you cant do it smooth with no extra speed, you'll never do it right with a lot of extra speed. And the 39 needing to be hooked is off the charts for this conversation. It is overloaded beyond normal flight. If Luigi couldnt have dragged his feet, the landing would have been nasty. Smaller/faster canopy + higher stall speed. Johnny --"This ain't no book club, we're all gonna die!" Mike Rome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #43 June 23, 2004 QuoteOne thing we don't see much of in this sport is idiot women canopy pilots. I disagree with that statement. I have seen many. Of both sexes about equaly. You may be refering to us seeing less women trying agressive hook turns, but I see plenty who fly like idiots.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dangergirl 0 #44 June 23, 2004 ***Did anybody say "Hey, Manifestor, you know that knucklehead has 300 jumps and is jumping with lead to get his swoop on and is loaded at 2:1? ------------------------------ He *was* the manifestor. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mathias 0 #45 June 23, 2004 JP I think basically You did the same mistake as your friend, You got in over your head and wasn't lucky enough to walk away from it. I'm defenitely not the best example myself, but I get lucky and drink lots of milk so my bones have held up. What I have come to understand though is that certain people will do whatever the want no matter how much You try to steer the in the right direction, based on that I just don't care to much to help everybody out (luckily Bonnie thinks differently and is willing to help with even the most hopeless cases). I just try to help the ones that I like, i.e the ones that have good attitudes and are willing to learn. I also think as a beginner you can get any advice you want, if you just ask enough people. No matter how much advice or training You get it is always better to be lucky than good, good people gets hurt all the time but the lucky ones prevail. Lots of rambling from a tired swede after a 16hour day, JP(Deuce) it wasn't a curse, it was puke on your windshield, thanks for the blood Jett is scarred forever. MIngen minns en fegis! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #46 June 23, 2004 QuoteQuoteI have a X-fire2 at almost 1.8 and it SUCKS to land straight in...Quote Why? Just curious.Higher wingloadings generally yield a faster descent. In a (properly executed) swoop, you're hardly falling at all when you put your feet down. Without one, you're just falling faster when you meet the earth, hence a harder landing. Knees and various parts of the feet generally take the shock and over time start to become very unhappy. I was told by someone that makes canopies for a living that you can land any canopy that is currently on the market straight in. I was told that anyone that claims "I need to hook it to land it" is a poor pilot and probably needs to upsize. I recently watched two very skilled pilots land a Velo 90 and a Crossfire 99 straight in with very soft landings under a high wingloading. I tend to agree with the canopy representative._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
alan 1 #47 June 23, 2004 QuoteIn the hope that perhaps a positive example is worthwhile, I'll outline my choices. I have over 2000 jumps, and fly a Stiletto 120 loaded 1.6. I have about 1000 jumps on this canopy size, flying in almost every condition except high-altitude DZs (e.g. Denver), including the 672-way in Bangkok (congested, tiny, no outs), numerous 100+ big ways, and 4-ways in most meteorological conditions, and can safely fly the canopy to where I want to land. I am not getting all the performance from my canopy that it is capable of, and I believe I lack to the experience to downsize. I have set myself a restriction that I will not downsize again until I at least take a canopy control course, From your profile: Main Canopy: Stiletto 120 ft² (1.58 lbs/ft²) Reserve Canopy: PD Reserve 113 ft² (1.68lbs/ft²) It would seem that your self imposed restriction on downsizing may be altered shortly following a malfunction as opposed to taking a canopy control course. alan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
alan 1 #48 June 23, 2004 QuoteI have a X-fire2 at almost 1.8 and it SUCKS to land straight in or level out too high. Hurts feet, knees etc If you have trouble landing it straight in, you shouldn't be flying it. When flown properly, that canopy at the stated wingloading should not hurt your feet or knees when landing. I may be missing something here, but it seems to me that you are excactly the type of pilot ManBird and Tree were referring to. I'm not trying to flame you or piss you off, I'm just being blunt and candid.alan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mathias 0 #49 June 23, 2004 the PD113R is bigger than 113sqftIngen minns en fegis! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
alan 1 #50 June 23, 2004 QuoteI was told by someone that makes canopies for a living that you can land any canopy that is currently on the market straight in. I was told that anyone that claims "I need to hook it to land it" is a poor pilot and probably needs to upsize. If my memory is correct, the "someone" you are referring to could be John LeBlanc from Performance Designs. A proficient pilot can execute a swoop properly from a straight in approach, it just won't be as long as when executed following a speed building manuever.alan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
