Remster 30 #1 January 5, 2005 Just read Robin's article in Skydiving where he offers for discussion the max turns to do for a HP landing under different wingloads. To summarize, due to the shorter recovery angle of canolies loaded low, 90deg turns should be a max for 1.3 and less, 180 deg for 1.7 to 1.4, and 270 for 1.8 and more. He doesnt offer this as gospel, just a discussion. He explains he came up wit this after Adria killed herself doing large turns under a 1.3 canopy. What do you think of this? Please, dont let this degenerate into a Robin bashing thread (I know some people dont care much for him) or a Adria anti-bash thread (yes its a shame she died).Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bartje 0 #2 January 5, 2005 is the article somewhere at the web? A FreeFly Gypsy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gus 1 #3 January 5, 2005 Hey Remi, I haven't read the article, is it suggesting that a turn of more than 90 degrees on a canopy at 1.3 or less is pointless? ie a greater degree of turn won't generate any more speed? I certainly don't think that's the case. GusOutpatientsOnline.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,587 #4 January 5, 2005 The suggestion is that there is a much smaller margin of error for larger turns with lightly-loaded canopies, to where the risk-benefit ratio makes it not a good idea. In other words, you don't generated enough additional speed with the greater turn, but you significantly increase your risk. Or something like that. Not being a swooper, I don't have the sense of smell needed to see if it passes the sniff test. It's an interesting article -- I don't normally come to this corner, but I wanted to see if there was a discussion of it. Someone is bound to post it, or at least summarize it with the appropriate points highlighted and paraphrased. 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) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 30 #5 January 5, 2005 I dont think the article is on the web... Quoteis it suggesting that a turn of more than 90 degrees on a canopy at 1.3 or less is pointless? No. He's suggesting that the risk/benefit is very high for turns more then 90 on a lightly loaded canopy. With those, you need to dial in the end of your turn very tightly if you want to really gain a lot of speed. Because of that, you have a very slim margin of error. With a 2.0 loaded canopy, he puts forward that doing a 180 or 270, since you start your turn much higher then you would a lower loaded canopy, you have more margin to recover a mistake (he gives as exemple Adria who apparently misjudged by 50 feet and died, while he has misjudged my 200 feet before and had time to react due to the long recovery arc of a higher loaded canopy). He suggest that, if someone wants to progress to large turn, they shoudl start with a low load canopy, but max our their turns at 90. Then downsize, re-start from scratch (straight in, double fronts, 90 front, 180 front if the load is high enough); then downsize again, and restart from scratch again.Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Treejumps 0 #6 January 5, 2005 In this case Robin is correct that one should "MASTER" front riser 90's before doing anything else. I beleive that it takes hundreds of jumps for someone to master this skill. Doing 180s+ on larger canopies or lightly loaded ones must be done at lower altitudes due to the short recovery arch, but I don't think downsizing to a smaller canopy to learn swooping is the answer. Training is the key, and having a plan on what you want to learn and do will take you a long way. I'm not sure why Robin wrote what he wrote. He is certainly no expert on canopy flight, and I doubt his ability to even do a hook turn much less a decent swoop. After a serious injury from a majorly bad judgement call with a Triathalon 135 on a base jump, Robin has a lot of time on his hands to think about other areas of parachuting he can involve himself in. Take advice from people who stand on the sidelines with a large grain of salt. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #7 January 5, 2005 I have been saying that for a long time. Canopies with a short recovery arc leave very little room for error. They temper that with the fact it is easier to judge altitude the lower you are, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a very small window. I explain it like this: Let's say a canopy has a 10% 'window' where you must initiate the landing turn in or you will either hit the ground, or bleed off all your speed, or worse, plane out above the ground, then bleed off all your speed, leaving you at low altitude with no airspeed left to trade for lift in the landing flare. If your ideal hook turn altitude is say, 500 feet, that gives you a 50-foot window. 25 feet too low and you impact, 25 feet too high and you get nothing or a hard landing from having no airspeed. No let's say your ideal hook altitude is 100 feet on a lightly loaded, short recovery arc canopy. That gives youa 10-foot window. 5 feet to low and you impact, 5 feet to high and you get nothing/hard landing. With the higher hooka ltitude, it gives you 5 times the margin for error. Of course the penaltys for missing the larger window of the smaller canopy witht he longer recovery arc is everything happens faster because of the higher airpseeds and the penalty for being too low is going to be much more severe. Forgive the numbers, they aren't real, just easy math to make my point. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 30 #8 January 5, 2005 Quotebut I don't think downsizing to a smaller canopy to learn swooping is the answer. I dont think thats what he directly implied. More a case of, if you want to learn to swoop, know the limits of your canopy, and dowsize once you are ready to do so to progress if thats the path you want.Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ccowden 0 #9 January 5, 2005 I know that this wasn't meant to be implied, but what I don't like is that it really is never discussed or explained. Just that you have a greater margin for error in altitude of your turns if you have a heavier loaded canopy. I agree to a point andunderstand the concept. I do however think that there are so many other factors for risk under a highly loaded canopy that outweigh that benefit. I think the bigger factor is that canopy pilots who are loading at higher numbers tend to have more jumps and experience in high performance flight. I am afraid that some people might figure it is better to advance in canopies because of the benefit of recovery arc before they have the necessary skills. I still believe that taking it slow and mastering each technique is the key. I don't think the recovery arc on a lightly loaded canopy is the biggest factor, but something to definitely look at. I think the biggest factor is that someone is doinf a 270 before they are ready or have mastered even a 90. Consistency is the key. Not a 90 here, a 180 there, another 90, then a 270....... It should be 90, 90, 90, 90, 90, 90, 90, 90, 90, 90, Xs however many it takes to be completely consistant. Then and only hten consider the next step. And when you do, you move back to trying a 180 up high and work into it just as you did with the 90s. Getting ahead of your experience level is the problem. It HAS to be a slow methodical process. When you hear a statement like, "He usually was a very conservative pilot," and they hook in doin a radical turn, that is where the problem lies. All the factors play a role. Experience, jumps, canopy, wingloading, type of turn, abilities, etc.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chrisgr 0 #10 January 5, 2005 From personal experience, the article is right on target. I have over 1100 jumps at ~1.35 … 700 on a Sabre and 400 on a Stiletto. When I started my progression on HP landings, the Sabre was a great canopy to learn the basics. I spent a lot of time flying the Sabre and learning different approaches and landing it in a variety of conditions. As I started performing larger turns (up to 270 deg) however, the results became less consistent and I found that the canopy (and I) did not perform as well. Due to the lighter w/l, the canopy would frequently start to recover from the dive before the 270 deg turn was completed. I backed off to 180 deg turns and worked on my consistency and accuracy. When I switched to the Stiletto 2 years ago, I started the skills progression again and worked my way back up to 180 deg turns. The 180 is also the maximum turn for me under this canopy. Anything more and the results do not justify the risk. For me, the most important part of the article is that all jumpers must learn about the behavior of their canopy before attempting any HP landing maneuver. Understanding how your canopy responds to different types of input is critical before bringing in a HP landing. I am very concerned, however, that some jumpers may misunderstand this article. As Tree mentioned, there are specific skills that must be mastered before moving on to larger turns. Some jumpers may interpret this article as reason to downsize so they can perform larger turns – without mastering the basics. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davelepka 4 #11 January 5, 2005 Quotepeople might figure it is better to advance in canopies because of the benefit of recovery arch before they have the necessary skills. People already think this. This is why I'm behind a WL restriction through 1000 jumps. No matter how many times you tell someone that slow and easy is the fastest way to learn, the fact is that the guys with the Velo at 2.2 are laying down the hottest swoops, and every 500 jump wonder knows that a Stiletto at 1.5 will never do what the Velo does, but if HE had the Velo, HE could handle it. I havn't read the article in question, but from what I gathered it sounds like good info. It may not be complete info, but the concept is sound. A 270 on anything at 1.3 or 1.4 will not net you much of anything except for an increased risk factor. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkymonkeyONE 4 #12 January 5, 2005 That's four fantastic responses so far. Each of you have made good points. All will agree that mastering one technique before stepping it up a notch is critical, no matter what the wingload. Perfect examples of people destroying their bodies throwing too-advanced (certainly un-practiced) turns are all around. Andi (bikerbabe on here) femuring in on her first jump in Jim Slaton's course; Adria Allen, etc, etc. Derek and I used to bash heads repeatedly over "smaller is better for learning HP turns", but his point is valid in the context of that article. One thing to consider about the whole article though is that I believe Robin's article (and Derek's analogy for the most part) relies on the premise that all turns are "snapped around" causing the pendulum effect. A smooth carving turn will always give you the ability to let up on the riser and plane out much more quickly. If you are banging your turns that hard you might as well be toggle whipping; your margin for error is equally slim. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #13 January 5, 2005 Quotemastering one technique before stepping it up a notch is critical, no matter what the wingload. This needs repeating. QuoteOne thing to consider about the whole article though is that I believe Robin's article (and Derek's analogy for the most part) relies on the premise that all turns are "snapped around" causing the pendulum effect. A smooth carving turn will always give you the ability to let up on the riser and plane out much more quickly. If you are banging your turns that hard you might as well be toggle whipping; your margin for error is equally slim. This I'll disagree with. I think that once you are in a dive at whatever airpseed, how you got there is irrevelant to the recovery arc. A certain dive angle at a certain airspeed is going to require x feet to recover. QuoteDerek and I used to bash heads repeatedly over "smaller is better for learning HP turns", but his point is valid in the context of that article. Ya, the more I think about it, the more I think it is almost the same, learing with a larger or smaller canopy. My thought that a smaller canopy is better to learn with is based on the jumper having a lot more jumps and having solid canopy skills. It is a trade off, smaller margin but less speed or larger margin, but more speed. Maybe a middle ground...... Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davelepka 4 #14 January 5, 2005 QuoteI think that once you are in a dive at whatever airpseed, how you got there is irrevelant to the recovery arc. A certain dive angle at a certain airspeed is going to require x feet to recover. This true if you are talking about the canopy recovering on it's own. Chuck's point was that a pilots ability to step in and recover the canopy themselves is improved with turn that has less pendulum effect. Your airspeed once in a dive will have an effect on your ability to recover. Less airspeed equals less effective control surfaces. Your ability to pull out of a dive at the very top, before you have accelerated, is less than your ability to pull out towards the bottom, where your airspeed has increased. A portion of this is related to the pliots having moved back under (or closer to under) the canopy, but the effect is the same. Again, your point is correct given that the pilot does not apply any input. A dive is a dive. But people need to understand that the pilots ability to arrest the dive is effected by their airspeed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bartje 0 #15 January 5, 2005 QuoteI havn't read the article in question, but from what I gathered it sounds like good info. It may not be complete info, but the concept is sound. A 270 on anything at 1.3 or 1.4 will not net you much of anything except for an increased risk factor. You are right, but, I do not hear anything about the basic aerodynamic knowledge. the same kind of canopy with a different wl will perform not the same. Every canopy has his own characteristics and recovery arc. That makes it difficult to judge. A low wl (less than 1.2), not much presure in the cells, makes it that you do not win any lift with a 180 or a 270. The straight aproach will give the canopy his best shape to land. A FreeFly Gypsy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chrisgr 0 #16 January 5, 2005 Chuck, you have another very good point. Due to the lighter w/l, I had to increase the speed of the turn to get decent results from the 270 deg approach. This could have been close to “snapping around” the canopy. I do not consider this to be safe or effective for HP landings. The 180 deg turns on my Sabre and Stiletto do not require that increased turn rate. At my w/l, I can take it slow and build speed through the 180 deg turn. This is far more comfortable for me and I get much better and more consistent results. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chrisgr 0 #17 January 5, 2005 Thanks again for providing a good explanation for why we need a w/l restriction and mandatory canopy training that goes beyond what is currently provided. Here is a link to one proposal for a new canopy training program ... http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1407364#1407364 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bartje 0 #18 January 5, 2005 QuoteHere is a link to one proposal for a new canopy training program ... http://www.dropzone.com/...post=1407364#1407364 I did read the program, it is a good program what points out how to master your canopy and land safe, but again, there is no word about basic aerodynamics what is for me as well important. Points like: -Why we stay in the air? -What does happen when we make the canopy asymetrical? -Why we need presure in the canopy, -What does happen with a riserturn and what with a toggle turn, -.... Those things are said during the first jump course but during canopy progression often forgotten to say. Give this info during canopy progression and it will help the pilot to anticipate on things. The discusion here proves that is is forgotten or at least not tought about. A FreeFly Gypsy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #19 January 5, 2005 QuoteThis true if you are talking about the canopy recovering on it's own. Chuck's point was that a pilots ability to step in and recover the canopy themselves is improved with turn that has less pendulum effect. Regardless of how you got to that dive angle and airspeed, recovery is the same. For the same canopy, conditions, WL, etc, if you are diving at a 445-degree angle at 55 mph, the canopy will recover the same regardless if you toggle wipped it, or did a long 360-degree front riser carve. QuoteYour airspeed once in a dive will have an effect on your ability to recover. Less airspeed equals less effective control surfaces. Your ability to pull out of a dive at the very top, before you have accelerated, is less than your ability to pull out towards the bottom, where your airspeed has increased. A portion of this is related to the pliots having moved back under (or closer to under) the canopy, but the effect is the same. More airspeed means the control surfaces will have more affect for the same amount of deflection, I agee. But in a dive, the more airspeed you have, the faster you are descending. So a faster rate of change swinging back under the canopy will take more altitude that a slower, larger canopy. At 100 feet a larger canopy that is in a vertical dive with the pilot putting in max effort to get back under the canopy will recover to level with less altitude lost than a smaller canopy at 100 feet in a vertical dive with the pilot putting in max effort to get back under the canopy, all other things being equal. I think the larger the canopy, the smaller the window is that has to be hit. Plus with larger canopies, they tend to recover to level flight, or even climb without any input. This tends to cause the pilot to constantly be in the bottom of their window, digging out a little on every swoop. This cuts the already smaller window in half. With a smaller canopy, this doesn't happen, the canopy doesn't plane out w/o input. This means the entire 'window' is availale to the pilot. It is a trade off. A smaller canopy won't make you a better swooper. There is a lot to be learned on larger canopies that must be learned before downsizing. A little bad habit that is barely noticeeable and doesn't cause bad landings on a larger canopy will get you hurt/killed on a smaller canopy. An Indy car can be driven with amazing precision at speeds that are incredible. In the right hands, it is easier to drive at 100-mph than a Ford Taurus is to drive at 80-mph. In the wrongs hands, it'll kill you at 100-mph. The same ability that makes the Indy car as Safe as the Taurus at much higher speeds makes it deadly in the wrong hands. It will do exaclty what the driver tells it to do, immediately and preciscely. The pilot must be able to handle that prescion or they will drive themselves into the wall. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chrisgr 0 #20 January 5, 2005 Quote Points like: -Why we stay in the air? -What does happen when we make the canopy asymetrical? -Why we need presure in the canopy, -What does happen with a riserturn and what with a toggle turn, -.... You have some excellent suggestions for a standardized, mandatory education program. The discussion in the Safety and Training forum was intended to get this type of input. Would you consider posting your thoughts there? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
raymod2 1 #21 January 5, 2005 QuoteA 270 on anything at 1.3 or 1.4 will not net you much of anything except for an increased risk factor. I've done lots of 270's at this wing loading and I found there is plenty to learn and plenty of performance to explore in this area. Furthermore, there are advantages to doing a 270 regardless of the wing loading. For example, I find the crosswind approach on a 270 is much easier to judge than the downwind approach on a 180. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkymonkeyONE 4 #22 January 5, 2005 QuoteAt 100 feet a larger canopy that is in a vertical dive with the pilot putting in max effort to get back under the canopy will recover to level with less altitude lost than a smaller canopy at 100 feet in a vertical dive with the pilot putting in max effort to get back under the canopy, all other things being equal. This statement is the flaw in your reasoning, Derek. A person in a carving turn is not in anything resembling a "vertical dive." It is simply not the same maneuver as a toggle whip or riser snap. In a carving turn you are only in the dive so long as you are holding down a riser and you are never on level or above your canopy. The second you let up from that riser the canopy is going to flatten out and go straight. Committing to a toggle whip or a riser snap is entirely different. Once you spank it, you better be "in the window" when you come out. All I am saying is that there are safer ways to make HP landings under larger canopies than spanking a turn. In considering this article one must compare apples to apples. One can compare the benefits and risks of varying degrees of turns only if they base their comparison on similar turn styles. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jumpmunki 0 #23 January 5, 2005 just as a person looking to progress on the canopy piloting circuit in the future. i sometimes have to slap myself to not going big and being stupid. i have been thinking about downsizing for the past few months and have finally made a decision to not do anything but stick with my canopy. it is hard to stop myself from doing things that i shouldn't like a 180 instead of a 90 when i'm nowhere near finished learning about the 90's dive, recovery and flare timing. and i have done it a couple of time when i shouldn't have and yes, the results were rubbish, and yes it was stupid, and yes..... it is hard to not want it. but just under a week ago a fellow jumper at my dz made a landing error (the 5th from our dz in the last 6 months) and i really feel sorry for him, he's been doing excellent turns and surfs, but it just goes to show even to me, that even the simplest of mistakes can have terrible consiquences. so just to take that half a second and bite my lip and give myself a shake and stick with the plan and also knowing when NOTt to perform a front riser turn could be the thing that keeps me driving home from the dz in my own car... earlier in my jumping days i wanted this, i wanted to do that and no-one was going to stop me... but they did and i called them cunts for it... but now i really feel i'm going at the right speed and taking the right route, boring as it might be to my "earlier mentality" i think i'd rather be boring myself stupid under canopy than lying in a hospital bed not being under a canopy at all . i am very passionate about canopy piloting and have alot of strong views on canopy education and the way it should be taught, even at my stage of the game simply because i don't want people to get hurt doing something that i love... sorry for the long post guys, i didn't origanally start with that intention Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Hooknswoop 19 #24 January 6, 2005 Right, I agree that farther you swing out from under a canopy, the more altitude is needed to recover to level flight. TAke the same statment and substitute 'vertical' with '30-degree'. A canopy in a 30-degree dive at 40-mph require x number of feet to recover, regardless of how the canopy got to that dive angle and airspeed. I agree that toggle whipping is very bad. Front riser snap hooks are bad except for very small, highly loaded canopies. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Jumpmunki 0 #25 January 6, 2005 in addition, i always thought that there was a direct corrolation between where the pilot is in relation to the wing as to the time it takes to recover? for example a 90 left toggle would take the pilot blah blah wherever.. but a front riser 90 at the same speed of input would swing the pilot a little less further out from under the canopy if i'm making any sence? or am i just getting confused here Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 1 of 2 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
Hooknswoop 19 #24 January 6, 2005 Right, I agree that farther you swing out from under a canopy, the more altitude is needed to recover to level flight. TAke the same statment and substitute 'vertical' with '30-degree'. A canopy in a 30-degree dive at 40-mph require x number of feet to recover, regardless of how the canopy got to that dive angle and airspeed. I agree that toggle whipping is very bad. Front riser snap hooks are bad except for very small, highly loaded canopies. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jumpmunki 0 #25 January 6, 2005 in addition, i always thought that there was a direct corrolation between where the pilot is in relation to the wing as to the time it takes to recover? for example a 90 left toggle would take the pilot blah blah wherever.. but a front riser 90 at the same speed of input would swing the pilot a little less further out from under the canopy if i'm making any sence? or am i just getting confused here Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites