150 compared to 190

[crazy 0]

Quote

So any wing can re-pack itself.

I completely agree.
Maybe some people think that a lightly loaded canopy will collapse more easily because they give more bumpy rides. It's hard to understand that in some cases, more bumpy means safer.

--
Come
Skydive Asia

[Unutsch 0]

do what you think is best for you, just remember not to do any weard (read: LOW) stuff with it and that it is not such a big deal if you land out after a bad spot...

have fun with it (i pretty much envy you for the downsizing, mine is some 3 years ago) and don't let the excitement about the speed of the turns make you do mistakes (that's what happened to me, but i didn't got hurt, lucky me)

Check out the site of the Fallen Angels FreeflY Organisation:
http://www.padliangeli.org

[TrashTash 0]

The first jump in my life was with a 1:1 loaded canopy. So where ist the problem?
If it is possible for a first time jumper it is possible for YOU!!

[billvon 3,109]

>You are missing my point. In high winds you are screwed under a lightly loaded canopy.

I have jumped large canopies in high winds; I wasn't screwed. If anything, if you ever have a spot so bad that you're not going to make it back, you are better off under a big F111 canopy than a small canopy - your landing options are a lot greater.

>During the flare the occasional LAGGED or very slow, sluggish, sometimes even
>non responsive flare thing happens.

I haven't noticed that on anything but really trashed medium loading F111's (i.e. a PD190 with 2500+ jumps on it.) Most people simply don't know how to fly them, or remember that they were hard to control when they had 11 jumps (which is generally due to the pilot, not the canopy.)

There are a lot of really good F111 pilots out there, just as there are a lot of really good pocket rocket pilots out there. It is skill, rather than the type of canopy you have, that determines its performance and safety. It's worthwhile to develop larger-F111 skills, since most jumpers occasionally need to use their reserves.

[alan 1]

Quote

At 1:1, you better not be relying on things like "the 2 stage flare." You should be able to fly the canopy through the flare, rather than just putting your hands in two positions and hoping that it flares.

I've never seen the two stage flare taught as just putting your hands in two positions and hoping it flares. The two stage flare does require the pilot to fly the canopy through the flare, it is just more descriptive in the technique used to do this. It refers to a "bump" of the toggles to increase the angle of attack of the canopy and pendulum the jumper under it, roughly equivalent to raising the nose of an airplane on final as it approaches ground effect just prior to touching down It is generally a shorter, quicker movement of the toggles. The height this is done at will vary with many factors interacting. The type of canopy, wing loading, density altitude, wind, pilot skill and experience, and type of desired landing are among the factors. As the canopy "planes out" from the initial bump, the pilot continues to fly through the flare, keeping the wings level and maintaining an altitude above the ground that should allow the pilot to extend their legs and "unload" the canopy by contacting the ground. This part is very similar to the pilot of an airplane holding the nose up and keeping the wheels a few inches off the ground and letting airspeed bleed off until the planes settles onto the runway. By this point the pilot should have completed the full toggle stroke but never so deep that the canopy stalls before the forward and vertical motion of the jumper have stopped. Some canopies under certain conditions, may require a fews steps or even sliding to completely stop the forward movement, but the pilot should continue to fly the canopy even during this part of the second stage. Remeber, when you unload the canopy (put your feet on the ground), it now has a much lighter wing loading because you have transferred your weight from the harness (and consequently the canopy) to the ground and the canopy will now want to continue flying. I'm just from the backwoods of WI, so maybe we teach the two stage flare differently here, best is to ask a qualified canopy pilot/Instructor from your DZ about it.

Quote

The 2-stage flare is one of those pieces of advice like the old 45-degree angle thing for exit separation or using your hands like little rudders to make a turn - they may work by accident, but they're not the right way to do it.

I don't agree about the two stage flare being included in thess examples, but I would think the advice about flying in 1/2 or 1/3 brakes when landing in turbulence fits in nicely.

alan

[billvon 3,109]

>I've never seen the two stage flare taught as just putting your hands
> in two positions and hoping it flares.

The reason I don't think it works well is because that's how it was described to me by at least 10 newbies.

"How do you do that two stage flare?" I asked.

"Well, you flare in two stages - first part way, then all the way."

When asked to demonstrate they invariably put their hands halfway down, hold them there, then put them all the way down. Up to about .8 to 1, that works OK, but by the time you get to 1:1 there better not be any 'detents' in the flare.

> It refers to a "bump" of the toggles to increase the angle of attack
> of the canopy and pendulum the jumper under it, roughly equivalent
> to raising the nose of an airplane on final as it approaches ground
> effect just prior to touching down.

I've landed a lot of airplanes, and I've never 'bumped' the yoke back during landing to get the nose up. I start adding backpressure gradually until the nose comes up and the plane levels off in ground effect, then continue to add pressure to keep the airplane 6 inches off the runway. Sorta like landing a canopy. I've never heard any CFI call the landing 'a two stage flare.'

The 2-stage flare may well be taught as a continuous flare by some instructors - that's great. If that's the case, I hope they use a more descriptive name in the future, because of the people I've talked to, the name gives them the wrong idea of how to land.

[rendezvous 0]

If you have a doubt about your ability to handle a 150 then you aren't ready for it yet. If you are so unsure of how the 150 handles definitely fly the 170 a bit first. 150 will definitely be a little faster. How fast is a matter of perception, comfort and your skills at piloting a canopy amongst other things.

[alan 1]

Quote

The reason I don't think it works well is because that's how it was described to me by at least 10 newbies.

"How do you do that two stage flare?" I asked.

"Well, you flare in two stages - first part way, then all the way."

When asked to demonstrate they invariably put their hands halfway down, hold them there, then put them all the way down. Up to about .8 to 1, that works OK, but by the time you get to 1:1 there better not be any 'detents' in the flare.

Poor/inadequate instruction? Poor/unmotivated students? A philosophical debate that would be pointless and could go on forever. Let's just say that for whatever reason, the learning was inadequate, that doesn't mean "it" doesn't work well. "It" works just fine when taught and then executed properly.

Quote

I've landed a lot of airplanes, and I've never 'bumped' the yoke back during landing to get the nose up.

So have I. I never claimed you do in an airplane. I was trying to make an analogy, that is why I said "roughly equivalent to raising the nose of an airplane on final as it approaches ground effect just prior to touching down." The key words being "roughly equivalent".

Quote

I start adding backpressure gradually until the nose comes up and the plane levels off in ground effect, then continue to add pressure to keep the airplane 6 inches off the runway.

This sounds very much like what I described. The gradual addition of back pressure is what I reffered to as bumping the toggles. It is a relatively quicker and shorter movement than the added pressure needed to keep the canopy/airplane slightly off the ground, but still should be done smoothly, if not it could mean you are "in the corner" or not flying as efficiently as you could be. Perhaps it is a poor term and is misleading. I apologize for its use with respect to landing a canopy, I simply picked it up from guys like Brian Germain and John LeBlanc.

Quote

I've never heard any CFI call the landing 'a two stage flare.'

Neither have I. Again, I was attempting to make an analogy, you seem intent on putting words in my mouth. I have heard several CFI's say "get the nose up, now keep it up and hold it off, hold it off." I've also heard them say "don't jerk the yoke/stick, do it smoothly, just add pressure, in between the get your nose up hold it off parts. Sorta like landing a canopy.

Quote

The 2-stage flare may well be taught as a continuous flare by some instructors - that's great. If that's the case, I hope they use a more descriptive name in the future, because of the people I've talked to, the name gives them the wrong idea of how to land.

Yes, I wonder where the problem lies, with the instructors, the students, or the terminology. My guess would be that to varying degrees, it would generally be some blend of all three. In reality, we are all students, or should be. Maybe the tendency to be in the sport two or three years, then leave is a big factor. People don't stick around long enough to learn much past the basics. Landing is a basic, but we should learn how to refine the technique. Keep the wings level. That is great, but after a while it is nice to learn how to maintain altitude in a carving turn while landing, it could be a survival skill for a more advanced pilot yet could kill a novice attempting it.

At any rate "two stage flare" seems to work well here in WI. Maybe it is just because we are a little backwards here yet and the I's take the time to ensure that the "students" have a clear understanding of the information being presented. I'm sure I'll run into an exception. Maybe it is just because we don't deal with the numbers you do. BTW was that at least 10 newbies out of 10 or 10 out of 1000 that didn't understand it?

alan

[billvon 3,109]

>This sounds very much like what I described. The gradual addition of
> back pressure is what I reffered to as bumping the toggles.

I am not objecting to this procedure; I teach something similar. I do not call it a two stage flare because there are not two stages to it. That's all. You could call it a purple tiger reverse flare if you wanted to - as long as students understand what it is, and realize that it has nothing to do with purple or tigers or reverse. I prefer not to use names that might confuse people.

>BTW was that at least 10 newbies out of 10 or 10 out of 1000 that
>didn't understand it?

Dunno. I don't teach it that way, so that came from random conversations with 10 or so newbies from the SoCal area. I did not do a controlledl survey.