Engovatov

>My money would be more on him asking about good physical therapists in the Atlanta area.... That is not a very nice thing to say. I would rather bet that some 110lb girl on a 210ft rental (or, how very safe) will break her legs, cause she can not really control the thing, and does broad S-turns to approach, being blown backwards and scaring the shit out of the next load, then a stout guy with good reflexes on something that, or mama mia, whole 10% faster and whole 30% faster in turns that what he used to jump..

> Look at the numbers, most people don't last much over 3 years in the sport. That's true. Personally, I am scared, and not sure if I will ever jump again.. Just wasting my time arguing on the net, while I had some free time at work.. Just observed that there may be some similarities in the training pattern in many dangerous sports (and actually - I bet, you would prefer a freaked out guy under some far away canopy, than one on the other end of the rope tied to YOU. ;-))) Cruel of course.. I was NOT arguing for smallish mains at all. Only for the small enough that actual penetration, and ability to use control inputs somehow resemble what majority of people use. That would be an equivalent to an easy 5.8 in trad climbing - possibly challenging, but accessible for most people..

>I think that jumpers who actually go through a rigorous training program are better at canopy control at 50 jumps than most jumpers are at 200 jumps, Here we go. Is not it the whole idea of many immersive, accelerated training schemes that you minimize the amount of bad habits, that you have to unlearn, in a controlled environment? It seems to me, for all the proponents of "take it real slow" approach, that logging hundreds of jumps on something that is not even close to what you will be jumping later, may be even worse then wasting the time? Sure, on a big boat stupid mistake will not kill you, but once you move down, you will have a lot of bad habits and reaction time wired to your brain to unlearn. All you really learned is the confidence of just being up there - but that may have the effect of dumbing down your alert level. Probably it would be safer overall to take the bite and learn relevant skills as soon as possible - under supervision. I took quite a few people on there first ever outdoor climb. What I found to be the best approach - I pick up a long, multi-pitch beautiful route offering real reward for doing it, that I am very comfortable leading, and just haul their asses up there - instead of gradually progressing to the bigger stuff from boring crappy "training" climbs. It is a shock in the beginning, but after that they make much more proficient partners then most, who spent tens of climbs slowly working there way out of a top-rope. The idea is - to strike a balance between panic and fun - and that's up to the teacher to find it for each individual. So one have to learn relevant skills: under stress enough not to allow bad habits to develop, but relaxed and having fun not to freeze and not to develop tunnel vision and fear of doing something new. The only drawback - it takes much more responsibility on the leader/instructor to do initial estimate and find this balance, or to have a good contingency plan when shit happens (once had to rappel with a guy who was in a fear induced panic freeze.. brrr.. he lived and was rather happy afterwards.. ;) - it is also puts instructor under bigger risk.. But it is usually clear rather soon... - and beats having to deal with a tumbling Level 3, I would guess (saw video once - girl was going from release to the pull spinning head over feet like a propeller.. Ouch..)

Do not use net forum for such decisions - they do not know you, and prefer to err on the safe side, and that is wise. Ask people you jump with. My guess you will be fine. But you can die. Under any canopy. As if you did not know that.

>But some people just have to learn by the school of hard knocks.. Once it was under 10 mph for the whole day with perfect forecast - when the plane went on the jump run, or so I was told. It was 20+ gusts when I landed. I was sure happy not to be on the rental gear (which is usually grounded when wind goes up anyway, but not in this case).. Hard knocks may come when you do not know - it is better to be ready, is not it?

>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..

>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?

>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.. ;))

>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.. :)

>(When I started, a PD190 was seen in the same light as a Spectre 135 is today - a high performance canopy that could kill you instantly.) That's another interesting point - it seems that newer technology DOES change the acceptable range. Maybe in a few years we will all start on 1.4 loaded ellipticals - they will fly so well, that it would be considered safe. One day there was one 5.9 ever free climbed..that's Yosemite decimal system after all.. Now gym pups jump on 5.9 (he he - but NOT on old school offwidths.. ;) as there is no tomorrow.. Many landings on old Russian rigs - closest thing to bouncing one can experience.. ;-))) Bad joke.. Back to the topic of 150 vs 170 - yeah 36% kinetic energy and 10% less time to react is noticable - but natural variation of reaction time is probably twice that or more.. Or well, moot point - we all know what we are talking about... And it's up to the individual pilot to decide after all..

>Those 20 sq. feet can also be the difference between a simple biff and major trauma depending on conditions. Not that I disagree that it may make a difference - my point was, maybe I was not clear, that this "conditions" may have a much bigger effect on the outcome, that the difference in size. Do the following experiment - get a GPS and altimeter and calculate ACTUAL horizontal and vertical speed on 150 and 170. Then tell us why do you think that 12m/s vs 13m/s and 4.3m/s vs 4.4m/s (example - but I would expect numbers to be in this range of differences) is so vastly important for survival on a no flare landing. (BTW - I have been through a no flare landing - and downwind - long story why - on my very first jump on a ram-air rig - (they were all the same size, 22 m2 (~240), no choice, really crappy old PO-16 7 cell, 14(? forgot) years ago..) - made a nice trench on a russian field, but I guess my ass is fatter then average, i just walked away).. Flaring is probably more important - that's due to your reaction time, piloting skills, decision making under stress etc.. To summarise what I was trying to argue: Lets define probability to fuck up (PFU). Correlations (conditions|PFU) >= (experience|PFU) >(equipment|PFU) for equpment within some range (several sizes) - it will diverge fast if you choose equipment that you do not know how to handle at all. I am mostly making this observation on the basis of other dangerous activities, then skydiving - I am not in position to offer expert opinion on anything though (Disclaimer - I am just wasting time arguing on a news group on a topic that is interesting to me).. Notice - I was not advocating at all that everybody is fine on a small canopy, just curious about such fine hair splitting up and down ONE size..

>Paying attention is one thing; someone who only jumps Mantas, then gets a drastically smaller canopy, is generally not going to know a thing about canopy flying You are right - I missed that he moved right to it without even trying anything in between for even a few jumps.. Probably not wise.. I was just musing aloud that 1.33 can kill you not much faster then 1.1 or .2, well within potential individual differences.. And I was assuming decent supervision/instruction and all the drills performed..

>1.33:1 (200# out the door divided by Sabre 150...) is entirely too high of a wing-loading to start with and something.. Not that I entirely disagree, but it is kinda strange that people think that 170 vs 150 will make much of a difference if you bury your toggle, after being cut off. Hm? What if this 170 is a Safire, which is about 155 by PD measurements? Would you be fine with that? Yeah, his loading is on the high side, but heck, it seems to me it takes more arrogance to make minor recommendations (we are not talking about switching from 105 FX to Manta) of having to move up ONE size, without seeing the guy, then choosing something a bit speedy to start with. I am not a parachuting expert, but I learned to trad lead on 5.8/5.9 and felt great and safe, while some do it slowly from 5.5th, and others still jump on 11th.. People are different. 170 vs 150 is not that much different. Though I totally agree that jumping RIGHT from 280 to 150 is a bit, hm., not optimal. Is it too hard to find something in between for a few dozen jumps on each size? Heck - order a demo, if they do not have any rentals..

>Think I'm loaded a little? I think you are fine as long as you are not on a busy DZ and pay attention to what are you doing. 1.33 is not that bad at all - actual difference in speed, turn rate, altitude loss, if anybody actually measures it, in hard numbers, between 150 and, say, 190 is not that big, MUCH less then typical difference between reaction rate and bone strength for different individuals, so making general recommendations is rather pointless in my opinion. BUT! If three people who saw you fly and land told you "Dude, you better be careful out there" and/or you can not land it where you want (+/- 20m) every time, you better pack this main and find yourself something bigger for a while. Not that it necessarily will make you any safer.

>Gives me another shot if I get a nasty deployment problem from being on my back. Unless the nature of the said problem is being wrapped tight in your lines..

What worked for me is to try to look at the surface without fixating on any particular spot - just relax you eyes. You will notice, as was already mentioned, that different landmarks move in you field of view - some will be going up - you will not reach them, some will move down - you are about to fly over them. One spot will not move - you will land about 30m past it (as your speed will increase a bit near the surface, where wind is likely to be slower, and you will surf a little (or a lot, depending on what you do). But do NOT look directly at this spot - when you fix you attention you will not notice whether it moves very effectively. Then you speed up or slow down your canopy, as your instructor tells you (I used either front or rear risers to increase penetration, or float back a bit) Or pick up a better spot.. To reiterate - do not fixate on a particular landmark - if you stare at the horizon you will notice how the earth moves past you better with your peripheral vision, and then you will just feel where you are about to land..

>I would recommend Type 8 (or standard) risers if you weigh >much more than about 220 and plan to load up your main. How would the size of the main affect the loading of the risers? It is the weight of the jumper - for any size of the main. If anything - smaller main may produce lower opening shock for everything else being the same..

>Just for the record--> >A constant change in velocity from 120 MPH to 0 MPH, >over a distance of thirty feet, is 16 g's! >Dave Brownell One can survive 16g's. You get killed by peak force, and also - at this level, human body can not be modeled as solid anymore - time of acceleration becomes very important. Think of it - if you jump of a table - you get stopped with a fraction of an inch by the floor. If you just use the simplified math it would be 100's of g'ss

Ice climbers (you know - the REAL crazies) face somewhat similar problem of limiting the shock on the ice protection. They use devices like Yates screamer (http://www.yatesgear.com/climbing/screamer/index.htm) that limit the maximum shock force transmitted to that little piece of metal in ice you life depends on.. though the experienced climbers, asked about how well it will hold just answer "you better do not fall".. but anyway.. Similar breakaway stitching can be put in between reserve risers and the harness. The one possible problem being that only one side may potentially activate, leaving you somewhat askew in the harness. Beats broken backbone for me, still..

>not parachutes in general, but a specific sport > parachute. For them to launch a study on a particular > sport parachute without outside input is unbelievable. What I am most curious, is whether they will test other comparable canopies in the exact same setting - ONLY then the test will have any other validity, other then Dan's personal satisfaction and/or defense strategy. Any ram-air canopy can collapse, stall, spin out of control etc etc given some particular control input or conditions. There are no standards to my knowledge, that guide how "deep in control range" such abnormal behavior should not happen. So the only valid study would be a comparative study. There are documented fatal accidents caused by spinning malfunctions of the PD Stilleto canopies - when people did not cutaway in time. There are documented injuries caused by fast openings of the PD Sabre. Should we get worried about that? I guess not: both canopies are fine products - the fact that you can cause them to work improperly is just something you need to be aware of - but not a manufacturing or design defect. The whole story seems to be just FUD spreading - it did not add any good feelings toward Atair for me..

I have Safire 160 (it comes in any size) for sale in the Classifieds section.. It flies great - i am getting out of the sport

I saw it absolutely appropriate to voice my opinion about what I perceive as a negative trend to advocate for increased regulation and licensing requirement considering equipment choice by beginning and intermediate participants in the sport. I tried to argue my point using examples from other activities namely skiing and mountain climbing, which do manage to flourish legislation protected and self regulated respectively, without imposing undue limitation on freedoms. Despite having even greater potential to harm participants and others in both cases. I think that pushing for legislation similar to that regulating skiing industry is the single most important action that USPA can pursue instead of trying to regulate equipment choice, as proposed by some of the members of skydiving community. I used this particular forum as I respected it, and as I feel strongly on this subject. Having my work that I did spent my time on, hoping to reach the audience that I respect, being thrown away, obviously without even reading it, is rude. I do not feel I want to take my time for further discussions here. Hope it answers your question, Alan. As far as the other, obviously humorous thread about fictitious Stiletto 2 goes I do feel it was much more appropriate here then Mr. Brownell obscene rumor mongering.

> in my judgement, they were not appropriate for this forum Well, your judgement is obviously very different from mine, but you are the boss. I spent time to express my thoughts in this forum, on topic that I considered relevant and in a polite manner - but if you prefer to throw it away on your whim, OK I will not be here anymore. But in your place - I would have move it to other forum.

> ANY NON-RIGID wing can collapse!( Rigid wings can be driven to the ground by a wind shear just as well..

Not unless they are in the middle of freefall..