DocPop

Why would you want to do that? I didn't say anything bad about Sky Knights. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

Hi Allen Midwest has really great facilities and an awesome atmosphere. They have a two planes (Otter and a 182) so you can get experience from both. Highly recommended! "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

Landing downwind can give the visual appearance (sight picture) of making the recovery look shorter due to the distance covered over the ground, but it does not affect the way the canopy recovers. Temperature, humidity and altitude are the atmospheric factors that affect the recovery arc of a wing. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

Vehicular analogies do not work well for highly loaded canopies. A fast car or motorcycle can be driven slowly. Full flight (as recommended for landing) is going to be fast on these wings regardless of what you do. A braked approach is a possibility but that just makes getting a good landing even more tricky. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

Textbook. He didn't even need the cheststrap (as his reserve opening showed!) Good job on totally ignoring where he was flying after he had a good canopy in favour of continuing to try to do the cheststrap up. And finally excellent work landing the reserve from 3/4-brakes - that was always going to end smoothly. This is possibly one of the most clueless videos I have ever seen. Talk about a chain of events. Lucky it wasn't way worse. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

Congratulations! You're an idiot that ran the gauntlet and survived...so far. Say a prayer those that didn't. Pops - maybe it's just me but I interpreted Sparkie's post as sarcasm. If it wasn't then you are right on! "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

He was sponsored by Icarus Spain, not NZ Aerosports. So the 'Fuck Yeah!' is irrelevant to this. Point taken. But if I got them mixed up then I am sure others have too. So not all that irrelevant. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

It is if the manufacturer is going to use them as a billboard for their product. I agree. This is not going to reflect well on Icarus. How much "Fuck Yeah!!" is going on about this young man's death? "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

I think a canopy licensing system would be great and I would certainly have embraced the structured approach and knowing what the next step is, but I do have a few comments: 1. Jump numbers should not be part of it because (a) they are not that useful an indicator of level of proficiency and (b) they can just be padded (pencil-whipped) just like people do now to get a tandem rating at 300 jumps. 2. Canopy courses and proficiency assessments must be carried out by qualified people - not just your average beer-line swooper or someone who holds an S&TA appointment or AFFI rating. That is not good enough. To that end, maybe Flight-1 and the like should start a "Train the Trainer" course. If the USPA won't step up and qualify people to teach canopy flight, maybe private companies should take the initiative. 3. To those who say local enforcement is enough look at the results of the education vs restriction poll I started a couple of weeks ago - approximately 1/4 of respondents say their approach to someone moving too fast in their canopy piloting progression is to ignore it and let them die. With that attitude it's highly unlikely that anything will change without some regulation. There are thousands of jumpers around, particularly the ones who have been in the sport for 10+ years, who think they know all there is to know about flying a canopy. These people need to be reached too, as well as the young up-and-comers. They are spreading misinformation and out-dated concepts. Many of them with an instructor rating. We all need ongoing canopy coaching. Only a small percentage of us recognize the fact and are actively seeking education. That needs to change too. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

And therein lies the issue. You think you're OK despite many, many more experienced people on this site telling you you're wrong. That's not the same as actually being OK. Ask yourself what you are hoping to achieve in this thread: - Trying to convince the other posters that you're right and they are wrong? FAIL. That ship sailed a long time ago. - Trying to come across as the big man who knows his shit? FAIL. You're just making yourself look more foolish. - Something else? Please explain.... I been in your position on these boards before now. You know what they say about trying to teach a pig to dance.... "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

That's exactly what I'm worried about. A terminal opening in perhaps a less-than-ideal body position. Demo an OM (Optimum as a main). That's what I did. If you go that route you have a comfortable opening at terminal AND a bigger wing when you're under it. Bingo! "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

Now you're in the right position to deploy your reserve! "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

If you're worried about hard openings, I can confirm that the Optimum opens just fine at terminal. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

Thanks. That was my intent of my post. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

Where on earth did I say that? My opinion seems to be shared by the majority of those who voted (even if not by those who actually posted). Sadly the second most popular option is "Ignore it and watch them pound in". Certainly an easier option and perhaps an indicator of why we lose so many people to intentional low turns. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

Mate, just to let you know jjudd is a competitive canopy pilot. I am pretty sure he knows the ins and outs of how his wing flies pretty intimately! The thing that surprises me is that this guy is doing something that he would have to know is increasing his chances of a chop and yet he still loosens the chest-strap beforehand. With no RSL. That's a poor choice in my opinion. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

I agree with you that there are people for whom no amount of advice or education will work. At that point they have forced your hand and the right thing, IMO, is to tell them to walk of the DZ. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

No. I mean teaching it properly and in depth. Not just scratching the surface. While we are at it, I think the canopy part of the AFF course is woefully inadequate. Maybe that's part of the problem - our sport sets up the expectation that freefall skills matter the most and canopy piloting is something you just go out and learn on your own. I don't know - it's a theory, though. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

I agree that there are some folks who are going to do what they are going to do regardless of what anyone says. However, I would venture to suggest that there is a section of the population that would do that if no help was offered but might slow it down if time was taken to explain that the basics of slow flight, high-altitude practice, accuracy, pattern flying etc are essential skills. I understand that we can't reach everyone, but I believe that offering informal education (as is done with the freefall disciplines) can be beneficial. And it seems like the poll respondents agree. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

I am sure you and Dave have much more experience of seeing this than I do and for these individuals I am not sure there are options beyond Ignore or Ground. All I'm saying is that to offer a path and give these guys a chance to take it would be an improvement. I know I would have take it when I started. I WANTED instruction. I just couldn't get it apart from the occasional course when Flight-1 was in town. The answer I received when I first asked about double fronts was "hold them down until you're scared - then hold them for two more seconds"! "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

But this approach is not working. I believe there is plenty these guys can be instructed to work on before throwing a 270 (see above). Just telling someone no and waking away is it helping. If you do that I believe you forfeit the right to tut-tut when they go ahead and try to make their own learning path. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

Thanks Dave. I have nothing like your jumps and was wondering what the mental process was for someone of your experience under canopy vs. mine where every new canopy means going back to high pulls to find all the altitudes, stall points, slow flight characteristics, recovery arc etc, etc. Your approach makes sense for a person who is already super-comfortable under more aggressive canopies and doing bigger turns. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

Again, a very valid point, but I don't think it's practical with the people this thread is aimed at helping. "You can't do that" and "You can't do that for five years" would have sounded very similar to me when I started dancing with the reaper! "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

I agree. It seems to me that it is the remit of an S&TA to either be that person or to delegate that responsibility to a suitably qualified person such as an AFFI for that day. I understand that this will take effort, presumably that's why it's not happening now, but that doesn't mean it's not worth doing. I believe SDAZ has someone watching landings (often Mr Burke) every day. Where there's a will there's a way. And if there isn't a will then people should stop pissing and moaning when people "spoil their sport" by hooking in. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

My own opinion to this is that, similar to BillVon's downsizing checklist, there should be restrictions on what canopy can be flown and what type of HP landing can be undertaken until proficiency has been reached on a certain goal. For example, 1. Fly a consistent landing pattern and achieve consistently accurate landings. Demonstrate flat turns and flare turns. 2. Land downwind and crosswind safely and practice HP turns and low-turn abortion >2,000' on at least 50 jumps (HnP's recommended). 3. Use double fronts (straight) for landings and consistently plane out at a safe (not too low or crazy high) altitude. 4. Perform HP landings with a turn of up to 90 degrees and consistently plane out at a safe (not too low or crazy high) altitude. 5..... 6..... etc,etc.... This is not an exhaustive list, obviously. It could then be used in the following way to deal with hotshot canopy dude: "You're staying with straight in landings on your 190 until you can do 1 & 2 with it. You can then downsize a maximum of one size to a 170. You stay on that canopy until you can demonstrate 1,2,& 3. ....." Every downsize starts the jumper back at #1 so it forces someone to go back and learn the canopy from double fronts. The highly skilled guys can move through this progress much faster than the slower learners. Obviously there will be some who try to beat the system but at least there IS a system and I believe that having a structured progression with specific performance goals gives guys like me, Sangi etc something to aim for. This is sadly lacking currently and people start to make up their own goals such as "I want to be doing 270s on a cross-braced wing by the end of the season". The other point is that someone needs to be in the landing area consistently to assess/enforce this system, but frankly that should be happening anyway. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA