DocPop

Thanks. That's exactly what I was intending to say. Yup - you guys have come up with a workable move towards a solution. It's not a universal cure-all, but that probably doesn't exist. This is a helluva good start, in my humble opinion. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

The way I read that in the original document, I took it to mean the number of turns, not the degrees of heading change in each turn. That's just my interpretation of "the more you turn, the less you learn". "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

I like the sound of this. If I understand right, you are splitting the load in two by consideration of their landing intentions. This in turn dictates their holding area, pattern and landing area. In addition, it probably goes a fair way towards separating high and low WL jumpers. Sounds simple and useful.

Let's say you and I are doing a two way. You load your canopy at 1.4, I load mine at 1.0. When we open, we do our housekeeping stuff and then we begin to create horizontal separation. There is some natural separation because you descend faster than I do, but if you do a 360 and I go into some brakes we can increase it. We work to maintain (or increase) that separation throughout our canopy flight. If we do this, there's no way that you can spiral into me at 800 feet.. I could spiral into you, though. It can work just as well with a load of 20. If everyone talks about it beforehand. In your 2-way example, yes I agree. The problem is ther could be a goup below, and that is where the problem lies. If there was a way to organiize the whole load that faster canopies either exited first, or found another way to get down first, then we would not have to worry nearly as much. Thats all im saying. Exit order is currently (usually) decided by freefall drift with the goal being to maximize horizontal separation at opening altitude. I can't see how we can keep that safety margin AND implement your proposal as the two are often mutually exclusive. I think a better solution is to think about (and actively plan) the jump in two stages: 1. Exit in the order which allows maximum separation in freefall 2. Immediately after opening, start flying your canopy to fit into the landing order. Logically this could be organized as high WL to low WL. It would not even have to be perfect. Just dividing the load into high, medium and low WL and applying that to the landing order would help things a lot. This approach would take some education though. For example, a jumper with a Stiletto @ 1.8 and a guy with a Katana @ 1.8 are on a level - who let's who goes first? "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

I think we're agreeing in different ways! Flying a pattern is not rocket surgery. Plan three points in the air and connect them by smoothly flying your canopy between them. Do this while paying attention to everyone else around you and Bingo! You flew a pattern! Having said that, I think you are right about the value of educating people about where those points should be and how to connect them smoothly. Anyone with a license should know how to do it, but it certainly can't hurt to spell it out again. Another question - I fly my turns in the pattern as flat/braked turns for two reasons: 1. It makes them slow and avoidable 2. It means I practice flat turns every jump These are not done in deep brakes, maybe 1/4-1/2 brakes, but my goal is to keep the wing right above my head. I also fly my pattern with a little bit of brakes applied because this allows me to either speed up (go to full flight) or slow down (use more brakes) according to what is happening around me. What do you guys think of these as recommendations? "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

Training in what exactly? I am not sure it is ignorance or inability that is the issue (the two things that training might address). I think it is more a problem of "it won't happen to me". Perris accident #1 "involved a jumper with 17,000 jumps and another with 8,000 jumps, both very proficient and with very little other traffic around them." (from the USPA Call To Action). What extra training would have made a difference? Enforcement of the correct behavior is the solution (as others have mentioned), if you believe, as I do, that people know what is right, they just don't do it. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

I will continue to do what I have always done - land in the landing area where the fewest number of people are going to land. As with your idea - this means communication before the load. We have two LZs separated by the runway and tandems/video tend to land on the one nearest the hangar. I land on the far one. I am often the only person out there. If there are large numbers of people who fly sketchy patterns (in my experience these tend to be the old RW guys) I will not get on that load. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

I just posted where PD got theirs from. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

Your solution requires a lot more regulations. I am not sure this is the answer. I would propose more enforcement of existing regulations. Of course, until Perris release the facts of these last two incidents it is going to be hard to truly know what would have prevented them. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

FIFY "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

This is a very wise post. There are canopy pilots, and there are those who simply hang under it until they hit the ground. Jump numbers is not the way to tell these two groups apart. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

www.x-gloo.com "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

Sparky I was thinking more along the lines of canopy skills rather than personality traits - perhaps that's what videofly meant. I certainly wouldn't disagree with Dave's list either. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

This is an interesting statement (and I am not saying that I disagree with you). What do YOU see as being the prerequisite skills for being OK to fly a certain canopy? Would you echo BillVon's checklist or do you think there is something more? "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

Quote from Ian Drennan on the altimeter for flying a pattern question. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

IMO this is not what is generally recommended these days. Most of the recommendations I have heard have been along the lines of "use the biggest reserve you can" in case of having to land one while unconscious or incapacitated. I personally think these risks are greater than that of having an unstable two-out situation. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

Is that purely a function of canopy terminal velocity? "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

That's not the only difference, though. My first 4 jumps were S/L with rounds and they open pretty quickly. Jumping my current, modern canopy out of a slower airspeed plane and opening sub-terminal causes a really long snivel. A couple of weeks ago I exited a Porter at 3,000' and when it finally opened it had end cell closure and a slight turn. By the time I had corrected that and collapsed (but not stowed) my slider I was at 1,500' and needed to start my pattern. I actually felt like it was a wasted jump because I could not complete my 'house-keeping' before I needed to commence my set-up. I usually jump a King Air and the effect is less noticeable then due to the higher airspeed of jumprun. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

I think you have to take everything with a grain of salt. It may be that dz.com is not that suitable for students as they may be more liable to absorb any and all information they read and are probably more prone to misunderstanding (although that is a problem for all of us). I think advice here (and in general) is more useful the more experience you have. I say that because a person with more experience is more able to judge "advice" in the light of their own knowledge rather than just blindly believing it. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

Thanks Dave. I think my interest in canopy flight stemmed from how light the AFF course was on the topic. It seems like the coach and AFF-I courses don't spend much time on canopy skills so I guess it's understandable (not right, but understandable). My home DZ has asked Flight-1 to provide a third "teaching canopy skills" day for instructors in addition to the basic & advanced courses. I think this is a huge step in acknowledging and addressing the problem. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

What are some of the common things you see instructors getting wrong? "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

It seems to me that your problems are coming from being tense. You flew fine in the tunnel, right? Could be that was because you had no AFF level to "pass", no need to maintain altitude awareness and no landing to worry about. You have been hurt - it is perfectly understandable that you would be concerned about it happening again. I have a suggestion for you to pass by your instructors. How about if, for your next jump, you go out with your instructors and do nothing except try to relax in the wind, keep an eye on your alti and pull at the right time? Your instructors could keep a hold of you and your only "work" would be to relax into the arch, just like you did in the tunnel - and to pull at the correct altitude. After you land, get packed up and right on the next load to do your level 3. Just an idea - it might help. See what your instructors think. Hope that helps. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4094081;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

That's NOT going to help you stay up until everyone else is down. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

Asking questions is important, but listening is more important. OK, I am listening. What's your point? "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA