DocPop

I think there are limits to how far you can extrapolate what is right for powered a/c to apply to canopy flight. For example, a/c pilots have radios to communicate in-flight and they have the ability to go around. IMO the lack of those two factors alone means that it is better for all jumpers on the load to have a known and agreed flight plan before take-off. This CAN work. Look at canopy piloting competitions. Everyone knows what order they have to land in, and I believe there are penalties for getting it wrong. There is a system and there is a price to pay for fucking it up. How often do you see pro-swoopers landing out of order? It is pretty rare. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

If I may adjust this slightly: There is enough educational material and legislation. What is lacking is consistent use of the material, and enforcement when the training and rules are not followed. Excellent point - maybe I should have said there is enough information out there. Not everyone has been educated on that information. Thanks for improving my statement. That was in important clarification. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

Why would that be a bad thing? "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

Some great points being made here: 1. There needs to be a plan. The landing pattern starts at 0 AGL. That is, before we get on the aircraft, we should have a plan about where our pattern is going to be, to include knowing about obstacles, potential turbulence, where our outs are etc. This just isn't possible with FMD. The plan needs to be known and agreed by everyone on the load. 2. Plans need to be flexible. If we get a long spot, or get cut-off under canopy we need to be flexible enough to abort our plan and land safely somewhere else (see "outs" above). 3. I believe that there is enough education and legislation out there. What is lacking is enforcement. Better to chew someone out about an unsafe landing where nobody was hurt, than to wait for an injury or death to say "I could see that was going to happen". It's too late. Unfortunately this is the harder route to take. 4. Downwinders are not only perfectly do-able, they can actually be fun. They are a survival technique that should be practiced when it is safe to do so (eg. on a hop n' pop when you are the only one out, or in a remote part of the LZ and previously declared to everyone else on the load). The same goes for practicing PLFs, flat turns and landing with rears. If we rehearse these skills when we don't HAVE to, they become much less daunting when we NEED them in a critical situation. I know much of the above has already been said. Just wanted to add my 0.02 "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

You've got two scenarios, mate. 1. You're not serious about her - in that case, lie, get laid then fuck off and think nothing more about her. 2. You like her and think she might be relationship material - in this case you have to be truthful because if you're not it'll come back and bite you in the ass BIG STYLE. Either way, the choice is clear. Now stop whining. I think I preferred it when you were depressed. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

I think perhaps I am explaining myself very well. Allow me to address some of the (very valid) points you experienced guys have raised: I absolutely do not need an altimeter at all to land my canopy. However, for me, canopy flight is the best part of the jump and I constantly challenge myself to become more accurate in flying my pattern. I fully realize that many people view getting under a good canopy as the end of the fun part of the jump and just want to get down safely for another jump. I could not agree more. Canopy collisions are killing people and a safe landing off the DZ is infinitely better than injuring someone or worse right at your intended landing spot. Again, I agree totally and will abandon my planned pattern if it is too crowded. My home DZ has two landing areas and I usually land in the further one. I am usually the only person there. In my case, I am in the process of learning to swoop, but the courses I have attended have said that flying a pre-planned pattern (where safe!) is good discipline for anyone, even those doing a conventional straight in landing. I am sorry for derailing this thread, maybe I could restate my original point with more clarity for the OP: IF you think you will want to use an alti under canopy (which you will if you plan to take a canopy course) then a digital is really the only way to be accurate when under canopy. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

So, what were you taught? Were you given a written version for reference? Or is it your recollection of the material? It is sometimes true that what one gets from being taught is not always what the teacher thought he was teaching. I am not saying that is the case here, but that's why I am interested in verifiable reference materials. None of the courses I attended (2 x Luigi Cani and 2 x Flight-1) provided written course notes, but the common theme was to plan a pattern by having EXACT goals for checkpoints in the pattern, ie. start of downwind, downwind-to-base and base-to final. The plan is to hit precise points over the ground at precise altitudes. By doing this time and again the pilot gets an idea of how the canopy flies and how to move these checkpoints on the ground to adjust for wind. A good reference is Germain's "The D Point", here http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/safety/detail_page.cgi?ID=725, where he states: "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

Thanks for the input, but that is in direct contradiction of what I have been told on multiple canopy courses. Of course, awareness of canopy traffic is of paramount importance, but flying a predictable, repeatable pattern is also a valuable skill. To do that I have a plan for every flight of exactly what altitude I plan to be over what point on the ground. Do I always hit those points? Hell no! But without a plan/goal I would not know how to improve next time. I would say that the error on an analog is MUCH higher than 25 feet due to the insensitivity of the display and they are therefore not all that useful for canopy work. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

I bought a Suunto Vector as my first alti, and did a couple of jumps with it next to an analog to make sure I could read it at a glance. When I was happy with that, I got rid of the analog. One other reason I don't like analogs it that they are useless for flying accurate landing patterns as they are just too inaccurate under 1000 feet. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

Because material costs are dwarfed by the other costs of running a business such as R&D, Marketing, Labor etc. If you think the SA2 260 is worth 2.7x a SA2 97 then I am sure PD would be happy for you to give the difference to charity! "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

Prices for anything in a free market economy are set to whatever the market will stand. PD makes excellent quality product but they do not have a monopoly. If they raised their prices beyond what their customers are willing to pay, they would lose business to Aerodyne or Icarus or whoever. Bear in mind that a significant part of PD's margin is spent on R&D and ensuring that when you do buy one of their products it is a world class one. Many people are of the opinion that PD does R&D and customer service better than most, and that costs money. PD have a duty to their employees to make money and stay in business as well as to produce high quality canopies. If their prices upset you - go buy something else. It's that simple. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

My opinion... You're really going to need a digital alti to measure this accurately. And if you're thinking of bringing it down near the ground you will want to be as accurate as possible! I am going to assume from what you said that you can pull the risers down without the canopy bucking. You can start by measuring altitude loss from initiation to when you feel yourself plane out with double fronts. Maybe hold the fronts for a 3-count and note the start altitude and plane out altitude. The difference is total altitude lost in that maneuver. This does not tell you the recovery arc specifically (ie. the altitude lost from the last input to plane out) but it does give you an idea of the total altitude from initiation to plane out which you need to know before you bring it down low. Doing it near the ground is the best way to develop the sight picture to know when to release the fronts, but PLEASE don't do this without talking to at least an instructor and preferably a canopy coach. I am neither and this is just my opinion. The next step is to find out (up high) the maximum and minimum altitudes you can lose in a given turn, say a 90. To do this you're going to want to do a few really slow carving ones for max altitude loss and then some snappy whips round for min altitude loss. This then gives you the performance envelope for your canopy, at your loading and your turn technique. The sight picture you learn from the double fronts practice will be vital for knowing when things are wrong (ie. you're low) when you start putting more energy into the system by doing turns. Other things you can experiment with up high are bail-outs and starting the dives from full flight or in various amounts of brakes. Again - please don't do anything near the ground without expert local advice. I hope it gave you some ideas. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

I carried mine on ORD-LHR-JNB-Bloemfontein and then Port Elizabeth-JNB-LHR-ORD all with no problems last month. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

I saw this title and thought it was going to be something to do with Obama and Sarkozy! "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

I understand, but to perpetuate basic errors in structured teaching which people are paying for is really bad. It makes me wonder what else these "experts" are getting wrong that I am not picking up on. With all the outcry for more canopy tuition, those who are providing it should really get it right. I guess it all comes down to "buyer beware"... (PS - I did the Flight-1 basic and advanced courses and found them to be excellent) "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

By all means. If I need any kind of advice you are going to be the first person I ask. Why the attitude? It was only a well-meaning suggestion, and it was not addressed at you. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

Thanks! I didn't really understand where these two canopies fit in relation to the Velo as nobody I know jumps them. That's helps me put a better picture together. I hope you enjoy whatever you end up with. Edited to add: Have you considered a Katana? IMO it is a step up from the Crossfire2. Doesn't help you being an Icarus fan though! "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

I can't believe this "act like a sail to get back from a long upwind spot" is still being touted. It is so obviously false, but today I watched Jim Slaton's online canopy webinar where he says EXACTLY this. http://canopyflightacademy.com/webinars-2/webinar-1/ If even the self-proclaimed canopy gurus are saying this (Luigi Cani also said it in a course I did) what hope is there for us mere mortals?!! "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

Just curious - why are you guys not considering the Velocity? "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

The Revolutionary War wasn't fought in circles? The Boer War was actually quite interesting. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

"Anti-Wanking Activist" - I like it. "As private parts to the Gods are we - they play with us for their sport" - Blackadder. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

Now that's where you're wrong. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

If by win you mean went in with no actual grounds for invasion and left the country in a worse situation that it was originally, then yes, I suppose that could be called winning. That statement is not even remotely believable. How the fuck did we "win" in Afghanistan? Is Al Qaeda gone? Is Bin Laden in custody and being held accountable for his wrong-doings? Is there no further terrorist threat to the West? Has all Afghan opium supply to the world dried up? FUCK NO. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

I'm not a rigger, but it occurs to me that any bending could weaken the pin. You REALLY don't want a pin to break when you pull the reserve ripcord, leaving the container closed in an emergency. IMO anything which is causes doubt when it comes to the reserve should be addressed. If that means a new ripcord assembly, so be it. I would like to hear from riggers on this. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

I think maybe "critique" would be a better word for what you are trying to convey. Although not technically true, many people will automatically assign negative connotations to the word criticize. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA