DocPop

Start with the Gospel of John, then Matthew, Mark and Luke. After that read Romans. I have a busy schedule coming up today and lasting several days. That is your homework assignment. Send me a PM on your progress later. Dude - you're doing it again! Using something that none believers consider a work of fiction to support your beliefs. You are going to have to do better if you want us to consider that you have "evidence", or even something worth considering. So, now try the God/Santa question without resorting to "that book". "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

In your posts you continue to quote the bible as though it is some sort of proof and will convince non-believers that they are wrong. You really should realize that to us [non-believers], the bible is a work of fiction and as such provides no evidence. You might as well try to convince people that wizards exist by quoting from the Harry Potter books. Try to free your mind a little and question just how brainwashed you have become. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

When packing Velos, I only do one s-fold (as Dave described above) and, yes, the warning label is the center of the tail. The center of the tail on a Velo is midway between two seams, in contrast to many other canopies where the center is marked by a seam. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

I am interested in why you are flying a conservative canopy at a relatively high wingloading, as opposed to getting a more HP canopy. The only reason I could think of is because you are into wingsuiting, but it does not say that on your profile. This is NOT an attack in any way - just trying to understand your choice. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

That is for the S&TA to judge, but to give you examples of unsafe practices - not flying a predictable pattern, cutting other jumpers off, repeatedly hitting obstacles, repeated low turns..... Nothing at this point because, per my original point, this system is not working. The DZO has a responsibility to appoint a S&TA who can make those judgements for the safety of all at the DZ. That is equally true of AFF at the moment. There is variability between AFFIs about what constitutes passing a level. It is easy to throw up objections like this, but I do not buy the fact that no evaluation is a good answer to evaluator variability. Not necessarily. Someone can spend thousands of jumps on the same canopy without really exploring its capabilities. I have seen numerous jumpers with thousands of jumps who can't fly a canopy worth a shit and who are basically hanging there like a passenger crossing their fingers for a good landing. Some form of mandatory canopy education would have helped them during their progression. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

To look at this from another perspective - what about enforcement of a new BSR? We do have the framework in place to prevent unsafe downsizing (S&TA and DZO grounding jumpers) but it seems that very few DZs are actually doing it. Why? Bill von Novak states the following in the introduction to his downsizing checklist: "Maybe the approach I was taking was wrong. Since jumpers tend not to listen to other people who tell them they're not as good as they think they are, perhaps if you could give them better tools to evaluate _themselves_ they could make better decisions about canopy choices. It's one thing to have some boring S+TA guy give you a lecture about not having any fun under canopy, quite another to try to perform a needed maneuver under canopy - and fail. In that case there's no one telling you you can't fly the canopy, it's just blatantly obvious." This approach will not solve all our problems, because there will still be S&TAs and DZOs who don't care to enforce the new BSR. However, for those who do want to enforce it, a BSR requiring skill demonstration gives a jumper something to work towards, and "forces" them to focus on canopy skills - at least for a few jumps. In other words - "Show me you can do all the things on this checklist and you might be ready for your next canopy" is much more palatable for an eager young jumper to hear and much easier for an instructor to enforce than "No, you can't do it because you are 50 jumps short". The other outcome of requiring jumpers to complete the skills on the "downsizing checklist" is that some jumpers may scare themselves attempting some of the drills such as flat turn 90 degrees at 50 feet, landing crosswind or landing with rear risers. Some of those jumpers may decide that they are not ready for a smaller canopy. It is true that we cannot put people into a dangerous position such as an imminent canopy collision at 50 feet to test them, but in my view some kind of test of ability is far preferable that an arbitrary set of jump numbers. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

Personally, if I was not grandfathered in - I would just ignore the BSR. Edited to add: If one of the experienced guys on the DZ told me I was being a danger - either to myself or others - then I would certainly listen to that and do something about it, including changing canopy if that was the only answer. My point is that without re-enforcement from people on site, BSRs are just a pointless waste of paper. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

I have a couple of female friends who went through AFF this year and who complained about not having the strength to complete the flare on larger canopies. Have someone watch you land (or even better video you landing so you can see it) and see if you are using all the flare on your canopy. Other common problems with landing stem from not letting the canopy fly fully for 10 seconds before flaring. This robs you of airspeed which you could otherwise convert to lift for a soft landing. I thoroughly recommend a canopy course, too. Have fun! "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

Thanks Ian - the video makes it very clear. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

My understanding of what should happen next is that they all go to the S&TA who assesses the situation and makes a final decision. If the jumper doesn't like it he doesn't get to jump. Simple. What I don't fully understand is why is this system not working. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

I agree with all your points. I don't want this thread to fall into the all to familiar "bash-defend" cycle that dz.com is peppered with, but to respond to your post: 1. I agree that I could put myself at a lower risk than I am doing, and I accept that. 2. The DZO and S&TA where I jump are aware of my jump numbers, ability and canopy/WL. 3. If there was a BSR which stated I could not jump this canopy yet, and I could ignore it - I would. Again, I agree with your points and accept the risks. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

I am not saying that a WL BSR is necessarily over-regulation. I am saying that a WL BSR based on meaningless parameters is an unnecessary one, and is therefore over-regulation. I came to the conclusion that most people in the sport don't want over-regulation from reading the hundreds of threads on dz.com and speaking to many people at many dropzones, including those in the UK who view the BPA as the "Ban Parachuting Association" precisely because of over-regulation. If my supposition is wrong, why bother with a BSR (which many people will ignore if they don't like it)? Let's go for a wing-loading FAR. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

That's just bull. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

But setting the precedent for writing BSRs based on meaningless parameters must surely be viewed as negative. Most people in this sport are against over-regulation, so in order to be fair to the majority, we must ensure any regulations which are introduced are based on hard facts and data. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

[devil's advocate] So if even this guy could not handle it, then perhaps all high performance canopies should be banned for the safety of all? [/devil's advocate] "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

That's your experience. My personal experience after 3 full dislocations (none of this half-assed subluxation shit ) is that surgery has worked just fine. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

One more thing - make sure you think about how you are going to do the following things with one shoulder dislocated: 1. Deploy your parachute 2. Perform EPs 3. Flare for landing. Prepare for the worst and hope for the best. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

Does truly quartering your slider have a different effect than pulling it out a little in front of the nose? I have been doing the latter, but would consider a balanced quartering method if it will speed up my openings a little. Assuming in both cases they grommets are against the stops. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

Says the guy jumping a Falcon 195! "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

Lightly tapered canopies can be fine for newer jumpers if appropriately loaded. Have a look at http://www.performancedesigns.com/pd.asp, the Spectre, Pulse and Sabre2 are all lightly tapered and are recommended in the "Novice" category. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

There are a lot of factors to consider when choosing a canopy (without even going into what size you want). The best advice I can give is to demo some and find out what fits your needs. Without knowing what qualities you are looking for in a wing (and you probably don't know yet yourself) here is a list of models you might want to consider when you are ready for your first canopy. Navigator Safire2 Sabre2 Pilot Pulse Spectre There are probably others to consider. With regards to openings, learn to be consistent with your packing - specifically ensuring the slider is right up to the stops and maintaining line tension. Finally, for your shoulder - consider using one of these - http://www.painreliever.com/bauerfeind_omotrain.html. Whatever you decide, speak to a number of different experienced jumpers and instructors to gather a range of opinions. Good luck. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

This is what I do. I have all 4 in my hands (2 per hand), just below the toggles, and pull away from the center. No concerns about getting fingers trapped if it does spin up? I just started jumping an elliptical and am finding that doing absolutely nothing except remaining symmetrical in the harness with feet and knees together is giving me the best results. (Note: I only have 7 jumps on the elliptical so far). "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

0% If one ever thinks one has achieved perfection, one stops trying to improve. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

It is still one man's opinion. If I say "banning skydiving will immediately stop all skydiving related deaths" that WILL save more people than Germain's chart. It doesn't mean it is the right solution. Is this a deliberate attempt at misunderstanding? My point is that if all the "experts" on DZ.com can't come to a consesnus about when a person is fit to fly a certain canopy then the answer is not as obvious as some might want to make it seem. All the people I asked agreed that I am fine jumping what I do, and frankly they count more to me than a faceless committee somewhere. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

Why is it a problem? It is not a law. It's one guy's recommendation. This thread shows that there is no consensus - in the dz.com community, at least. I am glad I just downsized. If you "experts" can't agree - it can't be all that drastically wrong. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA