Pulse

You can only experience so much within 150 jumps. Who cares if he can land well, that's not the point. What about when things go bad? In my experience, just because someone is an instructor doesn't mean they have the best advice. It's not smart....that's all I can say. I'm not a guru, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night. "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

I don't know if one is exactly 'safer' than the other. Like everything else, it depends what it's use is. There are still plenty of applications for round canopies. "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

I don't really think the question is why membership is decreasing. There was a huge surge in students through the 90's for whatever reason. It was a different time. 'Extreme' sports were the 'in' thing. Everyone wanted to be 'crazy'. Maybe the fad is over. Now we're into ipods and video games. Perhaps the growth is simply returning to where it once was. I don't know why we feel the need to get everyone involved in the sport. I don't know why we feel the urge to visit those big beautiful drop zones. I actually like spotting. I'll jump with people who haven't been told over and over how safe the sport. Those who don't use that idiotic "safer than driving" line when trying to convince others to jump. I've made my share of money taking pictures of tandems. The idea of tandem probably started out with the best intentions. What it's become is fairly weak. I think it was said here before. It should be used as a tool....not a carnival ride. But I understand, the dollar is a strong pull. Vent done. "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

I guess I've always seen it as such. Perhaps high-pressure does help some. But that's not to say the higher you load your canopy, the better off you are. I guess I figure even if lower wing loadings are 'more prone' to collapse, you still have more fabric above you if it does. Think about it. People weren't dying under open canopies in the eighties. "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

HA! I love it. Of course it's easy to fall 'somewhat' straight down. It's easy to 'somewhat' dock. It's easy to 'somewhat' swoop. It's easy to hit the target 'somewhat'. What the hell is that? "I got the cute chick 'somewhat'....at least I got her fat friend." Yeah, 'somewhat means nothing. "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

I just figured they were all playing hockey. "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

Can't say one could really nail it down to one reason. I still think 200-jumps is low to be honest. "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

Depends. What kind of canopy are you jumping as a student? "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

1) How does aspect ratio affect the handling? In sport parachutes, we're talking fairly small differences in AR. The number of cells, and shape (elliptical/rectangle) all help determine the AR of a ram-air wing. Basically the higher aspect ratio (AR) a wing has, the more lift it will produce for a given angle of attack. But the high AR wing will stall at a lower AoA. Of course, the greater the difference in in AR the more noticable the effects become. A high AR parachute will tend to have a flatter glide than a low AR parachute because of the reduced 'induced' drag. Turns tend to 'dive' a bit more with a high AR wing also. The low AR wing is good for 'sinking' into a tight area because of it's ability to handle a high AoA without stalling. This is why a lightly loaded 7-cell is desirable when landing in a tight area. (Remember, 'stall speed' has much to do with wingloading also.) In flying low AR designs I've always thought they feel more like they 'pivot' through a turn rather than dive. 2) How much of an effect does line material choice make? Dacron v others I think the main reason for moving from Dacron to spectra and vectran was mainly to reduce 'parasite' drag and pack volume. If you're talking purely canopy performance, spectra or vectran offers less drag. This type of drag increases with speed. 2Xairspeed = 4Xparasite drag. So you are only going to see the benefits on higher-loaded canopies. Or rather, the faster your canopy, the more effect it will have. Spectra, or 'microline' was found to shrink over time and the canopy would become out of trim. This affected openings and flying characteristics. Again, becoming more important as wing-loading increases. In short, spectra or vectran offer less drag. But be sure you replace them when needed......which would go for Dacron too. "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

Stay nervous. Make it 'work' for you. There is good worry and bad worry. Make it good. "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

At least my old Sabre-170 was terrible in the slightest bit of turbulence. It was jumping all over the place where others almost hadn't noticed any turbulence at all and I choose to stay on ground a lot more with it than I feel I have to do with my Safire2-139. With the safire, it takes a lot more turbulence to affect the canopy to the same degree. I believe it is due to its higher speed, thus both penetrating the turbulent areas faster and keeping a higher pressure in the canopy. We have had much different experiences and there are any number of reasons for that. I flew a Raven III (249 sq ft 7-cell) as a main for my first 300 jumps. It was a 0.8:1 wing loading and I never had any any problems with turbulence that couldn't be traced to my own mistakes. Never did I sit out a load as long as we were jumping. In fact as I started downsizing, I spent more time sitting out loads because I didn't care for the 'twitchy' feeling from turbulence. Higher internal pressure can possibly make the canopy less pron to 'collapse', but it does not make the canopy more stable in regards to being pushed around. Smaller canopies react more radically to input. That input can be induced by the pilot or turbulence. Hence, as wing-loading increases, the same amount of turbulence would have a more pronounced affect on the canopy. Requiring that much more skill on the pilot's part. There is also the idea that what once used to feel like 'radical' turbulence now does not feel all that radical. It becomes a matter of what you're used to. The most dramatic example I've felt of this is when I used to stall my canopies to the point of a 'horseshoe'. It used to feel insane and scary. Of course as I've downsized I haven't been able to do that as much. But after flying a Jedi and Velocity for so long stalling a larger canopy to that level doesn't feel bad at all. And that's experiencing a total collapse! I guess my point in this is that there really is no good reason for downsizing if you're looking at it from a safety perspective. History backs this up. We go on and on about canopy collapses, backing up, and why we 'need' higher wing loadings. If this were true, why were their virtually no landing fatalities during the eighties? "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

Those are simple: USPA would define it using some criteria most people agree on. It is the same with camera jumps: why do you suggested to have minimum 200 jumps before jumping a camera, and not 190 or 300? That's a good question. I don't know who or what they are basing that judgement on. I find 200 jumps for camera flying a bit low, but that's a whole other thread. My question is the 'definition' of high performance has changed over a fairly short period. So if we were to take what may be considered 'high performance' now. People would still be getting killed. Then again, if we took the definition of 'high performance from 12 years ago, it would definitely lower the deathrate but would piss off a lot of jumpers who thought they had conservative wing loadings. "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

>>1. A smaller canopy is more stable in turbulent/gusty conditions Stable how? As for being 'blown around', no they are not. You feel turbulence much more under a smaller canopy and if you're not 'on top of it' in your corrections the situation can deteriorate in a hurry. >>2. A smaller canopy gives better wind penetration But we should be getting out upwind anyway....right? >>3. A smaller canopy is easier to pack I'll bet there is a new jumper out there struggling with their first ZP that would disagree. (I don't don't think this outweighs the safety aspects.) >>4. A smaller canopy allows a smaller container which makes you more aerodynamic in freefall Again, I don't know if this really outweighs the safety considerations. >>5. A smaller canopy gives more speed and thus potentially better landings Something I hear quite often but I will not promote it. The trick to landing is achieving that descent rate of zero and then placing your feet down to start the weight transfer from your harness to your feet. With a low WL this zero descent rate lasts only a short time. I will agree, it is a little harder to judge because it may only last a half-second. With the extra speed on a highly loaded parachute, this zero descent rate lasts a little longer, giving us more time to adjust and put our feet down. Less of a chance of us placing our feet before or after that 'window' of zero descent. I have to give this boring explanation because this same comment is made to justify low turns. "I have to make a low turn, it makes the landings better." Bull...all that tells me is I'm looking at someone who doesn't have a full understanding of what's happening. "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

Increase in drag is the square of increase in speed. 2 times the speed, 4 times the drag, 3 times the speed, 9 times the drag etc. As long as you're talking about parasite-drag. Induced works the opposite way, increasing as speed is decreased. "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

What falls under 'high performance' canopy. Not all that long ago (mid-90's) I read this definition being: Aspect Ratio of 2.5:1, and wing loading of 1.3:1 Does this still hold true? I would still agree but I guess the questions are: Who would determine this? What criteria would we be using? "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

I agree but one simple ingrediant that seems to be missing from the equation is DISCIPLINE. Honestly, I think with canopy pilots excersizing discipline to fly as needed, I think any arrangement can be made to work. But the fact that very few canopy pilots do posess this trait keep many problems from going away. Two cents "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

I started shooting with a fairly long lens, but teams were slower then. Now I'm shooting a .6 lens and it works well for leaving WITH the team and shooting steep. It took some getting used to since I was that much closer but you get used to it. "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

DEFINITELY. I've always felt a MINIMUM requirement for camera-flying is to be able to be WHERE you want to be, WHEN you want to be there. This goes for freefall and canopy flight. The point where you can think about it and you're there. Camera-flying was a bit different when I started. It was more specialized. As cameras got smaller and camera helmets became 'ready-made' more and more people got involved. Not that this is bad in itself. What is bad is that many of the dangers seem to have been forgotten, (or completely unrealized), and much of the 'art' has been lost. One thing I hear a lot from people asking me about getting into camera-flying is, "I don't want to do any 'high level' stuff. I just want to screw around." The fact is whether you're doing 'high level' work or screwing around, you still have a camera on you which can lead itself to new problems. I know this is going to sound elitist, but I've come to the conclusion that there are camera-flyers, and then there's those who jump with cameras on their heads. It's easy to throw a super-wide lens on a small helmet. But the video sucks, and I see a lot of this a drop zones now. My question....why would anyone want to do that? (Now preparing to be flamed.) "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

I think the information has pointed out what the dual-toggle technique is capable of. But there are any number of ways it can be used. "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

Gypsy Moths.....I have to say, probably the best skydiving movie I have ever seen! (I am NOT kidding) "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

It's really a common-sense move in making up the lost lift in a turn. When you direct the lift-vector anywhere away from the vertical your descent rate will increase. That is, unless you're able to increase the canopy's angle-of-attack. That's all you're doing. It also tightens the turn as such. It is akin to pulling back on the yoke of an airplane once you have established your bank angle. "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

It could also be theorized the slower speeds would allow more time to avoid such collisions in the first place. "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

Just for clarity: The mention I made about 'wind gusts' wasn't really about actualy gusts. But rather a reference to what happens when pilots don't keep the wing above their head. It's a common mistake, the jumper is flare unevenly and feels they're going to fall, so they put their hand out to catch themselves. But...the toggle is in their hand, so they end up steering themselves into the ground. Not a life-threatening mistake, but embarassing. It also shows a lack of understanding of what's going on. Usually when this happens the first words you hear out of the jumpers mouth (as they're getting up) is, "Man, I caught a HUGE side gust just as I was flaring." It's funny how the gusts always come as people are flaring. I'm not saying YOU'RE doing this. I'm just clarifying what I meant. "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

Just came across this thread, but here's my two-cents. In my mind, your wing -loading seems a bit high for your experience level. I'm sure you can probably handle it, but it doesn't give you the 'experimentation level' that a lower loading would provide. You haven't mentioned much about your current skills. Before even experimenting with swoop techniques make sure you can consistantly land comfortably in a variety of situations. It should be second nature. If you find yourself falling down because of 'wind gusts' or simply a mis-judged flare, you have no business starting to swoop yet. "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

It's nice to always think there's a way out. But every piece of equipment has it's 'envelope'. From everything I'm hearing, it sounds like these accidents happened outside the envelope for ANY emergency parachutes. "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."