Hooknswoop

A wing stalls because a crtitical angle of attack is exceeded. This angle of atack can be exceeded at any airspeed. A canopy stalls at a higher airspeed on rear risers than toggles because toggles change the shape of the wing similar to flaps. pulling the tail down (or dropping flaps on an aircraft) changes the critical angle of attack a wing will stall at. With the tail pulled down (or flaps extended) a wing can still produce lift at a slower airspeed without stalling. An Otter will stall at a slower airspeed than a Lear jet (with no flaps extended on either aircraft). The trade off is the Lear's wing has less drag and the aircraft has a higher cruise speed. Derek

That was my first thought, a tank under the water relasing a large amount of air to cushion the impact. Derek

You have put yourself in a very risky position. I would recommend either upsizing or a canopy control course, or both. If you make a mistake, it may cost more than you are willing to pay. Too many people follow the advice, "downsize till it hurts, then go up one size." Derek

From another thrad: Derek

That is still a debate. He had a drogue out to stabilize him. I count my drogue-fall time with tandems as free fall time. I am on the side of counting his jump as free fall. Derek

It wouldn't be a restriction, they could work w/ pre-A license skydivers, but don't have too. They could focus only on canopy skills if they want to. Wheather or not a CI has to be a Coach is one of the finer details I didn't put a lot of thought into. Derek

Amazing that it is being well received this time around isn't it? That is why I wrote what I did, the real world. Real injuries. Real deaths. Greater than signing some off for their "A" license? Greater than singing someone off to be an AFFI?Don't want the responsibility? Don't get the rating. If you aren't willing to accept the responsibility and associated risk, then don't get the rating or accept the appointment. I declined an S &TA appointment not too long ago and have allowed my AFFI/E, S/L I/E, and TDM I/E ratings to expire. Which is why it should be an industry standard. Are you saying we can't do anything to stop the canopy incidents because of liability? Of course not, "I signed off J. Smith to a 1.3 WL from a 1.2 WL after demonstrating the ability to handle the higher wingloading following USPA's detailed training program and administered the canopy test according to USPA's detailed testing criteria." Again, make it industry standard. Then don't be an S &TA if you can't do the job. Um, yes, I didn't say they didn't. Of course they still want me to pull. Busting the hard deck doesn't mean they don't want me to not pull. You don't think that the MPA BSR's were created to curb low-pulls? If, not, then what is their purpose? So, pulling at 500 feet on a regular basis does not increase the risk of going in? And I thought having enough altitude to deal with any problems was a good idea. Heck, why not make Cypres's mandatory and abolish the MPA BSR's? Then let's throw the rule book away…………..? Quote The lack of a WL BSR is allowing an increasing rate of injuries and fatalities. The current system isn't. And this is more likely to happen on a faster canopy than a slower one. Exactly, he thought he had enough altitude. He didn't. On a larger canopy, he would have had enough altitude. Had he done "abc" maneuver dozens of times on a larger canopy, gotten some canopy control training before downsizing, he would have been much less likely to try "abc" maneuver as low on the smaller canopy as he had on the larger canopy. Exactly. And not downsizing too quickly and canopy training can correct both "not enough information" and using an incorrect procedure. That isn't working and it isn't getting better, it is getting worse. So what is the solution to the "people problem"? Letters to parachutist? Not working. And they were right. Canopy incidents have far outpaced free fall incidents. And we still haven't kept pace with canopy development. We are always one step behind. Doesn't work, as you example demonstrates. If they are determined not to listen, they won't. If they are determined to fly a canopy they shouldn't, they will. I found out today that someone I spent the entire time I repacked their reserve lecturing now has black and purple legs from their knees to their ankles. He was convinced I was wrong. He impacted on one side of a taxi way and landed on the other. Had he hit the taxi way, it would have turned out much different. That just pisses them off. Convinced that they are being held back and that others just don't want to be shown up. Then they go out and hook it in. I got 2 speeding tickets in 1995. None since. I don't speed anymore. Rules worked for me. Rules will prevent someone from jumping too small of a canopy. Rules will ensure that people get the canopy control training they need. Things are getting worse, not better. If nothing changes, it will get worse still. You don't like my idea? OK, I can live with that. What's your solution? Derek

I agree, emotional distress doesn't give you the right to be an ass to me. I would have told him to 1) put my rig down, 2) take his attitude and shove it, and 3) a pillow reserve handle has worked for me for 10 cutaways, so get bent.. See why I don't hang out at the DZ anymore? Derek

Adding weight increases weight without adding surface area. Putting on 20 lbs. is not going to be compensated for by enough area to keep the same terminal velocity. the added weight increases terminal velocity more than the added surface area slows you down, net result is a faster terminal velocity. Derek

Because there is no air resistance, only gravity, which acts on all ogjects equally. Because it has been filled with weight in order in crease it's density without increasing it's surface area. Right, which is why they have different terminal velocities in air. Derek

Same reason a bowling ball has a higher terminal velocity that a soccer ball. Density and surface area of the object and denisty of the air it is falling through determine terminal velocity. Derek

Sure, but at the course, candidates didn't have to land accurately or gracefully in order to get the AFFI rating. They could also be completely unable to teach canopy control. I think the most we did for CC, was to wander out to the boarding area and vaguely mumble, "downwind, base, final, ARE YOU READY TO SKYDIVE!?", and off we went. Derek

It doesn't have to be that specific. If you are licensed or waivered to a 1.3 WL, then it can be an elliptical or a square. If a square is appropriate, but not an elliptical, then that is where the S & TA's step in. There are D licensed skydivers that because of gear choices, and/or ability to handle a high speed malfunction that should not be pulling at 2,000 feet, even though they are licensed to. This is where the S & TA steps in. Imagine if there were not MPA BSR's, S & TA's would not be able to identify and deal with the number of people that pulled to low for their ability. They would be overwhelmed, and skydivers that shouldn't be pulling low be and going in because of it. The MPA BSR's filter most of the problems out, leaving the problems that are left easy to identify and deal with. I agree, but in 1999 when I took the AFFCC, zero emphasis was put on teaching canopy control, and a candidates ability or inability to teach canopy control was neither tested or observed. You could be a very poor canopy pilot and canopy control instructor and pass the course. Canopy control Instruction is way behind. Creating a CI would focus attention on creating CC Instructors and courses at all DZ's. Derek

There really should be a seperate card for the reserve, aad, and container. Derek

The S & TA system doesn't keep skydivers from flying too small of canopies. The new guide in the SIM's is helpful for skydivers looking for advice on canopy decisions. Because it is not a BSR, it does not carry any weight and doesn't make the S & TA's job much, if any, easier. I do not want to include minimum canopy sizes into a WL BSR. The BSR is not deigned to be exact and detailed, it is designed to a, give S&TA's a real guideline to enforce, make canopy training mandatory for everyone, allow new, aggressive skydivers to gain enough experience before downsizing top , much. If a skydiver is at either end of the weight spectrum, the CI, S&TA, i/e, can either enforce a larger canopy requirement (as they can now), or waiver them to a smaller canopy. This is currently the system, but for several reasons, it doesn't work. With a BSR, there will be less problems of skydivers downsizing too quickly, allowing the focus to be on the ones that still wish too downsize quickly. With the reduced workload, it is my hope that the system will begin to work. The minimum pull altitude works because a, most people realize that it is a good idea, 2, it is a rule and violating the rules can carry consequences, 3it has been around a long time as is simply considered the norm4 it is simple, without a lot of exceptions. and allowances. The MPA BSR is usually enforced because few people violate it and when it does happen, it stands out, bring the attention of the S&TA. The proposed WL BSR would work the same way. Looking at the proposed WL BSR from the newer jumper's perspective, it only affects (except for the additional cc training required for each license) skydivers that want to push their limits. They still can, but will be required to demonstrate that they are not pushing too hard and that they understand the more advanced cc concepts. Those are the two keys for survival as WL goes up. Smaller canopies combined with higher WL's result in more injuries not so much because they can hit the ground harder, but because everything happens faster. This means that with a larger, slower canopy the pilot has more time to decide the correct response to changing conditions, and more time to react to mistakes. With a small canopy at a high WL, there is much less time to make critical decisions and a mistake at a higher altitude can result in an incident and are less forgiving of a mistake. The faster you dive a car, the more distance you must leave between you and the car in front of in order to have the same safety level as you have at slower speeds. Same thing with faster canopies, you have to be mentally farther ahead of where you are than on a slower canopy. For example, with my vx-60 I am turning final where most people are starting their downwind. It takes me about 8 seconds from 1000 feet to landing. There is almost no room for error and I must be thinking well ahead of the canopy. We have , minimum pull altitudes to keep skydivers alive. We need a BSR to curb the increasing number of cc incidents. Why not do it? If you an exceptional canopy pilot and want to downsize quickly, you will be able to. If you think you are an exceptional canopy pilot, but aren't and you want to downsize quickly, you won't be able to. Isn't that how it should be? Derek

If you are not 100% sure you can land your main, cutaway and pull your reserve. 50/50 is bad odds when you have a rigger inspected and packed reserve on your back. You would feel really dumb landing a questionable main with a good reserve still available. Derek

another example of USPA having to choose between jumpers or DZ's, with the DZ"s winning. Derek

First, it is best to decide what you would do BEFORE you get into a situation. Second, the cost of a reserve re-pack, and the risk of gear should not be a factor when deciding to cutaway. It should simply not enter in the process. Life-flight helicopter pilots are not told the severity of the injury. This is because they may go ahead with a flight they normally wouldn't based on the knowledge that if they don't the patient will die. This risks the pilot, the flight nurses, and the helicopter. Derek

Under 'The Proposal', you won't need a "D" license to have an unlimited wingloading. You would need to complete all the training for A through D and be signed off, but only actually need an A license. Derek

That's the plan Derek

I agree that connecting it to the large ring of the 3-ring is a bad idea, but I tested it on the ground and couldn't make the 3-ring hang up with a brass RSL shackle connected to the large 3-ring of a mini-ring system. Derek

Everything in moderation, including excess. Derek

The way I've seen it done is the jumpship flys into the wind on jump run, someone keys the exits about 3 seconds apart, and the jumpers track perpendicular to the line of flight as far as they can. They must deploy by 2,500 feet. A ground crew is standing by to see who opens the farthest away and picks everyone up. Derek

Re-connect it to the cutaway cable housing. Make sure it is not routed around or through anything. Derek

That's an interesting thought.