Hooknswoop

You are absolutely right of course. Can't have it both ways. I think the best conditions to learn to hook turn under is with as big a canopy as possible, to keep the speeds as low as possible, but with the longest recovery arc possible. It is a trade-off. Smaller canopy for longer recovery arc, bigger canopy for slower speeds. My best feeling is a fully elliptical (tapered) at about 1.5-1.6:1 wing loading. A Stiletto, Cobalt, Crossfire, Heatwave, something along those lines. Smaller or bigger jumpers may have to adjust those numbers to account for the smaller or larger canopies needed to get that wing loading. Obviously, only after proficiency is achieved on the canopy at that loading, or even better, get proficient on a slightly smaller canopy, then up-size on size to learn to hook. High enough loading and small enough canopy that the recovery arc isn't too short, with a super-fast canopy. I think it is a bad idea to hook a Manta 288, the margins of error is simply too small. Learning to hook turn on a VX-79 is also a bad idea, the speed is simply too high. Somewhere in the middle has to be the ideal canopy/wing loading combination to learn on. I think learning to hook turn is extremely dangerous because the pilot doesn't know he is too low until it is too late. We can see immediately after or even before our turn if we are to low and fix it before it becomes an issue. That is because we have the sight picture of what it is supposed to look like. Without that sight picture, they are guessing. What do you think? Hook

Good question. The way I percieve it is as my canopy slows towards it's natural (or steady state, we are defining a new new vocabulary here ) speed, it is returning to it's natural glide angle. They meet at the same time. As it decelerates it continues to return to it's natural glide angle, unitl it is at it's natural glide angle and speed. I believe it is because my body has more drag than the canopy. Good debate. Hook

My VX doesn't return to shallower than it's natural glide angle after an aggressive turn. If it did, it would slow down below it's normal glide speed, then surge foward as it regained it's natural glide angle and speed. It doesn't. It's OK to disagree. But someone learning to swoop falls into the corner trap very easily. Even if they use the double fronts, if they let off a little too early, they plane out too high, so they are always either turning a little low or letting off the doubles a little late. They are constantly in the corner with little margin of error. It is a trade off between speed and recovery arc. Slowest speed possible with the longest recovery arc possible gives the best enviroment for learning to swoop. At some point on the gragh, the speed and recovery arc lines cross. I could very well be completely wrong though. Hook

Right. Also the more drag the canopy has, the farther foward you'll be and more likely to plane out w/o input. If there isn't enough drag to make the canopy "sit back", no plane-out. Hook

This is the exact trap that I have seen and why I feel learning to hook w/ too big a canopy (with too short a recovery arc) is dangerous. The pilot is constantly in the corner to prevent the possibility of planing out too high, ending up w/ an ankle burner of a landing. The largest canopy I have seen climb w/o input was a Stiletto 120. It really aggravated the pilot. It didn't climb much, but it did climb. Fair enough. You are probably right in the majority of cases. The canopy has to be fairly small and loaded up to not plane out w/o input, i.e. negative recovery arc. Hook

My experience in comparing the "1" and "2": The 2 had a shorter recovery arc, better opening, and more flare. Hook

What size/wing loading was the Safire Again, what size/wingloading? Try to get a Crossfire2 89 loaded at 2.1:1 to plane out w/o input. You're right, I did miss the point of your post. And you're right, that at some point as a person downsizes (if they do it slowly enough), the canopy they fly will plane out exactly level with the ground w/o input. Hook

No one has questioned a DZO's right to make any rules they wish. that does not mean we cannot discuss any rules we feel are wrong. Why do you have the 1.5:1 max wing loading rule? You are pilot. Do you consider the FAR's subjective and meaningless? It is possible to file a waiver for FAR's (i.e. demonstration jumps) that the FAA may grant. Does that make FAR's subjective and meaningless? Hook

Exactly, it is implied. They don't list a reason why they have that limit. Do you think it is unreasonable to believe they have the rule because they think anything over 1.5:1 is unsafe? Or they have the rule to discourage fun jumpers? Why do you think they have the 1.5:1 limit? Good question for the original poster, did they offer him rental gear? I never said everyone can handle 1.5:1, but it is unreasonable to say no one can handle 1.5:1. I could easily say you are assuming they limit exit weight to 254 because of TSO-23C, not a far reach though, is it? TSO 23B and D have different lmits. What id I was 254 under a PD-106R which is limited to 220? Would it then be OK to jump there? I could easily understand, and support a rule that says "All jumpers must be within the certified weight limits of their equipment". But they didn't do that. Why? I agree that jumping at a DZ w/ insurance is nice, but if they are an USPA member, you are covered. I'm not impressed witht he GM program anyway, but if a DZ is a member, they shouldn't discourage fun jumpers. The only rule that I think they have that does that is the 1.5:1 max wing loading rule. If I went out to the DZ, I wouldn't be allowed to jump. Not because I am unsafe, but because when you divide my exit wieght by the square footage of my main, it comes out to more than 1.5. Seems unfair and silly to me. I am all for safety, but be realistic. Hook

I completely support and understand that a DZO has the right to make any rules they want to. I don't think anyone has said different. This argument keeps coming up, but no one is saying the DZO doesn't have the right to make any rules they want to. We all agree on this point. Let's move beyond that. And there is a very good safety reason for this rule. This rule only applies to one of 2 landing areas. If you don't agree with it, you can still jump, and you can either abide by it a land in the closer landing area, or not, and landing the larger landing area. I didn't say USPA should require DZO's to let jumper jump at their DZ's, nor did I say that the USPA should prevent DZO's from running their business they way they feel they should. I did say that if you don't want fun jumpers at your DZ, you shouldn't have your DZ be a Group Member of USPA. And that is my point. Either 1) They made the rule as a knee-jerk reaction to a landing incident or 2) they are trying to discourage fun jumpers from jumping at the DZ. If it is #1, they are kidding themselves. Will they lower it to 1.4:1 if someone gets hurt at 1.5:1? Eventually the max wingloading will be 0.1:1, until someone gets injured at that wingloading. If it is #2, fine, again, it's their DZ to do with as they choose, but don't wave the USPA GM banner and not let USPA members jump their. I have in the past not allowed someone to jump a canopy that they couldn't handle, and I would do it again. I am not against safety. I am against the idea that a certain wingloading is safe and above that isn't, regardless of the pilot's skills. Can we agree that it is a silly rule? I mean, c'mon, Airspeed couldn't jump there. Hook

Depends on the canopy and wing loading. MY VX will not plane out w/o input. My Safire will climb w/o input. So that rule doesn't always hold true. Hook

I have yet to see a DZ fill the tanks to the top. most refuel every 3-4 loads. Not to say that some DZ's don't top off every load. I think a max total weight is a great idea, an individual max weight isn't necessary, unless the DZ wanted to enforce the TSO'd limits. Hook

But they discriminating. If their concern is safety, I could argue that I am safer at 1.6:1 (and other jumpers too), that some jumpers w/ 500 jumps at 1.5:1. Their rule definately prevents a lot of jumpers from jumping there, safe jumpers. Why else would they make that rule othere than to keep fun jumpers away. You are correct, they allow fun jumpers, but they do discourage quite a few safe jumpers with this rule. I still haven't heard a good reason for this rule. Hook

I could name 3 DZ's right now that don't have they advertise in jumpships. You are absolutey right. Hook

For the same reason no one would accept my sign in my Sandwich shop example. I probably wouldn't care if I wasn't 'unwelcome' because of the rule. They do AFF there and if a student can hit the landing area, most fun jumpers can. They must be aware that their rules prevent a lot of jumpers from skydiving there. Obviously the original poster felt his safety level was being called into question, as he felt he should defend his choice of main canopy. You call it an assumption, I call it a conclusion. If they had a great reason, such as the airport management imposed the rule as a condition of continuing to operate on the airport, or their insurance company mandated the rule, then why not say that next to the 1.5:1 rule? I very well could be wrong and missing something that would change my mind completely, but in this case, I doubt it. Edit: Maybe I am a bit untrusting of DZ's, but if every DZ had every jumpship they listed as having, there would be a lot more jumpships in the country. Hook

Very good points, hard to argue with them. I guess my real hang-up is they are being un-truthfull, which bugs me. Make rules in the name of safety, great, it is hard to be against safety, right? But don't make rules to keep fun jumpers away in the name of safety. If a DZO doesn't want fun jumpers, fine, but don't hide behind safety rules. The original poster wasted a 1.5 hour drive to go give these people his money, and they rudely turned him away. They have updated their web page which shuld help prevent future occurances, but they should simply change it to read "NO FUN JUMPERS ALLOWED". Hook

Consider the Safire2 or Sabre2. Don't worry about getting bored. Hook

Part 105, TSO's, safety, any number of reasons you aren't allowed to jump a BASE rig from an airplane. Don't piss on my head and tell me it's raining. Hook

I think requiring a Cypres is different than a max wing loading rule. I think you are right, they do not want experienced jumpers there, but they should admit it, don't hide behind a 'safety' rule. Drop the USPA Group Membership if you don't want fun jumpers there. Don't be hypocritical. (Not you, the DZ). Can't have it both ways. I completely agree that it is the DZO's choice and right to make rules as he/she sees fit. But again, don't decide you don't want fun jumpers and hide behind a 'safety' rule to keep them away. Don't put up a USPA GM banner and not allow fun jumpers to jump there. Make rules, but make them for good reason. Stand up and do what is right. If I owned a sandwich shop, could I post a sign that said "This business refuses to serve Chinese people due to the threat of SARS"? I could claim I was doing it for the safety of my customers, that it would be bad for business if one of my customers caught SARS in my sandwich shop and died. Even though I knew nothing about SARS and was only posting the sign because I didn't like Chinese people and didn't want them in my shop. (I don't really dislike Chinese people). Hook

What if someone goes in with a main-reserve entanglement, no skydiving rule, or no main rule? What if an AAD misfires, causing a main-reserve entangelment, a no-AAD rule? I agree that a DZ wouldn't allow either of us to jump w/ our BASE rigs, for a number of reasons, one of which is that it isn't in-line with the industry standard. I disagree that it is their right to decide that I am less-safe than they are. I take that as a personal insult. I have more skydives than any of them, and more ratings. I fly a canopy at a higher wing loading, successfully, than any of them. I have never been injured. I think they are kidding themselves if they believe they are safer than any number of highly experienced skydivers that have a wing loading of 1.6:1. I also think that by drawing the line at 1.5:1, they are saying anything above that is unsafe, otherwise they would have a rule that anyone over 1.5:1 would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine if they will be allowed to jump there. If I showed up at SK with an AAD and a 1.6 wing loading, I wouldn't be allowed to jump, even though I would be arguably safer than most, if not all, of the other jumpers on the DZ. The 1.5:1 wing loading rule is a close-minded absurd rule. Hook

Why would anyone w/ a wing loading over 1.5:1 be unwelcome? So why would I be unwelcome? Why would Airspeed be unwelcome? Why would so many other jumpers be unwelcome. Would you be welcome w/ less than 500 jumps and your 136? Is this the case at SK? A small landing area? How do they teach AFF then? Based on what? They could just as easily cater only to jumpers with round mains and reserves, and it would be just a silly. Obviously I was referring to the other GK's, with Stilettos. And AZ Airspeed, and all the other good 4-way teams out there. And how about the best free-fliers?, nope not welcome. From another KS jumper: I jump at a single C-182 dz and make about 200-250 jumps a year. It is possible, just have to have teh dedication to watch the wind blow somedays *** SK's staff doesn't jump much. No way around that. How did they figure out the 1.5:1 max wing loading rule? I get the impression, that SK is a small student-oriented DZ that doesn't want visiting fun jumpers. Fine, they should drop their USPA Group Membership, and go about their merry way. I don't believe a DZ should be a GM and not allow fun jumpers. Now I know they do allow fun jumpers, but they definitely discriminate. Their rules are for safety why else would they have them?)? That implies anyone that doesn't fit into their 1.5:1, AAD, etc mold is un-safe. Hence the rules and the rude treatment the original poster was given. Not exactly a family atmosphere, for outsiders anyway. Hook

Works for me, RI metal & capped inserts and RWS metal & capped inserts are the way to go. Did RI switch to plastic? Hook

LOL- They must have revised it. The kit wasn't expensive. I'm not sure of the exact amount, but $20.00-ish. Very easy retro-fit. I don't know if RI ever had metal inserts for the risers. RWS inserts are the way to go though. Hook

My Javelin is under TSO C23c, 254 lbs./150 kts My Micron is under TSO C23b standard, up to 5000lb shock load, for which there is a chart. A set of numbers are 200 mph with 400 lbs. I am 213 lbs. under that. For 150 mph it is 660 lbs. I am 473 lbs. under that. Reserve Max Weight: 220 lbs. I am 33 lbs. under that. They can't bring high level coaching w/ a 1.5:1 wing loading restriction. I learned to skydive at a 2-Cessna DZ, just like SK. I still averaged 250 jumps/year there. As for the season, KS can't have worse WX than CO, and I have been jumping year-round here. I completely agree that they have every right to make any rules they wish. I even understand why they would want to make the rules they have. They obviously are commited to safety, which is a great thing. But again, their rules brand me and many other skydivers (AZ Airpseed, Golden Knights, etc.) as unsafe skydivers, unable to jump at their DZ. Does anyone really think Airspeed is un-safe? Besides SK, I mean. Hook

I've flown out of IAH (Bush Intercontinential) twice since 9/11, and didn't have a problem carring on my rig. If you have a problem, show them the airlines policy for carry-on of sport rigs. If that doesn't work, ask for a representive from the airline. Remember, the airport security doesn't work for the airline. Hook