davelepka

I've never seen a canopy do anything wihtout a pilot. With the expection of a few canopies with inherent design flaws (Nova, maybe the Pintail, some early Crossfires) any canopy is safe as fast as a pilot can make it go. 101% doesn't exist, literaly or figuratively, in this case. The basic idea is that there is no speed a canopy can achieve which makes the canopy itself unsafe, as in, not structuraly sound (given that the canopy is in tirm, and the pilot is adhering to safe flight manuvers). The pilot controls how fast a given canopy can go. In the case of a pilot whose skills are developed at or near 100%, he can fly any canopy to it's limit, with a margin of safety. In the case of a pilot who is still developing thier skills (like someone who intends to downsize) the limiting factor needs to be the ultimate speed of the canopy. Once the pilot's skills are such that the untilamte speed of the current wing can be reached, only then, does it make sense to downsize to wing with a higher ultimate speed. Even then, the top speed of the faster canopy is outside of the pilots experience, but he has come as close to it as possible on his last canopy, and in doing so developed as much experience as he could before taking the next step. There will always be an element of risk in jumping a smaller canopy then you have previously. The idea is to mitigate that risk as much as possible.

I think I addressed that up in the thread. It's a long one, and I'm not going to re-read the whoel thing. The idea is that everyone has what they have now, and only when they want to donwsize, do they have to reference the chart. As far as the new grads go, tough shit for them. At one point AFF was 7 jumps, end of story. One day it turned into 20-some jumps with coaches and proficiency cards and who knows what else ( I can't keep track of it all anymore). There were students who started the day after that kicked in, and they got stuck for 1000's of dollars. All this would do is direct their canopy choices a bit. They would have been buying a canopy anyway, now they just have fewer choices. Besides, from where do they draw the knowledge to make their own choices? They've been instructed on every move they've made on the DZ thus far, so I'd be surprised if there were many objections, and if there were, I'd go right back to tough shit. Edit- How about the licensing requirements? I know many jumpers who were scrambling to thier jumps in before the requirements went up. Some made, some didn't. I be surpirsed to see one student say, "Dave got his D license with 200 jumps, why can't I?". Change happens, live with it. Another edit- I agree it would take time and effort, which is why I think this needs to get going TODAY, so we can see some result from it before another Otter full of jumpers goes in with open, functioning canopies.

OK, I suvk , and and will reply to this. You bring up a good point, which if I didn't address in the thread, I did consider. I'm against making this a BSR, but only for the sake of expediency. A BSR takes a looong time to establish, with all sorts of red tape involved. By making this a 'reccomendation' it would speed the process of getting it in place. If it were a 'reccomendation', it could be considered 'standard industry practice' or at a minimum 'emerging standard industry practice', and as the lawyer types will tell you, going against satndard industry practice is a sure way to weaken your waiver if you should end up in court. Keeping in mind the types of incidents I am trying to curtail, that becomes an issue. The over-riding issue here is that you seem to think that any additional rules in this area are not needed. Do you contend that the current state of affairs is acceptable? Do you disagree that the performance envelope of all canopies has grown considerably, while the training has been stagnent? Are you aware that skydiving is the only area in aviation (as far as I know) that has no tiered system in place to pace pilot ability/experience with the equipment they fly?

OK, in that case, keep in mind that any reserve pilot chute is 'jammed' under the cap. Many rigs (Vector, Talon, Infinity) hide this business under the flaps. The Racer exposes the pilot chute completely, and unless packed correctly, you may not be happy with that rig either. Try taking your rig to another rigger for your next repack, show them what you don't like about it, and see if they think they can do better. As far as the canopy goes, the turns on the Stiletto are fast. You should have no problem landing the 190, or even the 170, without any running. Maybe demo both, and see what you think. If you are having to run with either canopy, ask one of the swoopers to watch/film your landing and see what's up.

Didn't you say you were buying one? I wouldn't have 1000's of jumps on my Racer if I thought there was a problem, I'm just wondering why you are switching from your Jav. They are also good rigs, and if you have a problem or complaint, I'd be interested to know what it is. As far as the Stiletto, I also wouldn't have 1000's of jumps on them if they had any problems. I have not had hard openings, nor any line twists on any of my Stilettos. Again, though, why the change from the Sabre2? What are you looking for in a new canopy? My questions are not objections to your choices, but an attempt to understand your motivation for changing your gear. Is your harness ill fitting or uncomfortable? Is the container sizing wrong? Does your Sabre2 open hard, or not on heading? Does the glide and flare performance meet your needs? Knowing what you hope to gain by switching your gear is essential for making reccomendations for alternate equipment.

Whats wrong with the Jav? What are looking for in a new rig? There is nothing wrong with a Stiletto. Edit: Why are you getting rid of the Sabre2? A Jav with a Sabre2 sounds like a solid setup to me.

It's not that bad (sort of). 1. Loose the box, and the ringsight, and anything else besides the helmet and chincup. 2. Use a small piece of thin sheet metal inside the top of the helmet as a reinforcement for where you are going to punch a 1/4 hole through it for a tripod screw to hold the camera. 3. Mount the camera, level and center it, then fill in the gaps around the bottom corners of the camera with something. Newspaper, old socks, whatever, and wrap the sides with gaffers tape. Remove the camera, and tape over the top of the 'stuff', now you have a custom, flush mounting surface. 4. Draw a sight on your goggles with a sharpie marker. You're done. If you just need it for 'every now and again', you'll be changing tapes so infrequently, it shouldnt matter. Take the camera off, change the tape, replace the camera. Get tough and deal with it. Your winde angle lens is not a snag point. Every wide angle lens out there is just waiting to jump off the front of your camera. With surprisingly little force, it will just rip free of your camera. As a back up, your camera won't be all that secure anyway. It'l stay put in freefall, and hold through a mild collision, but if your stuff gets hung up on it, kiss the camera good bye. The last resort is that your entire helmet is only held on your head with a few snaps on the chincup. Modern camera helmets, with cutaway systems, are bolted to your head in a much more secure fashion, unlikely to ever come off unless the jumper intervenes. Your helemet would be easy to unsnap, provided the entaglement didn't rip it off your head first. Good luck.

Here's a similar story, but without the possibiblty of any 'mistakes'. I sold a canopy on here a year or so ago, and it showed up in the classifieds again about a month back, with 300 less jumps, and a higher price. Magical.

I feel better having gotten some of that off of my chest. I'm pretty sure I made every point I had several times, and presented them in a variety of different manners, with hopefully everyone finding one they could relate to. I know that it did help me to clarify some of the thoughts in my head, and line them up in a more orderly fashion. At this point, in the interest of my sanity, I've got to stop. If you have ongoing objections, please re-read the entire thread, I'm sure I've addressed them somewhere in there. If not, lets keep in PM's, and I'll entertain whatever thoughts you may have. So thats it. I'm done. I can't resopnd to any more posts on this thread. Except for Steel, because he hasn't had a chance to respond (or he has, and chose not to), his objections really weren't relevant to the topic of the thread, and like I said, I could be wrong...but I'm not. Thanks for coming out, be sure to tip your waitress...

What I said was, "By no fault of your own", and this was in reference to the holes in the educational process. If the training in canopy control was as advanced as the canopies are, the concept of WL on different size canopies would be discussed in a formal training session. Why? Because it's the same principals behind what differences you will encounter when downsizing. Aside from the increase in WL; the shorter lines, and reduced drag will contribute to your performance increases. If you take the increase in WL out of that equation, you are left with two factors that will contribute to a change in performance (as in a smaller person on a smaller chute at your same WL). This is stuff that jumpers need to know. They are the pilot in command of an aircraft, and need to understand the mechanics behind it. Whats more they are the PIC of an aircraft in an engine-out scenario, and they need to understand the thought process for problem solving and prioritizing whithin a fixed period of time. There are no go-arounds under canpoy. Look at any other area of aviation, and the certification process for more advanced or higher performance equipment is rigid, and structured. Airplanes, helicopters, and hang gliding all have tiered licensing systems, in which your experience level, and your ability to pass a practical exam, come into play before you can upgrade your equipment. My assertion falls far short of that, to a simple jump number. The system as it sits now is inadequate. Your lack of information (again, though no fault of your own, and which should only motivate you to support my cause) shows that the educational side is lacking. The stark difference between the way skydivers are given acsess to canopies in comparison to how other aviation persuits control who flies what shows that the regulatory side is lacking, My suggestion that you re-evalute your argument wasn't meant to demean you. It was meant to show you that you have been shorted in your training, and should feel some contempt for the system that did that.

Nice try, but it comes down to the definition of the word "performance". In terms of canopy flight it can applied to a measurement of turn rate (and recovery from said turns) OR the amount of lift created. Neither is more 'correct' than the other. In truth, in the context of the dialouge in which I made the statement, there is a direct implication that my usage of 'performance' was applied to the first definition I gave above. Edit: I hate to admit it, but I somehow overlooked the obvious argument to support my thoery. Call PD, and ask them what is their highest 'performance' canopy. I would be hard pressed to believe they would tell you the Navigator 300 (or whatever the latgest Nav is). I'm sure that it produces the most lift, and has the slowest stall speed, yet I would bet they would mention the Velo, with it's high turn rate and long recovery arc. I could be wrong.....but I'm not.

I agree 100% with a tunnel aspect to an AFF program, and any DZ close enough to a tunnel to do so would be foolish not to. This situation was different, in that this jumper was post AFF, and unsupervised in his ongoing education. During an AFF course, the structure of the course, and the instructors ensure that the tunnel training plays it's role, AND that the other aspects of the program are not ignored. This jumper was on his own, and contemplating a tunnel camp. Considering the intensive training and focus offered in a tunnel camp, it's easy to see how a jumper could loose his focus on other, important, skills a new jumper needs to develop.

I'm not sure how you could read the following and conclude that the 'crash test' would produce equal resutls. Maybe I should have indicated that the 'scale' I;m refering to is the scale of canopy sizes, with the WL being a constant. This brings up a good point, however, that you would have some confusion as to what I meant. The concept of the smaller canopy producing higher performance at the same WL as a larger canopy should be common knowledge among licensed skydivers. By no fault of your own, you have revealed the deficiency of the educational side of the problem. Again, this is not your fault, but you may want to consider the scope of your knowledge on this subject before proceeding much further with your argument.

It didn't come up unitl later in the thread, but if both is an option, by all means, go with that. I tend to see many newbies become so infatuated with the freefall skills, they pay no attention to their canopy control. They go on to downsize based on jump numbers alone (usually too few jumps in my opinion), and this is where their lacking in skills becomes apparent.

Thanks for making my point for me. After your 60 seconds of freefall ends, the task of making a safe parachute decent begins. I did say if he's got he bucks, go all out and do both, and weather is certainly a factor, but when you sign up for a tunnel camp weeks or months in advance, you're nailing down your priorities right then. Again, I've got nothing against tunnel training, but if you intend to make actual skydives, get your surviaval skills in order first, work on turning points second.

For one, very light poeple do need to make adjustments, as WL produces different results at different points along the scale. For two, if the concept of jumping anything but what the chart indicated was unkown to you, you would feel no restrictions. Just as the different restrictions for pull alt. for the different licenses, or the need to have a B? license for night jumps. People with an A don't question it, because thats the way it is (I think, I'm so fuzzy on the licenses and restrictions that my facts may be off, but you get the idea). I'm sure that if we could get a chart in place, it would only apply to those jumpers buying gear from that point forward. Everyone could keep what they had at the time, and downsize as their jump numbers got to the point where they could buy a smaller canopy, and still be within the specs.

Your opinion is that it will boost his confidence. How about the concept of shifting his focus away from a skill set that he will use on EVERY jump, and one who's lacking has caused the majority if incidents for the several years running? Anyone, making any sort of jump, is open to have a horrible skydive. In the wake of such a jump, while under canopy is not the time to have to 'learn' good canopy control. Get the training out of the way first, so when the inevitable bad jump comes up, navagating yourself safely down is second hand. I'm not aginst tunnel training, but I think 16 jumps is a little early to sign up for a tunnel camp. The time and cost are much better spent (at that level) on some canopy coaching. If the guy can afford both, go for it. Or how about canopy coaching in Deland, with a night trip to split an hour in the tunnel with a couple other guys? That would be aton of fun, and get him some tunnel time as well. It just seems like his focus at this early satge is a bit ahead of where it should be.

If your son is too young to jump, by all means, it's tunnel time. My boy will be in there before he's 8. The jumper in question, however, is an (almost) license skydiver, and having passed AFF, his abilty to be stable, and pull on his own have been established. As we all know, the canopy training in the AFF program is very minnimal, at best. As a perosn who will be making actual parachute decents, the value of additional training in canopy control cannot be measured. Open canopy incidents have been doing the most damage to skydivers for several years running, and that is simply not acceptable.

Didn't Patrick fly a WS in a horizontal wind tunnel by attaching an anchor point to his belly button area leading to floor out in front of him? It seems like the same principal, aside from the much higher possibility of death or disfigurment doing it out in the real world. I'm sure I saw some video of this, and he may have had some tethers to keep him from straying too far off center and hitting the wall.

Thats when you tell them that in addition to the inspect and repack, you adjusted their Johnson Rod and tuned their Flux Capacitor at no charge.

Which is why this issue needs to be based not on advice, but on hard numbers. Again, a newbie asks, "Whats a good pull altitude for me?", the answer is anything over what BSR's permit for your experience. It's not up to the opinion of whomever you should ask. Lets face it, many 'experienced' skydivers are idiots. Not that they're not nice people, but some are better at giving good, relevant advice than others. Defining 'experienced' is another matter. When I first started jumping, anyone with 500 jumps was, in my eyes, the top of the ladder. Sure, I knew that others had 1000's of jumps, but I was sure that once you hit 500, you pretty much knew it all. It's not uncommon today to see a guy with 1000 jumps who's only been in the sport for 3 years. Here's a guy who's jumped non-stop at a year round DZ, maybe been to a couple boogies, but for the most part has a fairly limited view of skydiving in general. It's not his fault, it's just his situation. Compare him to guy who has 1000 jumps over the course of, say, 6 years. Here's a guy who's been more places, met more people, and just has a broader and more long term view of skydiving. You're going to get two very different answers from those two guys, who, on the surface, both have 1000 jumps, and both seem like good skydivers. The fact is that we do have a problem, which we can take steps tp prevent. I know that developing the educational program is a daunting task. Between establishing a cirriculum, and when to introduce it, and how to certify who can teach it (because lets face it, some AFF I's can't fly a parachute for shit), there's alot to cover. But adopting such a WL chart is a snap. Fax a copy to every DZ in the book today, and say, "Starting now, all your students need to be within these guidelines as they get off student status". Done. Over. Every student who graduates will know that this is the way it is, and this is what they have to work with. Why does that seem so hard. The only people who are resistant are those who have known another option. Do you really think that a jumper will get off student status, look at the chart, and say, "Thats bogus, I quit"?

Thank you. This is the point I'm trying to make, this sort of regulation is in place in many other coutries, and thats just the way it is. Newbies only know what we tell them to know, so if the rules are 'x', then those are the rules, end of story.

True, but I do know that most DZO's and S&TA's frown upon this. It starts by having a line drawn in the sand, and it takes hold when the more experienced jumpers frown upon thoise crossing the line. If all of the hot shit canopy pilots gave a guy over the line the cold shoulder, I think it would go a long way.

Dude, I'm sorry, but I couldn't even read your whole post. As you can see this thread is keeping me busy, and my eyes are starting to glaze over. My point is simple. Everyone who has been hurt did not think it would happen to them. Nobody knows who will be next until it's too late. The solution is for EVERYONE to slow down, and follow a progression. If you look at the chart, after 1000 jumps, you're free to do what you please, which is good, because I love being over 2 to1. It makes my day. If everyone would folow the chart, and not think they are an exception, we would have fewer incidents. It's that simple. Once again, it seems that for that last 2000 jumps, I could have pulled at 1k all along, and been fine. I didn't because years ago, we figured out that that was cutting it too close, and problems COULD result. When problems DID result to frequently, they laid out a BSR that nobody questions anymore. Well now, we are seeing that canopy flight IS a problem. It is the number one killer of skydivers. So lets do something about it, lay out some guidelines, make it the 'cool' thing to follow them, save some lives and limbs, and move on. The awsome thing about these guidelines is that they reward your experience with ever higher WL's. The min. pull alt. doesn't change if you have 1k jumps, it stays the same. It's a fact that SOME people are getting busted up under canopy. Who's next? I don't know, so lets protect EVERYONE for now, and play it safe. If you personally are going to pay attention, I don't know. But can you honestly say that this is a bad idea, and that arguing against it in a public forum will benefit anyone? Oh, this got started becasue I see the same incidents happenig over an over again. Not to mention I live in Ohio, where it just started to snow. The less I jump, the more I type.

I hate to pull rank on you, but I am sure there was an issue with your canopy. I have 2500+ jumps on two Stiletto 107's loaded at 1.8 up to 2.0. I regularly do 360's for my landings, and have NEVER had a problem. This is a fact: If your canopy is in proper trim, and assembled correctly, flying it a manner consistant with good canopy piloting cannnot result in a failure of your canopy to perform as expected. You simply cannot make a canopy go faster than it can handle. Yes you can induce a high speed stall with improper control inputs, but thats not what were talking about. Were talking about a jumper learning to get the most out of one canopy before moving to a faster one. Getting the most out of the canopy would involve flying in a manner with the above mentioned good canopy piloing. Furthermore, a canopys max speed can act as a limiter to how much trouble you can get in. If you cannot, or have not flown your 120 at 100%, why then would you want to jump a 107 where you might possibly nail your turn, and reach 100% of that canopies capacity, only to have your experience limited to 75% of a 120? Now you are in over your head. If you had stuck with the 120 longer, not only would have nore jumps, more swoops and more experience, you would not as far out of your envelope if you should hit that 100% on your smaller canopy.