Scrumpot

What is it all of a sudden again with the rash of "I wanna downsize NOW ...I know everyone is saying it's stupid, or recommending against it etc., etc., but I'm gonna do it ANYWAYS!" that seems to recently be going on around here again? It seems that every 6 months we go through this. Interestingly enough too, it seems to also follow, a corresponding cyclical lag to this as well in the incidents forum. I for one, am growing extremely exasperated with all this! Puh-leeze people, there is PLENTY of documentation, cause-'n-effect evidence and indeed well worn "history" of this, even just right here in these forums! Do you all think that somehow you are more "special" or really all that "better" than the scores who have (and not all that long ago either ...we are not comparing ancient history here against an entirely different paradigm) come, and LEARNED (the hard way) before you?? ARRRRGGGGHHHHH!!!!! coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Actually, it is with the 190 that he would be closer to 1.1-to-1. He has previously stated that he is 170 without gear. That puts him more along 195+/- out-the-door. So, if we are going to agree that a wing loading of approx 1.1-to-1 is relatively "safe", then we are going to have to agree that the choice for him is the 190! See also Wendy's post above (HERE), which I "second" and is worth echoing (repeating). I stand by my original post, and that is to say that NOBODY has shown me yet, any real VALID reasoning why the 170 would be of ANY benefit (other than minimal cost considerations) at this juncture in this jumpers career over the 190. But we do know that it COULD be a detriment. You DID say: And IMO that was wholly irresponsible. After only 3 jumps on it, and further, on 2 out of those only 3 his landings were already far less than optimal, how could ANYBODY say that?? Sure, lot's of times certain jumpers can be "lucky" under sub-optimal canopies, and come out just fine. Apparently you were one of them. That is your experience and I respect that. But to unequivocally state that there is "no question" he would be "safe" under a 170 (which IS what you did say) is downright WRONG. He MIGHT "be okay", but then again he might not. He might not be okay under the 190 either, granted, but the degree in which he may not be okay is somehwat potentially lessened by being under that 190. Would you agree with that? And without any of us actually having SEEN him land either of these (outside of his descriptions ...where 2 out of 3 except ONE UNDER RADIO he didn't ---satisfactorilly) that's all any of us can reasonably say. On that we agree. But in stating also that he would be "safe" under the 170, I think goes against just that. I think we are both relatively on the same page, except that I am one that will always err (and we all err! ) if at all possible, on the side of caution. Unless anyone can show me some truly compelling reason(s) or "attraction" why I shouldn't. ...ie: the 170 over the 190. Can he really swoop the 170 any farther at this juncture in his experience? Will he really learn anything more under it than the 190?? You tell me. Is there any REWARD in going with the 170 now (over the 190) which beneficially offsets the RISK that would be associated in going with it, at this juncture in this jumpers career? That, to me, is the question. And as I've stated, I think as well that it has already too, been answered. If anybody wants to self-justify (and fish for) only the answer it is that they WANT to hear, they can do that. Is that happening here? -I dunno. But I certainly won't further fuel that by leaving even the smallest of cracks open. You may think that your responses have "qualified" that statement quoted, but trust me, all this "you might be better off with the 190 but..." Then coming out with that, totally disqualifies ALL those statements & the only thing heard is (again): And that is WRONG. This is not cautioning at all, it is ENABLING! My opinions & responses are now out here. I'll leave 'em at that. Like I've said, I wish him the best of luck, no matter which way he decides. Blue Skies, -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

No disrespect, but you seem to be "fishing" for the answer you have already decided that it is you "want to hear". Look at who is already answering your questions, and in what fashion. ------------ Bill Von (world-class skydiver, organizer and instructor): Answer that for yourself. CAN you fly the 190 already as he has outlined? Remster (13 yrs in the sport... "been there, seen that"): Then more thoroughly consider what is the right answer I suppose, for you. Your answers (or at least responses ...whether you want to accept those as "answers") have already been put out there. If that is, you want to listen to them. Best of luck and wishes, no matter which way you decide. Blue Skies, -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

HUH?? ... This statement makes NO SENSE AT ALL! He's made ONLY 3 JUMPS TOTAL on a 170, and all (presumably) ON THE DROPZONE, in (again presumably) relatively "controlled" conditions. Further, on 2 out of 3 of those landings (ALL, except for the one ON RADIO) he did well, ahem... let's say less than optimally. HE HAS NOT PROVEN ANYTHING!! If anything, quite the opposite! Example: I normally jump a 174 semi-eliptical. I have demo'd lot's of canopies, even as far down in size as a 119. On the 119 I made 6 jumps and actually landed all six of them magnificently (thank-you-very-much). But does that mean I had PROVEN I should own it/jump it as my regular, primary canopy? -HELL NO!! All 6 of those jumps were at a large, wide-open landing area DZ, and in optimal wind/landing pattern set up conditions. All I had proven is that I COULD land it, ...Those 6 times (and that's twice as many, for what that's worth than this kid has "landed" his)! What happens the 1st time this kid is landing off the dropzone, or somebody in his pattern "cuts him off" or ANY of the umpteen things that can (and DO) routinely happen to all of us at some time under canopy occurs?? And it WILL. He has "biffed" 2 of his 3 landings on the 170 under "controlled" circumstances, and IMHO has been lucky. Nothing more, nothing less, let alone having PROVEN ANYTHING! Further, he is stepping down already quite significantly from student "boat" canopies as it is. What is it that he supposedly can do, or would do, or would "gain" from jumping now, the 170 over a 190? I've also addressed exactly just this exact SAME scenario coincidentally enough in another thread HERE. This kid needs to consider what it is he is looking to get out of his canopy at this point, and REALLY, if a 170 vs. a 190 is truly going to accomplish that for him. Other than a potential minimal cost savings, nobody has shown me yet any VALID reasoning how a 170 can. Which brings me right back around to my ORIGINAL statement, which is: what is the HARM in him getting the 190 now, over the 170?? Would that be too lightly loaded? I don't think so. He's already shown (and we all know) the very serious potential HARM (increased speed in which one can hit the ground upon a very real potential screw up) in going what going with the 170 may cause. Somebody show me the real off-setting benefit with instead going with the latter and I will acquiesce. I submit it does not exist. You yourself say to read Bill Von's posts on this subject matter, then you directly contradict yourself with this above quoted statement! THINK about it. Blue Skies, -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

If you truly do FLY YOUR CANOPY, and want to (and do) learn how to FLY YOUR CANOPY, you CAN do that every bit as much with a 170 as you can a 150 at this stage. Don't let anybody fool you as to that. If you think you can't, then you simply are NOT FLYING YOUR CANOPY, understand what you are doing or are learning fully, how to fly it right in the 1st place, period. Yup, you can go faster with a 150 than you can with a 170 if you are torque-ing it. The only SIGNIFICANT difference you are truly subject to between them however, is how hard you will hit the ground when you screw up (and you WILL). Think of what your long-term goals are here. Will the 150 NOW really help you accomplish those? What's your fear in going with a 170 instead? -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Are you talking about a 190 PD here vs. a 170 PD? Or a Manta vs. Manta, or a Sabre vs. Sabre, or what? A 190 PD vs a 170 Stilletto or something like that might get you a different answer from this group on here too. Do you want to clarify if you are talking about 2 similar F111 canopies for your comparison, vs Zero-p, and/or also "square" vs. eliptical? If you are in doubt, at only 50 jumps or so, what's the HARM in playing it "safe"? The 190 nearly regardless, for your 1st 100 jumps or so would certainly do you no harm. You can learn and DO in fact, every bit just as much on that canopy as you can/will be able to with the 170 anyway. Don't let peer pressure or fear of ridicule make you THINK you have to go to anything smaller at this juncture in your progression. What is it you are looking to accomplish with your current (or prospective) canopy? Think about THAT. Then consider if buying the 170 OVER the 190 (again depending on canopy types ...assuming they are otherwise similar) would REALLY accomplish or more quickly realize your desires. Hope this helps. Just another .02. Blue Skies, -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

BINGO! Someone give this man a lollipop! Tracking & Delta should be considered 2 entirely different things (once off "student status"). A Delta is indeed plenty useful when the objective is to cover more vertical distance than horizontal. A TRACK should ALWAYS be "flat" and with as much movement along a HORIZONTAL axis as possible. After only 2 jumps though, you are being taught only one thing at a time right now for a reason. Your instructors should bring you along as to where, how and when to learn and then use each of these. Blue Skies, -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

AMax has your best "answer" so far: Most Doctors don't know SQUAT about jumping, so be careful really in obtaining your advise there. 8 out of 10 doctors would probably tell you NOT TO JUMP again AT ALL, period ...just because that is their base opinion of jumping in general! Physio, then strength training are your best measures for preventing future problems. That, and a consistently soft opening canopy. I also "broke my back" (compression fractures of L1-L5 -all, and snapped-off transverse process -all on left side). 3 weeks of traction followed by 4 months full body brace then lots of physical therapy. Started back jumping right about 6 months total time out. Interesting tidbit is that my doctor fully okay'd me to play football and rugby when asked. ...but Skydiving? ---Oh no, no, no, no, NO! Best of luck to you for your own INDIVIDUAL situation. Blue Skies, -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Maybe jumping something other than an old 3-30 (+) CFM sharpchuter every now & then would help you out there too, old man! I'll be happy to put a beer in your hands the next trip out. It's up to you to get it to your lips and in your mouth yourself though, I'm afraid. Keep PLF'ing and remember you're always only as young as you feel! Blue Skies, -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

That's your problem Dave... In 6 years time, you just ahve not either: Jumped enough, or have lasted at any one given dropzone it seems long enough. Actually Dave, even here at little ol' Delmarva, we have flown skysurfers plenty o' times. You must just be on a mission at all costs apparently to avoid 'em! Even if it means moving all over the place to do it. You're not getting kicked off those DZ's now by any chance instead, ...are you? Oh yeah, and Skysurfers do exit first out of the Otter here. Probably more so because of what Bill Von says, but their F/F drift actually is also "similar" to that of an average 5-6way it seems, and with no worries about "break-off" tracking direction (as they are also typically either completely solo or with one camera-flyer (who opens in this case LOWER than the board flyer), it is the most practical place all around to put them. Blue Skies, -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

The only problem with working out muscle memory like this on the ground is, that up in the air in freefall it is an entirely DIFFERENT dynamic. What I mean by that is, absent any other wind-resistance simulator/devices (like hanging bungee cord loops to put your feet in, etc.), it is EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE set of leg muscles you are using on the ground to practice/simulate a good arch! What I recommend, if doing this say at home, is to set up your arch on the living room floor in front of your couch or sofa, then have yourself positioned such that when you extend your legs, your toes can be upon the cushion to the sofa with some DOWNWARD pressure while still maintaining your arch on the floor. This facilitates a more proper muscle-memory feeling/response, absent having any other training aids or instructors available 24/7 to say hold your toes for you while you work on a creeper. Just another .02 point of view added. By the way, on BOTH instances as originally posted, initial HOTEL, exit and COA went smoothly, so the type of aircraft you are jumping HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with what is happening with you. Once you are outside of the aircraft (and especially immediately stable, as it appears that each time here you HAVE been ...at least as you have posted) then the type of aircraft you have just exited has absolutely no affect at all on you in FF! ...So please get that out of your mind and ENJOY the benefits and opportunities you apparently have and access to these varying aircraft in the 1st place as it is! Stick with it, good luck, and BLUE SKIES! -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Gee, thanks guys... that's just what I was looking for ---sarcasm. Mark, I'm surprised at you that you would really actually fuel that like this as well. I am well aware of yours & Biguns "disagreement", and I personally, was not even going there, ...so, no need, okay? However, do you truly believe that this kid NEEDS to be on his back ("barrel rolling" or not) in order to see adequately above him just prior to deployment? And instead of maybe just one-word sound-byte sarcasms, why don't we all THINK here, which in actuality Firsttime WAS doing, and did with his first response to me, which I appreciated, and "left alone". That's all that I asked. He seems to be doing that. ...Why would you now all of a sudden want to supress that?? Because it is yet another volley in your "debate" with Bigun over this? Do you really want to drag me into that one too? Firstime, with your first post, you made it look like you felt the need to build a "barrel roll" (your own quote) into your pre-deployment repetoire. I merely asked you to think about that, which it looks like you HAVE! I did not mean to make it look like in any way I was personally attacking YOU, which I wasn't. Merely trying to recognize and appreciate that there is a wider audience out here than just the 2 of us in a PUBLIC FORUM, so my comments were much more broad. If you took them personally, then please DON'T and accept my apologies for any misperception, which prior to THIS response I did not think existed. You ammended your statement, and I think appropriately so. Why do the 2 of you now suddenly feel the compunction to have to diverge from that and degenerate into personal aspersions? Although it can also be debated the NEED (again) to have to flip on one's back in order to see above them, and still be "safe". Glad to see that my comments at least stimulated some consideration, and THINKING! -That, my brother, was my ONLY intent. I have reconsidered my response, and still consider it to be appropriate within that context. -Thank you for your suggestion there. Adn indeed, continue to THINK! Blue Skies to you both! -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

And what happens to you, that one time (especially at your experience level) when a barrel-roll right prior to deployment time (presumably during but right at the END of your track) results in you going horribly unstable? Do you REALLY see everyting "above" you that you think you are needing to see when you barrel roll anyway? -THINK about it. I sincerely doubt it. It has astounded me at how many people I've heard lately think that this is something they "HAVE TO" incorporate into their pre-deployment procedures! ...Yet, IMHO they don't even know what it is they are seeing (while they barrel roll), at what trajectory it is to them, or what it is they are looking for in the 1st place, or even (more importantly) what they would do if they DID see "ANYTHING"! Please do yourself a favor, and THINK about this one just a little more. Okay now, feel free, let the "flames" (ahem)... debate begin -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Yes. coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Whereas most of your post seems to be already in process of being covered, I will refrain from joining in further on the debate of whether to chop 1st in ALL situations or not (as this seems to be evolving solely to). If you need to know my position on that, you can certainly search my posting history in here, where I think I've been pretty consistent with my position on that. ...Or (hint) you could always just say I agree with Tim The one piece I haven't seen fully explained to you yet, although touched upon in brief reference by BillVon is: In a true total mal the main & risers are NOT going to be going anywhere anyway. Your container is still closed, so there is NOTHING to "drag off of you"! Depending upon your rig type (riser protection covers in particular) is where the debate should stem as to whether cutting away NOTHING 1st, could pose any potential problems or considerations for you there or not. Otherwise, going straight for your reserve in an actual total mal (read: absolutely NOTHING deployed) should assure you of a clean reserve deployment. Debate over having uniform procedures for time/habit considerations aside (all valid debates, and worth your consideration), I thought I might just clear that one component up for you. Good questions. Keep thinking! Blue Skies, -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

You missed my point, but that's okay... Marcus got it. I was not referring to Basic A license requirements as much as I was actual available "working time" from 3,500 that's all. Hey kids, don't try this at home.

Why would you have to "hop-n-pop" at 3,500? At 3,500 you've still got plenty o' time for at least a couple of points!

The tunnel is just NOT the place, plain & simple for this excercise AT ALL. If you had asked the proper questions, and advised clearly of your intent, you should have been (and I can not imagine you having NOT have been) told this in the very 1st place! That being said, still partaking in the tunnel for stability training is probably still appropriate, and will NOT be an entire waste of your time (or $$) either. Best of luck & wishes in conquering your current progression blocks! Blue Skies, -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

No disrespect, but if "reaching for it at 3k" is already 500ft below what you are currently comfortable with ...you shouldn't be putting yourself into these situations (of even getting on 10+ ways in the 1st place) yet either! Routinely tracking to SUB 3k on "BIG WAYS" before deploying, and being comfortable/capable with that is absolutely pre-requisite INHO. Not your fault, you are just not there yet. ...You need to build to that, and be PATIENT in actually getting there. Yes, it's an absolute BLAST in making new accomplishments (being invited and participating on 10+ ways being one of them), but also knowing when that is above your current progression and capabilities levels is the sign of an even more mature skydiver. Everyone seems to have such an urge these days to simply "rush" things It's not always the best thing to do AT ALL in the 1st place. ...Just something more to think about that's all. I can get into techniques for getting back up, what to do in that situation etc., etc., and I'm sure many in here for you will. At your ADMITTED comfortability level though, you may want to consider not getting yourself into the situation (or potential for it) in the 1st place though, ...yet. Until you (for you) are more ready. Make sense? Again, no "dissing" going on here. Just some more fodder for thought that's all. Which it appears as though you ARE already doing. That FEAR there is (was) there for you, for a reason. Continue to reflect and consider on that. That is good. Hope my input (such that it is) has also helped. Blue Skies! -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

"Back in the day" Skydive U was the most comprehensive, and IMHO "worthwhile" ONE-ON-ONE RW learning/progression method/programme available. For JUST RW considerations, it probably still is. However, it will give you nothing (as far as I currently know ...keep in mind I went through Skydive U over 7years ago) in respect to canopy control & canopy flight considerations, etc. For those "just off student status", the basic USPA coaching sylabus is probably the most "well rounded", and will give you most of the BASICS. Then, once you decide which primary direction you would like to pursue, would probably be the determining criterion to dictate what/which would be the best more concentrated course(s) you would like to take. Just another .02, -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Please be careful with this! ...An audible should never be relied upon to tell you when to pull, or when to break-off, or when you are too low. They should be a BACK-UP ONLY and becoming "comfortable" just because you have purchased an audible scares me. See: psychological studies entitled "Pavlov" (et al) for some clear illustrations to ponder. Just think about this one a little more, that's all. Blue Skies! -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Your concerns were well founded, and well expressed at your experience level. Good heads-up handling! Blue Skies, -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Ummm... WRONG!!! coitus non circum - Moab Stone

YOU did not deploy your reserve. Your RSL did. Not "flaming" you, but has anyone spoken with you yet further about this aspect? If not, then please talk with your instructors & keep thinking! Good job on recognizing that this line twist situation was dissimilar from your previous experience, and realizing that continued UNPRODUCTIVE time = loss of altitude! You took action, and your actions have resulted in your survival. Now take advantage of that survival to leverage the opportunity now presented from it (including even further examining the parts that some may even consider the "mistakes") to also learn even more from it. Best of wishes to you on your continued progression! Blue Skies, -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

I've jumped the exact same canopy & have probably nearing 800 jumps on both Safire 1's & Safire 2's (and of similar size) combined. Someone else has mentioned rear riser stalls, as well as a concern over potentially creating line twists due to stalling this canopy in general. #1. Rear Riser Stalling on a Safire 2. ...You will find this WAY EASY to do, especially as compared to attempting to do this with just toggles alone. I would say that the stall (as compared to toggle stalling as well) will be much more "sudden", but not necessarilly mor "violent", as someone else has mentioned. -Definitely check with your instructor 1st as to if he will allow or would recommend this method for you (I don't see why not, as IMHO you probably WANT to know/get a feel for the difference in stall point between the 2 methods anyway!). 2. Toggle stalls without taking a "wrap". You can do this too. As you have as a result of all your attempts now by default noticed, the toggle stroke on this canopy is considerably longer/deeper than many others. That does not mean necessarilly that the brake lines are too long in of itself. But in combination with the harness size being a scootch big on you with this, is propbably your "problem". Toggle (brake line) pressure on this canopy should be light enough that once you have your hands in the toggles ...if it is just the "wrap factor" that you are concerned with, you SHOULD still be able to (in full flight -hands all the way up) still reach a good 3-4" above the toggles & just grab the lines securely enough with your hand to pull them down from that point. If you can, this should also be sufficient enough to give you the toggle stall that you are looking for. Again, begin with your hands all the way up, in full flight. Then pull the toggles evenly down your desired 3-4" only initially & "reach through" your toggle that distance to the brake line just below the line guide-ring on your risers & see if you can't get enough grip on it at that point to make your pull from. If any or all of this has been already sugested to you in subsequent posts, my apologies for any redundancies as i just jumped right to "reply" right up here in only the 3rd post in the string before reading any farther. I really like to see that such an apparently thorough canopy control and familiarization program is going on as a part of your progression! ...Something I wish I had back when I 1st started out. I probably did not even stall a canopy ever at all until something like 200 jumps otherwise, and I sure could have probably used the "knowledge" in actuality, well before that! Kudo's to your instructors for their sticking to this with you accordingly. And good luck to you & best wishes for your progression which is resulting too! Oh yeah, and PS as to the line twists concern because this being a semi-eliptical canopy... out of dozens of BOTH toggle and/or rear-riser stalls, this has happened to me ony twice (both on full riser, and then held for quite some time) stalls. Although it is a legitimate consideration, generally, I have found this canopy to recover fairly straight, and on heading most of the time. Depending on how much weight you shift in the harness (and I load mine as well a bit higher than you do) it may either dive to the right or the left, but as you "fly it out", I have not found it to have a great "desire" to twist up ...again, just generally, and in my experience. Hope all of this input helps! Blue Skies, -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone