chuckakers

Sucks. Anyone know if they went after the DZ? Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Once again the skydiving community is going nuts over a recent rash of canopy-related incidents, and the comments I hear sound just like the ones I heard last time we had a rash of canopy-related incidents. “We must do something”, “it’s the HP canopies”, “people just aren’t watching”, and “we need a rule…” are the comments de jour, and to one extent or another they are right. We (used loosely) do need to do something (also used loosely) about our embarrassingly high number of canopy incidents – fatal and otherwise – under properly functioning canopies. The question is what? At first this problem seemed to be isolated primarily to the “experience vs. wing loading” issue. Hotrods – almost exclusively male for the sake of accuracy – were downsizing new high performance canopies as fast as they could swipe their Platinum Card at the local Parachutes-R-Us. Making matters worse, DZO’s and S&TA’s let them jump the damn things. The results were ugly and nothing short of spectacular from a television producer’s perspective, with incidents resulting in a resounding chorus of “it was only a matter of time” from other jumpers as the femur drilling bastard’s only fitting eulogy. If there was any good news about these guys it was that they were easy to see coming. I once turned a guy with 250 jumps away at the DZ because his rig looked more like a lunchbox than a “250-jump wonder” worthy parachute. He died two weekends later on someone else’s drop zone after botching a hook turn. The Canopy Collision Conundrum Things have changed in the time since flying fast canopies was the choice of a select few. After years of a growing acceptance of faster flying canopies at every level of our sport, our problem has evolved from one of mostly high performance canopy pilots, their errors, and anyone who got in their way, to a systemic problem across the skydiving universe that is touching all of us in a most crumpled heap kind of way. Canopy collisions are the big culprit, finding their way into every stage of the skydive and every stage of skydiving. From expert swoopers with thousands of jumps on screeching canopies to beginners just trying to land safely on the way to their first license, we are slamming into each other in otherwise clear air at an alarming rate. We’re tired of losing our friends, but doing the same thing about it that we did last time one of our brethren bounced isn’t working – and it won’t. Asking the Right Questions It’s been said that things that are not measured cannot be improved upon. By that same logic, information that is not collected cannot be analyzed, and our incident information collection quite honestly sucks. Understand this – we will not make gains in reducing canopy collisions until we get serious about collecting all of the pertinent data from them. We simply aren’t asking the right questions. As an industry, we keep coming back to the same fixes for the canopy collision issue that haven’t fixed a damn thing in the past. Separation of landing areas for varying landing styles, establishment of patterns, jump-run reminders to “keep your head on a swivel”, and USPA “calls to action” and pledge signing campaigns have all been tried, some repeatedly. All have failed. The sampling of incidents is simply too small and the variables too many to determine what is causing our canopy collision problem. But we can ask questions that may paint a picture of an accident waiting to happen, and that’s where the truth is buried. There are an infinite number of data bits surrounding any accident, and certainly most of them would give no clues to the cause or cure. However, consider this… What if – just what if – we discovered that 50% of canopies in skydiving today have some neon or bright colors on them, but only 20% of canopy collisions involved canopies sporting them. That would certainly make us believe that canopy colors could be a factor in canopy collisions. The problem is, we don’t know – because we don’t ask. What if we found that collisions occurred in disproportionate numbers on loads where the jump run was flown to put part of the load out “before center”, causing jumpers to come from opposite directions during approach to the landing area? We certainly would consider curtailing that practice, would we not? Unfortunately we don’t know, because no one has asked the question. The cure to our collision woes is deep in the details and we aren’t collecting them. In fact, the information we currently gather is barely enough for a police report. Maybe that’s by design since accident information that isn’t collected can’t be used against a drop zone in a lawsuit, but that’s a conversation for another day. As a start, we should be reporting every detail that can be gleaned from each incident. We will never find a single common denominator, but that’s not the problem anyway. Each incident has a cause, but that cause is unique to that incident. To reduce the number of incidents, we need to start stacking the odds in our favor, and to do that we need facts. Lots of them. Facts and the Unreported Factors Fact: two canopies cannot collide if they never occupy the same airspace at the same time. Sounds simple enough, but several times each year, canopy pilots do just that, often with deadly results. But what are the factors that lead to up that moment? Consider these. Overloaded skies, sort of. The sport has grown and that means bigger airplanes and more canopies in the air at once. This by itself is not an issue. If, for example, a Twin Otter load is made up of a 3-way and bunch of tandems, the jumpers on the 3-way will likely only have 2 other canopies to share air with during descent. Of course these jumpers should remain diligent and watch for other canopies anyway, but the chance of interacting with a tandem pair on the same pass when a jumper saddles at 2,500 feet is pretty slim. Now let’s look at a different load make-up. What if the load is comprised of several small groups. If the load is filled with two 4-ways with camera, a 3-way, and three 2-way student groups, the under-canopy scenario will be quite different. Assuming everyone has an open canopy at the planned altitude, each 4-way jumper will have at least 10 other canopies within striking distance and even more if a video flyer has a long snivel or if one of the students deploys lower than planned. If we found that canopy collisions happen in disproportionate numbers on loads with multiple groups deploying at the same or nearly the same altitude, we would begin to see the value in splitting the load and making a second pass. But we don’t know because we don’t collect that information. We don’t ask that question. As mentioned above, what about canopy colors? We know that brighter colors are detectable at greater distances, which translates to more reaction time to avoid a collision. That’s why bicyclists wear the most obnoxious colors they can find. Not unlike when cars collide with cyclists, the answer from canopy collision survivors is much the same. “I didn’t see him” is the comment most often heard from the offending jumper. I myself have been in the unenviable position of apologizing for getting a bit too close to another jumper under canopy, and the reason was the same every time. I didn’t see the other jumper until I was in close proximity. You have probably had the same thing happen to you. It is clearly possible that brightly colored canopies are in disproportionately fewer collisions than canopies with dark or neutral colors, but we don’t know - because we don’t ask. The Courage to Question The above scenarios are just a couple examples, but they get the point across. A myriad of other factors are contributing to the canopy collision issue, but the only pattern we have established so far is our miserable collection of pertinent data that would at least reveal many clues. If we begin asking very detailed questions about each incident, we might be surprised just how much we do know about them. Hell, the cause of some of these incidents would slap us in the face if we were only willing to be intellectually honest. Two recent incidents that killed 3 jumpers and put another one in the hospital occurred over a tiny patch of grass on a drop zone in a desert environment. Amazingly, that patch of grass was grown for the purpose of using it for a landing area. In hindsight, is it really so tough to see that growing that little patch of grass wasn’t such a good idea? One look at an overhead image of the DZ showing that needle-threading grass strip answers that question – except no one ever asked it. We’ve separated discipline-specific landing areas, established landing patterns, increased canopy control education and training, signed pledges, and created one idiotic rule after another. It’s not working. The answers are there, but we won’t find them until we start asking the right questions. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

So your friend/FAA dude has a calibrated eyeball? "Scattered" can mean anything from clearer than broken to not exactly a "few" clouds. That's a damn big range, and way too vague to define a violation based on made-up forum scenarios. If the clouds are so tight that you can't reasonably say they meet minimums, they probably don't. Beyond that, the feds are going to have a tough time making a case unless you actually punch a cloud...probably. Did you bother to ask how many jumps he/she has made in "illegal" conditions? Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Good luck with that. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

No. Too loose break lines can cause tail flutter. Really. Care to explain that? Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

One word. "Nova". I have over 1,000 jumps on one loaded the way it was designed to be loaded, many that were made after it was grounded because they were collapsing. I'm still alive. Wing loading is relevant in stability. Some designs require more than others. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Finally, a noob that gets it. Bravo, dude. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

All good replies, but I'd say go ask a staff instructor, S&TA, or DZO at THAT drop zone. There may be considerations that only they are familiar with that are in play here. Or it may be a matter of DZ standard operating procedures. Either way, your question is best posed locally where the nuances are better understood, and where there may be a "rule" for that. If nobody cares what you do, set that puppy on "pro". You deserve it and the pro setting is good for a killer ground rush during deployment. He has 5300 jumps, is an instructor, and is the DZO. He's asking which mode he should use for the people he is training once they are off student gear. Must be my selective reading at it again. My reply should have been... All good replies, but I'd say go ask the staff at YOUR drop zone. There may be considerations that only they are familiar with that are in play here. That way you can establish a DZ standard operating procedure. Either way, your question is best posed locally where the nuances are better understood, and where there may someday be a "rule" for that. I say set that puppy on "pro". Your students deserve a killer ground rush during deployment. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

All good replies, but I'd say go ask a staff instructor, S&TA, or DZO at THAT drop zone. There may be considerations that only they are familiar with that are in play here. Or it may be a matter of DZ standard operating procedures. Either way, your question is best posed locally where the nuances are better understood, and where there may be a "rule" for that. If nobody cares what you do, set that puppy on "pro". You deserve it and the pro setting is good for a killer ground rush during deployment. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

The amount you pay isn't really important. The real question is what do you get for your money. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

You know, I really get tired of hearing people beat a dead horse on nearly EVERY safety related issue in our sport. Glideangle however, has absolutely nailed it. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

For the benefit of those who haven't seen the video - myself included - could you post a link to the video you make reference to?? Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Dee is, I'm not. Don't forget JP. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Clearly you haven't visited any Texas DZ's. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

I hope it's as pretty as this one - 80 way Texas Star, at Skydive Dallas. Cuz it's all about you. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Sorry to hear. If all is as you say, there's no excuse. Get off your butt, Strong. If there's a logistical problem, just say so. Otherwise, what's up???? Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Teddy bear? Tell that to Tommy. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

How is this helpful to someone who hasn't taken the course yet and has never jumped with a student before? That's a very good question, Mr. Hicks. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

nuff said. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

...in many parts of the country. Head on a swivel, folks. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

um...ok. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Mr. Kallend and I don't agree on some things, but he gets a big +1 from me on this one. If I could add anything to it, I'd say "let's stop with the stupid shit". Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Congrats on your first rig! You can't go wrong with a Vector, and PD builds the world's best canopies - IMO. Of course we understand your girlfriend's inability to understand your enthusiasm. We call those ex-girlfriends. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

My buddy Rick Meyers came up with this one. "Never pull low...unless you are." And my fav of my own is, "Tommy wasn't wearing a helmet, but at least his Cypres was turned off." Old schoolers will get it. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

That was a nice try to drive by fear....Did it ever work on grown ups? Damn, dude - somebody piss in your wheeties? That's just a bit of delightfully dark skydiving humor, but it apparently swooped right over your head. Now go get a pin check. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX