peek

Thank you. You are correct in that observation, and indeed I am being more personal in that section talking to my skydiver friends.

I have written a white paper titled, "The Downturn in Skydiving in the 21st Century". (Except for my suggestions), none of the information in this writing should seem new to most skydivers, since most of the ideas contained in it have been discussed by many people over the past few years. I attempted to get it published in Skydiving magazine, but after 7 months I decided to "publish" it using internet related resources in time for the Parachute Industry Association Symposium, starting in a few days. I will also be handing out copies there are entering into many discussions about it. The following is a link to a web site where the document may be downloaded. www.skydivestlouisarea.com/skydiving21st.doc The paper is also presented below with formatting, because I know someone will copy and paste anyway, so I might as well do it now with formatting. It is not a short paper, but if you are interested in it, please take the time to read it in its entirety including the Author's Comments. I'm sure there will be many comments. The Downturn in Skydiving in the U.S. in the 21st Century by Gary Peek, May 2006 The 1990's saw an increase in skydiving activity that delighted skydivers, skydiving instructors, and drop zone owners everywhere. The talk of the sport was how great things were going and how many people were finding the wonderful sport of skydiving. However, just as the 1990's were good for skydiving, the turn of the century brought a downturn in skydiving, when the same skydivers, instructors, and drop zones owners were left wondering what happened. The increase in activity in skydiving in the 1990's was an anomaly. It was caused by a good economy, a few decent skydiving movies like "Point Break" popularizing the "bad boy" image of skydiving, and the fact that "extreme" sports and doing "extreme" things became popular at that time. It was not a "new horizon in skydiving" where skydiving became a "mainstream" sport which changed the industry and provided the opportunity for many people to build careers on it. The current downturn in skydiving activity is, most of all, skydiving adjusting itself after the anomaly. Skydiving activity is now at about the level that it would have been if this anomaly had not occurred, perhaps even better! Some contributing factors: The "downturn" in skydiving (at least in the US) in the early 2000's was caused by a number of things, including the economy, the problems in aviation caused by the terrorist attack on the US, insurance prices, and fuel prices. But it was, and continues to be, caused by the sport and industry itself as well. Skydiving may have been one of the first of the extreme sports to become popular in the 1990's when "extreme" seemed to be the popular thing to do, but some of the other extreme sports that followed in popularity were much less expensive. Young adults were the segment of the population most likely to participate in extreme sports, but they did not have as much disposable income as other groups. So many of them made a number of jumps, but few of them stayed with the sport long term. In the 1990's the sport of skydiving began referring to skydiving as "safe". The better gear that was being developed in the 1980's and 90's provided the potential for improved safety, but this was not fully realized, at least not for long. Eventually the sport realized that it should not refer to skydiving as safe, but this misconception had sold many people on the idea of skydiving. When accidents happened, the public was likely to bring lawsuits to dropzones, encouraged of course by the growing trend in the US for citizens to not accept responsibility for themselves, but to blame others. Tandem skydiving became widely used as a way for drop zones to make money rather than as a training method, which created multiple problems. Tandem skydiving provided another way for skydiving to erroneously refer to skydiving as "safe". It also provided a passive carnival-style skydive ride for those people interested in "instant gratification". Drop zones and instructors often encouraged their "passenger's" passive participation rather than encouraging their "students" to learn skills in a sport that would give them a sense of accomplishment and encourage them to continue in that sport. Other reasons for the downturn in skydiving activity Skydiving is not as fun as it used to be, for a number of reasons: Skydivers that are not extremely current are criticized as not being "safe". Experienced skydivers who want only to skydive periodically and have fun are often criticized. These skydivers are looked down upon because they do not care to pursue particular disciplines or planned dropzone activities, or to be coached by famous name skydivers, all of which increase the cost of their skydiving. Students who are not current are looked upon with suspicion and assumed to be "dangerous". Even though they may now have much more disposible income available for skydiving, experienced skydivers who quit skydiving when they were younger and now wish to continue are often treated as being "old", and with old (or lacking in) knowledge and skills, rather than being welcomed back with open arms. Very current and experienced skydivers, and often, drop zone owners and their staff, for the most part are gear snobs, suggesting that if a person does not have the latest gear that they are unsafe, even if this gear is perfectly safe for the type of skydiving the owner intends to do. Experienced skydivers that practice the "latest" skydiving discipline are often snobs, suggesting that they are better than the others. Skydiving is more commercialized and more expensive (even beyond the economy and fuel price issues) Skydiving instruction has been made more formalized, allowing for less flexibility, and causing it to cost more. Commercial skydiving operations often take advantage of this to require that their students make more jumps and more expensive jumps. There is an increasing divide between recreational skydivers and "professional" skydivers, or instructional staff. The path from being an experienced jumper interested in working with students to an instructional rating holder is longer and more expensive. Basic problems with skydiving that skydivers often forget or will not admit No one cares about skydiving except skydivers. The general public is more interested in a fatality than they are something positive about skydiving. The only time most people care about skydiving is when they want to make a single jump. The sport is simply lucky when someone enjoys it enough to continue. Skydiving is almost entirely a frivolous activity that uses the world's dwindling supply of fossil fuels. Skydiving for the most part is not "professional". (No it's not!) Skydiving aircraft have accident and incident rates that exceed other commercial aviation industries. Things that are considered inappropriate in other aviation activities are considered normal in skydiving. Drop zone "help wanted" advertisements for instructional staff often contain references that the applicant be "sober" or not be a user of illegal drugs. It is apparent that the skydiving industry attracts substance abusers. Student skydivers with problems or "issues" (physical or skill) are often made fun of with widely circulated videos, some of which are shown in public venues. Advertisements for skydiving and skydiving related products often contain sexual content and are accepted as normal by many skydivers. Some of the photographs and videos contain explicit sexual content and are shown in public venues. Many people attempting to make a living from skydiving live in vehicles at a drop zone. Some of these places are actually referred to as "ghettos". Only a handful of skydiving businesses or organizations are professional enough to have names that are a registered trademark. Suggestions for dealing with the reality of skydiving in the 21st Century "Professional" skydivers: Stop trying to make a living on skydiving! This is impossible to do in a professional manner except in areas: 1. where the weather is extremely good most of the time. 2. where there is a very large population base nearby. 3. that have absolutely no other drop zones nearby. Pursue business interests outside of skydiving. Consider getting a "real job". Drop zone owners: If you are having trouble making ends meet, then downsize! This seems to be a difficult thing for drop zone owners to do, even though many businesses in difficult economic times have no problem laying off employees or selling off divisions of a corporation that are not profitable. If you are a drop zone owner and have children in the business, encourage them to pursue other business interests. Unless the reason you are a drop zone owner is to be popular with other skydivers, then operate your drop zone as a business. Set prices at the point where profit is possible. If experienced jumpers ask you for discounts or "deals" and you cannot make money at that price, tell them no. No further explanation is necessary. Treat Tandem skydiving as the training method that is was designed to be, and train your Tandem students well. Show them the gratification they will experience by learning to be a skydiver rather than a passive rider. Your "competition" is not your neighboring drop zone, but is other recreational activities. Skydiving is just another "extreme" sport now, and is not special. You must help your fellow drop zone owner in order to survive. Experienced jumpers not "working" in the skydiving industry: Do not open a drop zone unless there is an overwhelming reason to do so! (Do not let your ego "overwhelm" you.) You do not possess any special skills and knowledge that seasoned drop zone owners do not have, particularly if you do not have business experience. If you are tempted by the concept of "cutting away" from your real job, (as portrayed in the movie "Cutaway"), don't! Remember this: Except for larger drop zones that cater to experienced jumpers and have a large volume of experienced jumper loads, drop zones make little (if any) money from your business. If you have started skydiving recently, you have probably been spoiled! You have gotten used to drop zones that have provided you with facilities and aircraft that are possible only because their student skydivers have needed them and paid for them. If a drop zone is student oriented in order to be profitable, and they allow you room on a load, then take the slot, shut up, and go skydive. Consider it a privilege to have a drop zone nearby where you can do this, because many skydivers must travel a long way to a drop zone. When drop zones offer you a discount of any type or amount, thank them, purchase jumps at that price, and go skydive. Do not ask for a discount or "deal" without providing a deal to the drop zone. You are already getting a deal. Author's Comments I would like to thank a number of my friends and colleagues in the sport of skydiving for reviewing this writing and for their comments and ideas. The suggestions for dealing with this downturn are mine, but the reasons for the downturn have been items of discussion among many people for a number of years. Although some people may consider the direct manner of this writing to be negative about the sport, I consider it to be positive, by identifying and catagorizing many of the issues leading up to the inevitable downsizing of the sport, which will have a positive effect on the sport in the long run. About the Author Gary Peek began skydiving in 1981 and is an active jumper with over 6800 jumps. He holds Static Line, IAD, AFF, and Tandem Instructor/Examiner ratings and actively teaches student skydivers in all of these training methods. Gary holds an FAA Commercial Pilot certificate and is a Master Parachute Rigger. He is a Para Publishing author and has been a speaker at 6 PIA International Parachute Symposiums. Gary is is a co-founder of the Parks College Parachute Research Group and makes a living in electronics and computers, having founded an industrial electronics company called Industrologic, Inc. He can be contacted at his office at (800) 435-1975 or peek@industrologic.com.

A NOT so lightly loaded Sabre (2) and turbulence Some of you may remember postings I made about lightly loaded high performance canopies in turbulence, and how sometimes their end cells fold under a bit and then snap back out, sometimes without the person even realizing it happened. Well, again, yesterday, but this time the jumper was 190 pounds under a Sabre 2, 150 square feet. And this guy had some drive even for the wind conditions, perhaps 5 MPH. It was 20-25 MPH with some gusts, and I'm rather sure that the turbulence was generated by the same thing I mentioned last posting on this subject, that is, a ditch providing a "ramp" to guide the wind up and cause a rotor. He didn't land all that hard, in fact, keeping the canopy under control after landing was the most troublesome thing, because it seemed to me like the wind increased about 5 MPH right after he landed. (But maybe it was right before he landed, huh?) As always, be careful out there. It ain't just happenin' to the lightweights.

Well, the World Freefall Convention is just not going to be the same without him. Johnny was a load organizer there for many years and we will miss him. He was one of the really cool guys in skydiving.

DH:Aside from a class at a local community college, or a apprenticeship under a rigger, what does a person need to start learning how to sew? GP:You can start with anyone you know who knows how to sew. I started using my mother's machine when I was a kid. She sometimes got sore at me for breaking needles because I was sewing denim and such, but I persisted and made a lot of neat stuff, like some custom backpacks. DH:What type of an investment is needed for a level of sewing machine that could sew jumpsuits, and other non critical items? GP: Many "home" machines are quite suitable, especially if you get some of the larger needles and the type of thread used to sew parachutes, #69 nylon, or "E" thread. Some adjustments need to be made for the larger thread, so if you find a rigger or someone knowledgeable about machines in general this would be easier. People throw away a lot of machines like this simply because they are old, but sewing machines are one of those things where old might be a good thing. I currently use my late grandmothers 1958 Singer home machine for almost everything, including making jumpsuits and repairing canopies.

Well, first we need to get the names of the packs jobs figured out. It seems many people are using the name "flat" for anything laid out on the floor, but it's not that simple. See the article "Ram-air parachute packing methods" at: http://www.pcprg.com/skydive.htm

I see you have had a number of responses that suggest how to extend your glide, the specifics of doing a turn to final, etc. What I would like to suggest is that once you find yourself in such a position, that you develope the judgement to abort the landing you assumed you were going to make, and land in a safe manner, no matter where or how. And an important point to this is determining when to abort while you are still high enough to give yourself good options. Many accidents happen because people feel like they must get back to the landing area. Land safe, not close. This is more important that learning "tricks".

This is only one of many similar resources available online: http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/mwv/navrules/rotr_online.htm I suggest that if skydivers were to follow these guidelines that we wold not be needing to endlessly argue about collisions under canopy. For those of you that think that navigation rules as related to boating or shipping are not relevent to skydiving, well... Think again, and read up on them. They are so succinct, so well written, that they don't even seem like "rules", but instead, like "common knowledge" that you would be crazy not to follow. Notice the section on "Safe Speed", which is not often discussed as related to parachutes. (Yes you can!)

I hope you are not putting too much trust in any of the numbers! Get the software that allows you to download and graph the data from the jump. The human mind is much better at figuring out what is going on than trusting the software in the unit, which makes assumptions. Also, make sure you know what type of airspeed is being referred to, true vs. any other.

I wouldn't put much trust in the poll because of too many people deliberately screwing it up. But your question about interpretation of pattern direction is a good one. Some possibilities for confusion: If the term "left pattern" is used rather than "left hand pattern" it might be perceived as negative or incorrect. For example, don't you want to do a "right pattern" (correct pattern) rather than a wrong pattern? If an instructor traces out a (left hand) pattern on the drop zone picture for the student even _once_ and tells them that is the prefered way to fly their canopy making left turns, I can't imagine why they would be confused, unless there are many more dyslexic people than we think.

Hartkor, you responded to my post with a question mark. What does this mean?

The ones the local DZ have fly and land just fine, but I have seen some open so fast that I have felt sorry for the students jumping them. Kind of inconsistant in this respect too. And this was when they were new _and_ once they had a lot of jumps on them. Same with all types of pack jobs. Same with the 290 size too.

I got a Flight Concepts International fully zero-porosity Manta a month or so ago and wanted to review it so that people would know about its characteristics. I have been jumping it quite a bit under different conditions for the review. I have several complete rigs, and my newest one was made specifically to fit something large. I wanted a "workhorse" canopy that was big for easy landings with no wind and that opened really nice. I had been talking to Lloyd "Red" Payne at FCI about this for quite some time and he told me they open nicely. I have had a number of FCI canopies over the years and my next most recent was a (low porosity) Sharpchuter (for CRW mainly.) The canopy model called the Manta used to refer only to the low porosity 288 square foot 9 cell, but now they call the entire line by that name. They make a low porosity version, a fully zero porosity version, and a hybrid. The zero porosity version (I think the others too) has the "tucked over" top skin to make the openings slower than the straight nose design. The pack volumn is about what I would expect, and it packs about like a new zero porosity canopy. It flys just as I expected it to. It has a "traditional" flare like most "medium performance" canopies, meaning it does not zoom upward if you flare very vigorously, even with wraps. I cannot stall it with normal toggle control, and with a full wrap of line round my hands I still cannot quite stall it. It is right about on the edge of stall with wraps. What I really like about it is the opening. Very smooth deceleration, (caused somewhat of course by it being a large canopy, its large amount of fabric slowing the jumper before the canopy spreading even begins to occur.) It does not have a "snivel" typical of many zero porosity canopies, but is a continuous deceleration and opening. On hop and pops the opening is not slow, but is proportional to the deployment speed. It takes a second or two for the full spreading to occur and for the slider to come down after the deceleration is mostly done. Since it is rectangular, there has been no wandering of the heading on opening. It looks like a really nice improvement on a good design, and would provide a drop zone with a student canopy with a very long life if the fully zero porosity version is chosen.

http://www.skydivestlouisarea.com/htlypits.gif This photo probably speaks for itself also. (It's pretty old.) It doesn't matter how many jumps you have. Interesting landings can happen any time.

You might want to take a look here. http://www.pcprg.com/prginst.htm The link called "Riser Load System". Potvin did hundreds of test jumps like this, but all of them were to compare sliders and packing techniques, not line types. This type of testing is hard work, and you really need the proper equipment to get good data. An alternate to doing a manned jump which requires less equipment would be an unmanned test drop with a single load cell. But I encourage you to do it if you have the time and money, because the military and the manufacturers usually keep this data to themselves when they collect it. It would be a very worthy experiment, something almost sure to get you a speaker's slot at the PIA Symposium in 2009. Another possibility would be static tests on the ground using weights. The load cells could be smaller and less expensive, and you could use a computer based data acquisition unit instead of a special portable data logger.

Well, this is just one of them.....

Yes, even ditches can cause turbulence when it gets windy enough! Yesterday we saw an experienced jumper land really hard (yet fortunately not get seriously hurt). Winds were about 18MPH or so with no gusts. Canopy was a Spectre, wingloading was about 1.0. There is a very shallow ditch adjacent to the landing area. Its geometry changes along its length, that is, it is not just a ditch that is a shallow depression along its entire length, but instead turns into more of a slight hill in this one area, which is the area that caused trouble for this jumper. When the wind is coming from a particular direction, it can blow unobstructed upwind of the "hill" and then when it reaches the hill, create an upward flow which turns into a rotor and downward flow a bit downwind of that. (In other words, it creates kind of a ramp which makes the wind shoot upward.) This jumper happened to land where the rotor was, and it caused her canopy to lose most of its lift right as she was flaring. She said she noticed this was happening but it was too late to do anything differently. She had to do the best PLF she could. I see this kind of thing on a regular basis (and not just caused by this ditch), and it happens to all kind of skydivers, mainly with low to medium wing loadings, but this occurance was more extreme than most I see. For a person with not a lot of jumps that thinks they are landing in a clear area with no obstacles upwind, having this happen is very confusing. So hopefully what we can learn from this is: 1. Ditches can cause troublesome turbulence at some wind speeds. 2. We all need to continue learning how to visualize the wind and what it is doing in relationship to nearby objects. 3. We always need to be prepared to do a PLF at the last second because there may not be time to do anything else. Hope this helps.

I looked at it. Pretty clean "code". Looks like you're a Fuckin' Cool Guy.

You realize of course that the FCG's do it all "by hand" don't you? You might spend some time at the newsgroups (Usenet) comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html or alt.www.webmaster to confirm this. (Or to put it another way, "We don't need no stinking program".)

Tami, I had no idea until I just read this. You know what to tell him for us!

Tandem jumps paying for much of what we enjoy is a well known fact, but other instructional methods make money too. (But of course it depends on where a drop zone is located and whether they can get staff willing to do that type of instruction.) Well, I'm not one of the old time jumpers that thinks "Tandem is ruining skydiving" (just to let everyone else reading this know.) But giving up on instruction, and in particular, not giving Tandem student ripcords like we do students trained in other instruction methods is certainly not helping promote the idea that someone can continue in this wonderful sport. I would like to end my part of this thread by saying that I know of Tandem instruction being done very well in a lot of places. I just wanted to comment on why I thought Tandem students should be given ripcords and trainined to use them.

What I think is sad is this person's statement that: "I havent had a first time student really want to pull in months." I think that is sad because it would seem that not many of these students have even been exposed to Tandem jumps as anything but a carnival ride. If a really nervous student says they don't want to pull (could be for any number of reasons), I can understand that, but for so many to not want to participate means the momentum of the attitude about instruction (or lack of it) at that drop zone is heading toward carnival ride. Like I said in an earlier reply, wouldn't it be nice if all of the Tandem students were not just willing to learn, but eager? How could a Tandem instructor not just eat that up? It is so gratifying to teach someone who is eager to learn! If you simply give them a carnival ride just because they initially ask for one, it means you have given up. Given up on instruction, and given up on Tandem. (I bet i'm not the only one who fears that skydiving is just going to wind up being Tandem carnival rides.) Tandem students who think that their jump is going to be only a carnival ride need to be educated that their jump can be so much more! Yes, this requires work, and this requires that the Tandem instructor push back the carnival ride attitude. But it's worth it isn't it? For the sake of skydiving?

If that is true then I "noticed" wrong I guess. I just seems rather steep to me, but perhaps I am used to seeing more flatter trimmed canopies land.

GP: ...nearly everyone with low wing loading is at danger now that most canopies are trimmed flatter (than the previous generation of canopies) now. BVN: Is this really true? Lately it seems like steep trims are the rule rather than the exception in new canopies. It would be interesting to compare the absolute trim between, say, Stilettos and modern 'intermediate' canopies like the Pilot/Sabre 2. GP: Of course, after I wrote that I started thinking... Yes, I have noticed that the Sabre 2 is trimmer steeper, and probably some other canopies too. (Maybe there is a good reason for that eh?, with those canopies expected to be used lightly loaded by many novice jumpers.) Anyway, the original Sabre is one of those to be careful with when lightly loaded. Perhaps some people can identify some others to watch out for that they know are similar.

Newly lined by PD canopy. I should have mentioned that.