craddock

Well the simple answer to the simple question would be that one is a 7 cell and the other is a 9 cell design. I am pretty sure Chris knows that. What other "simple" answers are you looking for Jim? Differences in Airfoil distortion (spanwise, bulge, ect.) between the two different canopies? Differences in pack volume? Differences in price? Opening characteristics? Turn rate? Riser pressure? (front or rear?) Toggle pressure? Dive Rate? What exactly is the "simple question" Jim Josh That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

Yes, I did it on my FX when I was going through a period of bad openings. Actually I had several issues and not setting the brakes took of everything. On my 107 I simply did it to save a few seconds when doing back to back on the same King Air all day. I would not do it on larger canopies without reefing the control lines buton small canopies I have never had problems. Have a great Forth of July ! Blues, Josh That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

I have many jumps on my FX with the brakes not set and it has opened soft everytime. I can say that the best series of openings I have had on that canopy occured without the brakes set. My Stiletto 107 opened fine just fine also unset, although neither canopy seemed to snivil much either way. Just good ~3-400 ish foot openings. I would not jump a continue to jump a canopy that took 800-1000 + to open up. Just me. Josh That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

I need to go back and read your proposal again. Does yours not allow a higher wingloading if the jumper takes a canopy control class. If so, how does a canopy control class reduce V. I am surprised that some of you really believe that these fatalities or injuries WOULD(not could) have had a different outcome with more training. It could have and in some cases it probably will. But people will still have bad judgement, panic at inopportune times, ect. Education may or may not help this part. This is not to say I am against education, but I have pointed out to you where it clearly did not work and you questioned the education even though it was coming from a very reputable instructor. Some people will never be competent and safe under high winloadings regardless of how much training they have. It is not because they do not understand it, but because they can not physicaly apply it and for you to assume otherwise in favor of you argument is not right. That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

Another reality as John points out is that males between 20-30 are are the Most dangerous group That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

I want to correct the numbers I used when reffering to the canopy control course and the accidents that followed. There was actually between 12-15 jumpers that took the class. There was actually three seperate classes which I was unaware. I was only there Saturday as I got rather beat up landing a bi-plane under a ... well nevermind. I also did not realize that another jumper who broke his leg a couple of weeks ago had taken the course. He has about 1300 jumps. So of the three broken legs, all three had canopy training and two of them had more than 500 jumps. We still have that other one that is not out of the woods yet. I only bring this up as BillVon indicated by looking at the fatality reports that X number of fatalities could have been prevented with proper training and/or wingloading restrictions. And yes it could have. Or not. One could theorize from my small sample group that it could cause more accidents. That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

Skydiving is by far the least demanding sport I have been involved in. That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

Just for the record I said nothing about experience or wingloading of these jumpers. The jumper with busted femur has over 800 jumps I believe. Another is just a few jumps short of 500 according to his profile. Wingloading I am unsure but is not that high. Broken femur later says he knew he was over his head with the canopy.(something like that-I heard second hand) Amyway I am unsure if your proposal would have made a difference, just looking at different angles That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

did they drop the "D" license requirements for national competition? When? That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

No I did not say that. Your acting like Ron and Lisa. I asked if it would. note the ? It was something to give people to think about. The second time I did say that "I feared" it, which I regretted right after I posted it. Even if I do fear it. It is a far cry from me saying it would. My point is that at several DZ's they paid very close attention to make sure I could safely fly the canopy. I did not have many jumps but had been flying the 107 for a while and had no issues convincing them. I feel comfortable saying form the reaction before seeing me land it that they would have had no problem grounding me. My point is that they were doing the job you say they are not doing. They had no reason to ground me other than jump numbers and they were not even that low now that I think about it. Just an S&TA doing his job I don't know mabey your right. They could have been all talk and no bark to ground someone. I should have used examples of others I have seen not allowed to jump. At any rate I do believe they are doing the job more than we here. We usually only hear about it when there not. That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

Are we really expected to hear the stories when someone is not allowed to jump? That does not make good headlines. I think it happens more than we hear about. I have seen it happen quite a bit. clearly it does not happen as much as some would like. When I started jumping other DZ's and people found out I had xxx # of jumps after seeing me throw 270's, the S&TA heard about it one way or another. More than once I was spoke to and then observed for a couple of jumps before they were comfortable letting me jump there. I am sure you never heard about those situations. I am not saying nothing is wrong, but to put a blanket statement that no one is doing it right; just to make a proposal fit is not right. It is the ones that I fear could stop once USPA takes some weight off of their shoulders. That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

Key word is Could. I am sure Ron and skybytch will come on here and claim I think canopy control classes are bad but I will say this anyway. About a month ago Scott Miller held a Canopy control class at one of my local dropzones. Of the 5 jumpers in the class, two of them broke a bone the following weekend. One broke an ankle and the other broke his femur in 2 places. A third jumper is an accident waiting to happen. I just got off the phone with my buddy who told me todays downwind(highwinds) flirtation with a fence. He has been advised to use a different landing area -since the course. I hope he does not get hurt but he does not listen very well. Took a few physics classes and knows everything about canopy flight. Canopy training is a valuable asset for some, but that does not mean everyone can apply what they have learned. There are many teachers that are not as good as the students they are training. Look at the coach/athlete. I also believe in risk compensation. I suppose it can be defined many ways and it may not really fit here, but in my mind it does. Also is the S&TA going to be as likely to step in and ground someone who has done the training to opt out, or has 500 jumps but is in over his/her head if he feels the USPA has taken pressure off him for this duty? Are we going to see an increase of jumpers getting smaller canopies after they have taken a canopy control course because it is now their right to do so? Is NOT having a manatory canopy conrol class really a step in the right direction? Jumpers hitting 500 jumps who have obtained a D licence and downsizing beyond their abilities. There are plenty of people out there now that have a D who have not meant the requirements. Josh That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

There are hundreds of posts. Everyone had there own idea. Even there own ideas kept changing. Have we now all agreed upon on proposal. Is it ready for a vote? Which one should I read Ron. I have probabley read it it in some form or another. I have read plenty from you ,Bill Von , many many others. I just don't think I have read everyones idea As your cut and paste left out again, It could mean I was lucky, could mean I studied harder, mabey I am crazy, an ET, the devil? But since you say I am gifted Ron, that must be it. I'll stick with that Thank You. For you to quit cross posting. My statement of fact was amended to " I transitioned down faster than is normal. Is that better?" My point was only made to illustrate why I was agreeing with someone. I thought my experience was relevent. As far as you thinking it sounded ego filled leads me to think you have your own ego problems. No, you did that. I simply stated that I started flying small canopies faster than the norm. Does that make me better? interesting. not exactly what I said, but anyway I read yours Ron. of course you assume I did not because I made one comment about not reading all of them. Hell yours was one of the first. . That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

Thank you, I think you just made his point That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

Yes you did, but you also implied that I am against reducing this number. Which is far from the truth and I do not know where you come up with it Let me guess WL recommendations, Proposed bsr's What? that's not it? Or what your saying is that I am not allowed to debate a particular point within a topic. Lisa mabey you need to go back and find out what points I was "arguing" That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

Again Ron I never said it was a bad thing. Don't be such an ass! Here is what I said : "I have some ideas how it(program) could actually cause a few more injuries, but I better keep them to myself. I have seen you twist my words already. I never once said we should not do anything, Did I ?" For one I feel it COULD lead to much higher wingloadings accross the board. It may give jumpers the impresssion they can downsize faster because they have taken a course. If USPA says so... Taking a course does not always make someone a better pilot. Knowing how to do something is not the same as being able to do something. About a month ago, Scott Miller was up in Wisconsin doing a canopy control class. They did x number of jumps with video. I was at the DZ but am unsure of the exact details. What I do know is that of the 5 jumpers he had, two of them suffered broked bones the next weekend. One broke an ankle. The other broke a femur in two places. Another one is an accident waiting to happen, almost taking out the fence ,the trees, what not before being advised to land in a different area. That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

Love that cut and paste Ron. I was trying to say that a progressed faster than average in canopy flight. Faster than would be allowed by the proposals without waivers. I have not even read all the proposals yet. I was backing up someone elses statement I think(it is hard to tell what anynone said with all the cut and paste. You turn my words that into me saying I am gifted or special. I would never say that. Mabey I studied harder? Mabey I was lucky? Mabey I am an E.T. What gives you the right to decide how I feel about myself based on how you decide to interperate what I meant to be a statement of fact. Really? Lisa just said the following "For any of the proposals I've read to work, the people charged with doing the more advanced training and evaluating would need to be experienced at what they are teaching/evaluating." So if I lived in northern Wisconsin I would look in a Data base to find out where the closest evaluater is? Would there be one in the midwest? How hard would this rating be? It may not be hard to get signed off Ron. But it may be expensive if there is travel involved. That could make it very hard. I have never said I was against making changes. I never said nothing needs to be done. Why the need to That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

Once again Lisa, if you are reffering to my feelings on this I don't know where you get off saying this. You do not know my entire feelings on this yet act as though you do and cut and paste to make it look as though I am arguing against the whole proposal. Why That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

Said what? You really have to stop with this cut and paste. Because I would expect to see landing injuries means I am against reducing them? Come on Lisa. I don't recall ever saying I was against requirements but I am sure you can cut and paste that one. This started out agreeing with a post on one small point. Now you all think I am opposed to anything that will help. Just because I may debate a point on one side does not mean that is where I stand on it. Hardly. I it was that simple changes would have been made years ago. I am not quite sure, but many of us never got wet. I suppose that comment will help Ron with his waiver arguement but it is hardly the same thing. That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

I hope none. I have some ideas how it(program) could actually cause a few more injuries, but I better keep them to myself. I have seen you twist my words already. I never once said we should not do anything, Did I ? That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

First I do not understand how you know how much knowledge I have, nor how much experience. Second I have no idea what your talking about. No one has said that JC would have progressed the same in todays world, only that the current proposal would not have affected him. Did I say it would? Don't remember that. What am I arguing about? If you all would stop arguing and put your efforts toward educating(those of you who may be qualified) something might actually get done about your problem. That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

So now we had a problem ten years ago? I never heard of this talk a few years ago. And where did I say I was against this. Really? Where! You earned your name well Lisa. I made a comment about JC and why I felt he did not transition as fast as the current crop of jumpers. I made a comment that under some of the proposed BSR's I have seen I may have not continued to jump. I have many sports that I have competed in, it was hard enough to fit skydiving in back then. It would not have been that hard to quit since I had would not have been able to jump the canopies that got me addicted. I expressed these comments based on someones post that this could happen, which someone elso though was ridiculous. And so now I am against reducing the number of fatalities? Lisa- I coach and give canopy training and do the best I can to prevent seeing another fatality. I just choose to do it a different way than you. While your busy trying to change the system, I will keep teaching and sharing information that I feel is much more likely to save lives Yes I do Lisa. In the US several accidents per weekend. I have been in sports were it was not at all uncommon to stop the competition because both ambulances were gone(several times per day!). I may have seen hundreds of broken femurs. This sport is very safe compared to what some do. I have broke dozens of bones in other sports. Never been injured skydiving. You keep trying to change the rules Lisa, I will keep on trying to educate and save lives. I'm outa here That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

Not in your mind I am sure How many people were jumping high wingloading back then. How many jumps would JC have had to have to be jumping a highly loaded Stiletto. No need to respond. This has already been covered and I think you know better. You love to cut and paste and take the context out of shit don't you. Again not a question. I wonder how many hours the current crop of fighter pilots log compared to Yeager before they break the Sound barrier? How many jumps did the first jumpers have when they did the first baton pass? First four way? eight way? According to you logic I should have never done my first four way at 14 jumps. Chasing Cessna 8 ways at 70 jumps. How about you? did you advance faster than the old timers. Shame on you Lisa! Probably were fewer jumps done also. Probably has a bit to do with high performance canopies. It has to do with a lot of things and a couple of years is not a good collection of data. There you go Lisa That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

I have read proposals without exceptions. An S&TA signing a jumper off would be hard to get if you traveled all over a region to jump. Might not be a problem with some S&TA if you jumped there all the time and new them real well. My S&TA though we were all nuts. He flew a 170ish What the hell is a "Mad Skill" ? Do I know you Lisa? Or do you attempt to insult everyone who feels different than you. No need to answer that. That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

Wow, I did not know it was that bad back then. I started jumping in 1998. My first canopy was a PD190. I put about 40 jumps on it and put some jumps on a friends Sabre. Broke my leg again(not skydiving-I have broke many bones but never in skydiving. This sport is safer than my other sports) During the six weeks I had to heal I bought a Stiletto 107 and loaded it at 1.7 Times really have changed. Do we really need to go backwards though. I doubt I would have over a 100 jumps like it was back then. I got into skydive(not my first jump) because of canopy flight Josh That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.