borgy 0 #1 April 10, 2006 This is a question regarding one of my friends who is about to be off student status who is damn light and soon to be lookings for a first rig. We have asked around the drop zone and everyone has the same response which is "Ohhh maybe a 150 but fuck thats small for a first rig!!!" I'm 75 kg and I fly a 170 at 46 kg I imagine a 170 would be a prety boring and long ride down. any thoughts??? By the way I realise the DZO has to approve.I only trust two people in this world, one of them is me and the other one aint you. Nicolas Cage as Cameron Poe in "Con Air" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bob.dino 1 #2 April 10, 2006 Quote...everyone has the same response which is "Ohhh maybe a 150 but fuck thats small for a first rig!!!" I'm 75 kg and I fly a 170 at 46 kg Wingloading doesn't scale linearly. A 210 loaded at 1.0 will perform very differently to a 120 loaded at 1.0. Wingloading & Its Effects. QuoteI imagine a 170 would be a prety boring and long ride down. Nope. It's all about your skill in flying the canopy. There's video on skydivingmovies.com of Scott Miller running a swoop course on a 220 Navigator (a student canopy). Quoteany thoughts??? Listen to the instructors around you, and make sure you don't go putting thoughts in her head that she's not cool if she gets a 170. QuoteBy the way I realise the DZO has to approve. ...and Phil very very rarely allows anything less than a 170 for a first rig. There's a reason for that Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites borgy 0 #3 April 10, 2006 as usual thanks for your reply Dave.I only trust two people in this world, one of them is me and the other one aint you. Nicolas Cage as Cameron Poe in "Con Air" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites bigway 4 #4 April 10, 2006 Try a steak and fries with a side serving of potato salad for the next few weeks. Serious though, My CSO in christchurch NZ put a girl on a 150 for her first canopy but she was carefully watched and it took her a while to get the landing nice. She still had to run the thing off but it worked for her. Maybe she could try a 7-cell 149 for a while before moving on to a 9-cell?? .Karnage Krew Gear Store . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ParaskiChamp 0 #5 April 10, 2006 borgy wrote---I imagine a 170 would be a prety boring and long ride down. When ever i hear people with that "attitude" i think 'here's somebody that isn't going to last long in the sport' I've jumped my accuracy rig loaded at 0.65 lbs/sq ft over the Alps of Italy, Austria, Germany, over the Rockies and the Laurentians of Canada, over the Apalachians and Catskills of the US. The view was spectacular. I can land it going sideways and backward. I down size to my CRW rig at .85 lbs/sq ft to do stack rotations, tri-sides, wagon wheels, downplanes... When i get really daring i down size to my Demo rig at .95 lbs/sq ft. I've landed it in football stadium in front of tens of thousands of people, small backyards for $$ and anywhere in between. It's never boring, but you have to be willing to learn. i'm injury free in 20 years. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites bigway 4 #6 April 10, 2006 Quote I can land it going sideways and backward. And you think that someone just off AFF should be doing this? .Karnage Krew Gear Store . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites borgy 0 #7 April 10, 2006 Quoteborgy wrote---I imagine a 170 would be a prety boring and long ride down. When ever i hear people with that "attitude" i think 'here's somebody that isn't going to last long in the sport' To be honest I think your just being an arsehole, I'm asking a reasonable question and you are just for the hell of it trying to be-little me and take the oportunity to give yourself a big pat on the back. The person I'm talking about right now is jumping a student 240 canopy, the same canopy I thougt was reasonably quick when I was jumping it. She on the other hand can't jump in any wind at all and takes a very long time to burn off altitude. which is why I ask.I only trust two people in this world, one of them is me and the other one aint you. Nicolas Cage as Cameron Poe in "Con Air" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Liemberg 0 #8 April 10, 2006 QuoteAnd you think that someone just off AFF should be doing this? Nah, someone just off AFF should be corckscrewing her highly loaded ZP elliptical canopy to close to the ground and always, always, always try to make a stand up landing since PLF tends to make mud stains on the new color coordinated gear... What's the similarity between students on Navigators and competition PA jumpers? They can't jump in any wind.... What's the difference? Most competition PA jumpers are good to go for another 1000+ "boring" jumps without injuries... "Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci A thousand words... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites bigway 4 #9 April 10, 2006 They cant jump in any wind. Kind of sucks having to limit them to this when the rest of us did not have to see the wind out cause we weighed a little more. The sport is changing, it is becoming a faster sport, so what, does not mean we are going to go off and kill ourselves just cause we have entered a sport that is a bit faster. When i started driving a car, i did not have to do my first 100 hours in a Ford Model-A, i started driving a Ford 1.5L. It went faster than the slow ModelA but i am still here. Going backwards under canopy for someone that is off radio control is probably more dangerous than jumping a canopy that is at a 1.0 wingloading. Who ever said she had to jump a 9-cell? There is always a more dosile 7-cell available. This sport has risk in it, it is a different sport now, it is not just about the freefall, we also have faster canopies and safer canopies. There is no point for a person off student status to be going backwards under canopy, nor is there no point for a person off student status to be sitting on the ground cause the wind is 10knots unless their DZO knows that they are not capable. The solution for this person is better left with the instructors that know her rather than these boring farts that have been in the sport forever and want to keep driving Ford model A's. People seem to be a little too safe on the internet these days. New jumpers should be able to find a canopy that is good for them and does not restrict them to wind at 5knots, what is the point in getting your license if you still have to use training wheels? .Karnage Krew Gear Store . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Liemberg 0 #10 April 10, 2006 Quoteso what, does not mean we are going to go off and kill ourselves just cause we have entered a sport that is a bit faster. Apparently some of you do. QuoteGoing backwards under canopy for someone that is off radio control is probably more dangerous than jumping a canopy that is at a 1.0 wingloading. Why? Just means you have to have space behind you in stead of in front of you... When you (through training) are CAPABLE to handle that and refrain from listening to those who tell you that with a smaller canopy and a higher wingload you'll live happily ever after, the differences in weather conditions will be marginal and you can jump most of the times when there's jumping going on... I landed militairy surplus rounds in 18+ knots of wind; that wasn't the smartest thing I ever did, but there are no lasting effects - I never broke a single bone in my body... Of course, 46 kg is extremely low, but coming from 240 I wouldn't let someone go to a 150 without "a few stops on the way"... Being able to handle landings going sideways, backwards or slightly uphill would be all good opportunities to stop and think. Quotethese boring farts that have been in the sport forever ...? Limping for the rest of your natural life is indeed so much cooler... "Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci A thousand words... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites bigway 4 #11 April 10, 2006 I am not saying limping for the rest of life is cool at all. How come when people dont agree with the older generation in this sport they have to refer to killing yourself or breaking bones or limping for the rest of our lives?? Just cause the new generation have found out and let you know it is capable of doing you have to stick to your ways and refer to us as being stupid and we will hurt ourselves. That is not cool giving out stupid negative vibes, it is as though you want us to get hurt instead of encouraging the sport to evolve. Back in the day when you you use to think you would break bones if you docked on to someone in freefall, i bet you were the last to ever try and dock. Did you discourage that? did you discourage when squares first started coming out? Instead of a small person spending her time on the ground cause of slight wind or learning to fly and land a suitable canopy like the rest of us your opinion is she should danger herself and spend her time training and learning on how to land a parachute that is not suited backwards and sideways?? Glad you landed military surplus rounds and never broke a bone but i bet my bottom dollar you know alot of people that were not as fortunate as yourself. I on the other hand jump a semi elliptical canopy and watch many other people jump squares, ellipticals, cross-braced canopies and i too have not broken a single bone nor do i know many or seen any people who have killed or hurt themselves doing so. Times have changed mate, this sport may be about throwing drouges to you but to alot of us it is about speed, and skill, fun, family, social times. That does not make us stupid nor does it mean we are going to hurt our selves or be limping for the rest of our lives. Parachutes, are designed so much better than they use to be and a good parachute can be very forgiving, take the Safire2 for example, a very forgiving canopy. As long as her safety instructor says yes, she would be fine on jumping a 170 for a few dozen jumps, maybe then she could look at buying her first new canopy being a 149 or even a 149 7-cell. If you think a person who weighs 46 Kg's should buy themselves a 240 or even a 200 that is just plain stupid, she may as well take up doing tandems as a sport so she can 'try' and land safely. Going bacwards under canopy is no fun, you saying she should learn to start landing backwards is just stupid. You are putting a risk there that is not needed when there are so many great canopies out there that will suit her fine. .Karnage Krew Gear Store . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites feuergnom 28 #12 April 10, 2006 whoa - maybe you shopuld change your username from big way to big m.... ah nevermind step back from the computer, go roll yourself a big phat joint, have a nice smoke and once you are really relaxed star posting in speakers cormer btw: actually liemberg is one of the reasonable people in here (i've never met him but i think he's cool from what and how he says ) - so i have no idea what your beef isThe universal aptitude for ineptitude makes any human accomplishment an incredible miracle dudeist skydiver # 666 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites bigway 4 #13 April 10, 2006 Quotebtw: actually liemberg is one of the reasonable people in here (i've never met him but i think he's cool from what and how he says ) - so i have no idea what your beef is I think he is too. Just hashing out a difference of opinion, nothing personal. I do feel bad about saying old fart Nothing personal, i just think for this day and age and the great parachute designs we have now that he is wrong. Telling someone it is okay to be flying backwards is bullshit. We have come to far in this sport to be going backwards. It is never ok for a jumper to be in the sky if they are going to have to land backwards. Canopies have come a long way and the right canopy for a person who weighs 46 kgs is not a a 200, 210, really, maybe not even a 190. 170, maybe, even if it had to be a dosile 7 cell. .Karnage Krew Gear Store . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites popsjumper 2 #14 April 10, 2006 QuoteI am not saying limping for the rest of life is cool at all. How come when people dont agree with the older generation in this sport they have to refer to killing yourself or breaking bones or limping for the rest of our lives?? We've been around much longer than you and have seen a lot more of it and realize that it could happen to you and anyone else without warning. QuoteJust cause the new generation have found out and let you know it is capable of doing you have to stick to your ways and refer to us as being stupid and we will hurt ourselves. With more performance comes more potential for hurting yourself. It's not about "generation gap"..it's about handling the added performance of the gear. QuoteThat is not cool giving out stupid negative vibes, it is as though you want us to get hurt instead of encouraging the sport to evolve. In your defensiveness, you're missing the point entirely. QuoteBack in the day when you you use to think you would break bones if you docked on to someone in freefall, i bet you were the last to ever try and dock. Did you discourage that? did you discourage when squares first started coming out? Nope...encouraged knowledge, training and safety...which is what's going on here...again, you're missing it. Quote...nor do i know many or seen any people who have killed or hurt themselves doing so. Good for you! Now go read the incident and fatality reports. Quote...to alot of us it is about speed, and skill, fun, family, social times. This is where I am saddened...I see no mention of safety and "speed" is listed first. QuoteThat does not make us stupid nor does it mean we are going to hurt our selves or be limping for the rest of our lives. Well ignorance is one thing, carelessness and disregard for safety is another. QuoteParachutes, are designed so much better than they use to be and a good parachute can be very forgiving, take the Safire2 for example, a very forgiving canopy. Only if you take the time and effort to learn how to fly it. Quote...As long as her safety instructor says yes Asking the safety instructor is a good thing. QuoteIf you think a person who weighs 46 Kg's should buy themselves a 240 or even a 200... ...you saying she should learn to start landing backwards is just stupid. Putting words into someone's mouth invalidate's any argument you may have.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skybytch 273 #15 April 10, 2006 QuoteIf you think a person who weighs 46 Kg's should buy themselves a 240 or even a 200 that is just plain stupid, I haven't seen anybody saying that. What I see here is people saying that there's nothing wrong with loading a canopy under 1.0 when someone is still learning, especially when that person is a featherbutt, and that going from a 240 to a 170 in one jump isn't a real good idea. Personally, I think a 170 is a good starting point for someone who weighs about 100 pounds. Remember, most people who weigh that little will need to wear weights to keep up with heavier people in freefall; that means that 100 lb person could be out the door at 135 lbs or more. 135 lbs exit weight is about a 0.8 wingloading on a 170. That is not at all unreasonable. Even Brian Germain, who arguably knows more about parachutes and learning to fly them than everybody posting in this thread put together, says that wingloading is not unreasonable. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites bigway 4 #16 April 10, 2006 QuoteThis is where I am saddened...I see no mention of safety and "speed" is listed first. Safety goes without saying QuoteWe've been around much longer than you and have seen a lot more of it and realize that it could happen to you and anyone else without warning. as it could going backwards QuoteGood for you! Now go read the incident and fatality reports. should i also read the daily obituaraies? in the paper QuoteWell ignorance is one thing, carelessness and disregard for safety is another. my point exactly, going backwards falls in this catergory. Are you saying that a 170 and maybe after a few dozen jumps a 150 would be wrong for someone of this weight? QuoteAsking the safety instructor is a good thing. Is the only thing and the definetly the first thing and last thing to do. Quote Putting words into someone's mouth invalidate's any argument you may have. i was saying what he was implying. He was saying a 170 would not be an option. I am not trying to be personal i just do not see how a good lecture, advice and training for a suitable canopy that is designed to go forward under her wing loading is bad compared to a canopy that is designed to go forward but under wingloading she has a greater chance of going backwards. How on earth is that ever safe? Safety is the first thing, the most important thing. Fun and speed come second. I do not suggest that she is ready for speed but do suggest she is ready for fun. Nobody has fun going backwards, it can be very frightening and extremly dangerous. .Karnage Krew Gear Store . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites bigway 4 #17 April 10, 2006 I agree with what you are saying 100%. We were talking about a wingloading, there were no mention of weights. I can not see a person just off AFF wearing weights though. Even if they were, maybe they are doing some solos before they jumping with others at that stage anyway. Nobody said the canopy sizes as i did, sorry. i was reading between the lines. There is not much more in between a 170 and a 240, i think i forgot to mention 190 maybe. .Karnage Krew Gear Store . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Liemberg 0 #18 April 10, 2006 QuoteHow come when people dont agree with the older generation in this sport they have to refer to killing yourself or breaking bones or limping for the rest of our lives?? Because older skydivers have seen their share of fatalities, broken bones and people still limping five or ten years after their accident? QuoteThat is not cool giving out stupid negative vibes O well, one mans signal can be another mans noise - what else is new? My perspective on life and skydiving is that of the one that has to call the ambulance and talk to the press. I have learned that in skydiving, as in other walks of life, stupidity can be recycled and so every now and then there's another new kid on the block who wants to discuss the wonderfull new invention of the wheel and the concept of 'roundness' So be it. "People try to put us down. Ju-ju-just because we get around. Things they do look awfull cold. Hope I die before I get old..." Cool. Who? Limp Bizkit of course! QuoteBack in the day when you you use to think you would break bones if you docked on to someone in freefall It was even worse: I used to think that "docking on to someone in freefall" when done UNCONTROLLED could result in having your leg severed below the knee. That was all a stupid rumour of course - never happened... Quoteshe should danger herself and spend her time training and learning on how to land a parachute that is not suited backwards and sideways?? If a 170 is too large and therefore not suited - even downright dangerous, how did she survive the training jumps on a 240? QuoteI on the other hand jump a semi elliptical canopy and watch many other people jump squares, ellipticals, cross-braced canopies and i too have not broken a single bone nor do i know many or seen any people who have killed or hurt themselves doing so. Maybe you haven't been watching long enough? Other than that, selective perception is always a possibility... Thanks for explaining modern parachutes to me. I needed that... OK enough fooling around with you & back on topic: Of course, with adequate training a person just off student status could very well jump a 150 when her bodyweight is 46 kg as long as she has a clear understanding of the non-linearity when it comes to scaling parachutes. This means that with the same wingload a smaller parachute tends to react more brisk on steering input (i.e. "faster turns"). The fact remains however that making the same mistake close to the ground on the larger, less loaded parachute in general will result in a less severe outcome. If you panic because all of a sudden the wind changed and now you are landing sideways in stead of into the wind, the larger canopy will be more forgiving when your sudden state of fear lets you do something stupid close to the ground. YMMV. "Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci A thousand words... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites bigway 4 #19 April 10, 2006 QuoteIf a 170 is too large and therefore not suited - even downright dangerous, how did she survive the training jumps on a 240 With massive wind limits one can only imagine. Anyway, as you said, enough said. The person in question i am sure will listen to you over me with your experience. That is fair enough and the right way to take advice. Though lets just hope their DZO gets the last say. Blue skies. .Karnage Krew Gear Store . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites phoenixlpr 0 #20 April 10, 2006 One girl from our club is jumping with a Sabre120. Her weight is less than 50 kgs approx. I don't know her jump numbers. I suspect she has bought that gear with 60-80 jumps. I can ask. I do know that WL and Size nazis will crucify me for this post. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites bob.dino 1 #21 April 10, 2006 QuoteThough lets just hope their DZO gets the last say. Trust me, he will. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites HydroGuy 0 #22 April 11, 2006 Here is Brian Germain's proposed chart for downsizing...I eliminated a lot of heavier exit weights to make it a smaller file.Get in - Get off - Get away....repeat as neccessary Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DiscoStu 0 #23 April 11, 2006 Get her to read the link provided by Daves response. Its best she knows what the pros and cons of downsizing are, and dosen't only rely on soley others judgment, her saftey is her responsibilty too. Also it may pay to get her to enquire directly to Phil, cause again as Dave said he will probably expose restrictions. If she has mainly had one instructor also get them to advise her. I downsized from the 240 to a 170 (just under 1.0 WL). This was a big step and I sought advice and blessing from one of the tutors who had taken me on several B-rels and knew my canopy skill level. Also from memory I though I saw a 220 student main at the drop zone. Unless its been retired might pay to take a look. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites fcajump 164 #24 April 11, 2006 QuoteHere is Brian Germain's proposed chart for downsizing...I eliminated a lot of heavier exit weights to make it a smaller file. If you would not mind, please PM me the full file. We "plus-sizes" would like to see it too... Jim exit - ~254Always remember that some clouds are harder than others... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites monkycndo 0 #25 April 11, 2006 Here is the chart. Not sure if it is the most current. Brian was looking for input. I pulled it from his website.50 donations so far. Give it a try. You know you want to spank it Jump an Infinity Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
borgy 0 #3 April 10, 2006 as usual thanks for your reply Dave.I only trust two people in this world, one of them is me and the other one aint you. Nicolas Cage as Cameron Poe in "Con Air" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bigway 4 #4 April 10, 2006 Try a steak and fries with a side serving of potato salad for the next few weeks. Serious though, My CSO in christchurch NZ put a girl on a 150 for her first canopy but she was carefully watched and it took her a while to get the landing nice. She still had to run the thing off but it worked for her. Maybe she could try a 7-cell 149 for a while before moving on to a 9-cell?? .Karnage Krew Gear Store . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ParaskiChamp 0 #5 April 10, 2006 borgy wrote---I imagine a 170 would be a prety boring and long ride down. When ever i hear people with that "attitude" i think 'here's somebody that isn't going to last long in the sport' I've jumped my accuracy rig loaded at 0.65 lbs/sq ft over the Alps of Italy, Austria, Germany, over the Rockies and the Laurentians of Canada, over the Apalachians and Catskills of the US. The view was spectacular. I can land it going sideways and backward. I down size to my CRW rig at .85 lbs/sq ft to do stack rotations, tri-sides, wagon wheels, downplanes... When i get really daring i down size to my Demo rig at .95 lbs/sq ft. I've landed it in football stadium in front of tens of thousands of people, small backyards for $$ and anywhere in between. It's never boring, but you have to be willing to learn. i'm injury free in 20 years. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bigway 4 #6 April 10, 2006 Quote I can land it going sideways and backward. And you think that someone just off AFF should be doing this? .Karnage Krew Gear Store . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
borgy 0 #7 April 10, 2006 Quoteborgy wrote---I imagine a 170 would be a prety boring and long ride down. When ever i hear people with that "attitude" i think 'here's somebody that isn't going to last long in the sport' To be honest I think your just being an arsehole, I'm asking a reasonable question and you are just for the hell of it trying to be-little me and take the oportunity to give yourself a big pat on the back. The person I'm talking about right now is jumping a student 240 canopy, the same canopy I thougt was reasonably quick when I was jumping it. She on the other hand can't jump in any wind at all and takes a very long time to burn off altitude. which is why I ask.I only trust two people in this world, one of them is me and the other one aint you. Nicolas Cage as Cameron Poe in "Con Air" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Liemberg 0 #8 April 10, 2006 QuoteAnd you think that someone just off AFF should be doing this? Nah, someone just off AFF should be corckscrewing her highly loaded ZP elliptical canopy to close to the ground and always, always, always try to make a stand up landing since PLF tends to make mud stains on the new color coordinated gear... What's the similarity between students on Navigators and competition PA jumpers? They can't jump in any wind.... What's the difference? Most competition PA jumpers are good to go for another 1000+ "boring" jumps without injuries... "Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci A thousand words... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites bigway 4 #9 April 10, 2006 They cant jump in any wind. Kind of sucks having to limit them to this when the rest of us did not have to see the wind out cause we weighed a little more. The sport is changing, it is becoming a faster sport, so what, does not mean we are going to go off and kill ourselves just cause we have entered a sport that is a bit faster. When i started driving a car, i did not have to do my first 100 hours in a Ford Model-A, i started driving a Ford 1.5L. It went faster than the slow ModelA but i am still here. Going backwards under canopy for someone that is off radio control is probably more dangerous than jumping a canopy that is at a 1.0 wingloading. Who ever said she had to jump a 9-cell? There is always a more dosile 7-cell available. This sport has risk in it, it is a different sport now, it is not just about the freefall, we also have faster canopies and safer canopies. There is no point for a person off student status to be going backwards under canopy, nor is there no point for a person off student status to be sitting on the ground cause the wind is 10knots unless their DZO knows that they are not capable. The solution for this person is better left with the instructors that know her rather than these boring farts that have been in the sport forever and want to keep driving Ford model A's. People seem to be a little too safe on the internet these days. New jumpers should be able to find a canopy that is good for them and does not restrict them to wind at 5knots, what is the point in getting your license if you still have to use training wheels? .Karnage Krew Gear Store . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Liemberg 0 #10 April 10, 2006 Quoteso what, does not mean we are going to go off and kill ourselves just cause we have entered a sport that is a bit faster. Apparently some of you do. QuoteGoing backwards under canopy for someone that is off radio control is probably more dangerous than jumping a canopy that is at a 1.0 wingloading. Why? Just means you have to have space behind you in stead of in front of you... When you (through training) are CAPABLE to handle that and refrain from listening to those who tell you that with a smaller canopy and a higher wingload you'll live happily ever after, the differences in weather conditions will be marginal and you can jump most of the times when there's jumping going on... I landed militairy surplus rounds in 18+ knots of wind; that wasn't the smartest thing I ever did, but there are no lasting effects - I never broke a single bone in my body... Of course, 46 kg is extremely low, but coming from 240 I wouldn't let someone go to a 150 without "a few stops on the way"... Being able to handle landings going sideways, backwards or slightly uphill would be all good opportunities to stop and think. Quotethese boring farts that have been in the sport forever ...? Limping for the rest of your natural life is indeed so much cooler... "Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci A thousand words... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites bigway 4 #11 April 10, 2006 I am not saying limping for the rest of life is cool at all. How come when people dont agree with the older generation in this sport they have to refer to killing yourself or breaking bones or limping for the rest of our lives?? Just cause the new generation have found out and let you know it is capable of doing you have to stick to your ways and refer to us as being stupid and we will hurt ourselves. That is not cool giving out stupid negative vibes, it is as though you want us to get hurt instead of encouraging the sport to evolve. Back in the day when you you use to think you would break bones if you docked on to someone in freefall, i bet you were the last to ever try and dock. Did you discourage that? did you discourage when squares first started coming out? Instead of a small person spending her time on the ground cause of slight wind or learning to fly and land a suitable canopy like the rest of us your opinion is she should danger herself and spend her time training and learning on how to land a parachute that is not suited backwards and sideways?? Glad you landed military surplus rounds and never broke a bone but i bet my bottom dollar you know alot of people that were not as fortunate as yourself. I on the other hand jump a semi elliptical canopy and watch many other people jump squares, ellipticals, cross-braced canopies and i too have not broken a single bone nor do i know many or seen any people who have killed or hurt themselves doing so. Times have changed mate, this sport may be about throwing drouges to you but to alot of us it is about speed, and skill, fun, family, social times. That does not make us stupid nor does it mean we are going to hurt our selves or be limping for the rest of our lives. Parachutes, are designed so much better than they use to be and a good parachute can be very forgiving, take the Safire2 for example, a very forgiving canopy. As long as her safety instructor says yes, she would be fine on jumping a 170 for a few dozen jumps, maybe then she could look at buying her first new canopy being a 149 or even a 149 7-cell. If you think a person who weighs 46 Kg's should buy themselves a 240 or even a 200 that is just plain stupid, she may as well take up doing tandems as a sport so she can 'try' and land safely. Going bacwards under canopy is no fun, you saying she should learn to start landing backwards is just stupid. You are putting a risk there that is not needed when there are so many great canopies out there that will suit her fine. .Karnage Krew Gear Store . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites feuergnom 28 #12 April 10, 2006 whoa - maybe you shopuld change your username from big way to big m.... ah nevermind step back from the computer, go roll yourself a big phat joint, have a nice smoke and once you are really relaxed star posting in speakers cormer btw: actually liemberg is one of the reasonable people in here (i've never met him but i think he's cool from what and how he says ) - so i have no idea what your beef isThe universal aptitude for ineptitude makes any human accomplishment an incredible miracle dudeist skydiver # 666 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites bigway 4 #13 April 10, 2006 Quotebtw: actually liemberg is one of the reasonable people in here (i've never met him but i think he's cool from what and how he says ) - so i have no idea what your beef is I think he is too. Just hashing out a difference of opinion, nothing personal. I do feel bad about saying old fart Nothing personal, i just think for this day and age and the great parachute designs we have now that he is wrong. Telling someone it is okay to be flying backwards is bullshit. We have come to far in this sport to be going backwards. It is never ok for a jumper to be in the sky if they are going to have to land backwards. Canopies have come a long way and the right canopy for a person who weighs 46 kgs is not a a 200, 210, really, maybe not even a 190. 170, maybe, even if it had to be a dosile 7 cell. .Karnage Krew Gear Store . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites popsjumper 2 #14 April 10, 2006 QuoteI am not saying limping for the rest of life is cool at all. How come when people dont agree with the older generation in this sport they have to refer to killing yourself or breaking bones or limping for the rest of our lives?? We've been around much longer than you and have seen a lot more of it and realize that it could happen to you and anyone else without warning. QuoteJust cause the new generation have found out and let you know it is capable of doing you have to stick to your ways and refer to us as being stupid and we will hurt ourselves. With more performance comes more potential for hurting yourself. It's not about "generation gap"..it's about handling the added performance of the gear. QuoteThat is not cool giving out stupid negative vibes, it is as though you want us to get hurt instead of encouraging the sport to evolve. In your defensiveness, you're missing the point entirely. QuoteBack in the day when you you use to think you would break bones if you docked on to someone in freefall, i bet you were the last to ever try and dock. Did you discourage that? did you discourage when squares first started coming out? Nope...encouraged knowledge, training and safety...which is what's going on here...again, you're missing it. Quote...nor do i know many or seen any people who have killed or hurt themselves doing so. Good for you! Now go read the incident and fatality reports. Quote...to alot of us it is about speed, and skill, fun, family, social times. This is where I am saddened...I see no mention of safety and "speed" is listed first. QuoteThat does not make us stupid nor does it mean we are going to hurt our selves or be limping for the rest of our lives. Well ignorance is one thing, carelessness and disregard for safety is another. QuoteParachutes, are designed so much better than they use to be and a good parachute can be very forgiving, take the Safire2 for example, a very forgiving canopy. Only if you take the time and effort to learn how to fly it. Quote...As long as her safety instructor says yes Asking the safety instructor is a good thing. QuoteIf you think a person who weighs 46 Kg's should buy themselves a 240 or even a 200... ...you saying she should learn to start landing backwards is just stupid. Putting words into someone's mouth invalidate's any argument you may have.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skybytch 273 #15 April 10, 2006 QuoteIf you think a person who weighs 46 Kg's should buy themselves a 240 or even a 200 that is just plain stupid, I haven't seen anybody saying that. What I see here is people saying that there's nothing wrong with loading a canopy under 1.0 when someone is still learning, especially when that person is a featherbutt, and that going from a 240 to a 170 in one jump isn't a real good idea. Personally, I think a 170 is a good starting point for someone who weighs about 100 pounds. Remember, most people who weigh that little will need to wear weights to keep up with heavier people in freefall; that means that 100 lb person could be out the door at 135 lbs or more. 135 lbs exit weight is about a 0.8 wingloading on a 170. That is not at all unreasonable. Even Brian Germain, who arguably knows more about parachutes and learning to fly them than everybody posting in this thread put together, says that wingloading is not unreasonable. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites bigway 4 #16 April 10, 2006 QuoteThis is where I am saddened...I see no mention of safety and "speed" is listed first. Safety goes without saying QuoteWe've been around much longer than you and have seen a lot more of it and realize that it could happen to you and anyone else without warning. as it could going backwards QuoteGood for you! Now go read the incident and fatality reports. should i also read the daily obituaraies? in the paper QuoteWell ignorance is one thing, carelessness and disregard for safety is another. my point exactly, going backwards falls in this catergory. Are you saying that a 170 and maybe after a few dozen jumps a 150 would be wrong for someone of this weight? QuoteAsking the safety instructor is a good thing. Is the only thing and the definetly the first thing and last thing to do. Quote Putting words into someone's mouth invalidate's any argument you may have. i was saying what he was implying. He was saying a 170 would not be an option. I am not trying to be personal i just do not see how a good lecture, advice and training for a suitable canopy that is designed to go forward under her wing loading is bad compared to a canopy that is designed to go forward but under wingloading she has a greater chance of going backwards. How on earth is that ever safe? Safety is the first thing, the most important thing. Fun and speed come second. I do not suggest that she is ready for speed but do suggest she is ready for fun. Nobody has fun going backwards, it can be very frightening and extremly dangerous. .Karnage Krew Gear Store . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites bigway 4 #17 April 10, 2006 I agree with what you are saying 100%. We were talking about a wingloading, there were no mention of weights. I can not see a person just off AFF wearing weights though. Even if they were, maybe they are doing some solos before they jumping with others at that stage anyway. Nobody said the canopy sizes as i did, sorry. i was reading between the lines. There is not much more in between a 170 and a 240, i think i forgot to mention 190 maybe. .Karnage Krew Gear Store . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Liemberg 0 #18 April 10, 2006 QuoteHow come when people dont agree with the older generation in this sport they have to refer to killing yourself or breaking bones or limping for the rest of our lives?? Because older skydivers have seen their share of fatalities, broken bones and people still limping five or ten years after their accident? QuoteThat is not cool giving out stupid negative vibes O well, one mans signal can be another mans noise - what else is new? My perspective on life and skydiving is that of the one that has to call the ambulance and talk to the press. I have learned that in skydiving, as in other walks of life, stupidity can be recycled and so every now and then there's another new kid on the block who wants to discuss the wonderfull new invention of the wheel and the concept of 'roundness' So be it. "People try to put us down. Ju-ju-just because we get around. Things they do look awfull cold. Hope I die before I get old..." Cool. Who? Limp Bizkit of course! QuoteBack in the day when you you use to think you would break bones if you docked on to someone in freefall It was even worse: I used to think that "docking on to someone in freefall" when done UNCONTROLLED could result in having your leg severed below the knee. That was all a stupid rumour of course - never happened... Quoteshe should danger herself and spend her time training and learning on how to land a parachute that is not suited backwards and sideways?? If a 170 is too large and therefore not suited - even downright dangerous, how did she survive the training jumps on a 240? QuoteI on the other hand jump a semi elliptical canopy and watch many other people jump squares, ellipticals, cross-braced canopies and i too have not broken a single bone nor do i know many or seen any people who have killed or hurt themselves doing so. Maybe you haven't been watching long enough? Other than that, selective perception is always a possibility... Thanks for explaining modern parachutes to me. I needed that... OK enough fooling around with you & back on topic: Of course, with adequate training a person just off student status could very well jump a 150 when her bodyweight is 46 kg as long as she has a clear understanding of the non-linearity when it comes to scaling parachutes. This means that with the same wingload a smaller parachute tends to react more brisk on steering input (i.e. "faster turns"). The fact remains however that making the same mistake close to the ground on the larger, less loaded parachute in general will result in a less severe outcome. If you panic because all of a sudden the wind changed and now you are landing sideways in stead of into the wind, the larger canopy will be more forgiving when your sudden state of fear lets you do something stupid close to the ground. YMMV. "Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci A thousand words... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites bigway 4 #19 April 10, 2006 QuoteIf a 170 is too large and therefore not suited - even downright dangerous, how did she survive the training jumps on a 240 With massive wind limits one can only imagine. Anyway, as you said, enough said. The person in question i am sure will listen to you over me with your experience. That is fair enough and the right way to take advice. Though lets just hope their DZO gets the last say. Blue skies. .Karnage Krew Gear Store . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites phoenixlpr 0 #20 April 10, 2006 One girl from our club is jumping with a Sabre120. Her weight is less than 50 kgs approx. I don't know her jump numbers. I suspect she has bought that gear with 60-80 jumps. I can ask. I do know that WL and Size nazis will crucify me for this post. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites bob.dino 1 #21 April 10, 2006 QuoteThough lets just hope their DZO gets the last say. Trust me, he will. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites HydroGuy 0 #22 April 11, 2006 Here is Brian Germain's proposed chart for downsizing...I eliminated a lot of heavier exit weights to make it a smaller file.Get in - Get off - Get away....repeat as neccessary Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DiscoStu 0 #23 April 11, 2006 Get her to read the link provided by Daves response. Its best she knows what the pros and cons of downsizing are, and dosen't only rely on soley others judgment, her saftey is her responsibilty too. Also it may pay to get her to enquire directly to Phil, cause again as Dave said he will probably expose restrictions. If she has mainly had one instructor also get them to advise her. I downsized from the 240 to a 170 (just under 1.0 WL). This was a big step and I sought advice and blessing from one of the tutors who had taken me on several B-rels and knew my canopy skill level. Also from memory I though I saw a 220 student main at the drop zone. Unless its been retired might pay to take a look. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites fcajump 164 #24 April 11, 2006 QuoteHere is Brian Germain's proposed chart for downsizing...I eliminated a lot of heavier exit weights to make it a smaller file. If you would not mind, please PM me the full file. We "plus-sizes" would like to see it too... Jim exit - ~254Always remember that some clouds are harder than others... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites monkycndo 0 #25 April 11, 2006 Here is the chart. Not sure if it is the most current. Brian was looking for input. I pulled it from his website.50 donations so far. Give it a try. You know you want to spank it Jump an Infinity Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Liemberg 0 #8 April 10, 2006 QuoteAnd you think that someone just off AFF should be doing this? Nah, someone just off AFF should be corckscrewing her highly loaded ZP elliptical canopy to close to the ground and always, always, always try to make a stand up landing since PLF tends to make mud stains on the new color coordinated gear... What's the similarity between students on Navigators and competition PA jumpers? They can't jump in any wind.... What's the difference? Most competition PA jumpers are good to go for another 1000+ "boring" jumps without injuries... "Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci A thousand words... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bigway 4 #9 April 10, 2006 They cant jump in any wind. Kind of sucks having to limit them to this when the rest of us did not have to see the wind out cause we weighed a little more. The sport is changing, it is becoming a faster sport, so what, does not mean we are going to go off and kill ourselves just cause we have entered a sport that is a bit faster. When i started driving a car, i did not have to do my first 100 hours in a Ford Model-A, i started driving a Ford 1.5L. It went faster than the slow ModelA but i am still here. Going backwards under canopy for someone that is off radio control is probably more dangerous than jumping a canopy that is at a 1.0 wingloading. Who ever said she had to jump a 9-cell? There is always a more dosile 7-cell available. This sport has risk in it, it is a different sport now, it is not just about the freefall, we also have faster canopies and safer canopies. There is no point for a person off student status to be going backwards under canopy, nor is there no point for a person off student status to be sitting on the ground cause the wind is 10knots unless their DZO knows that they are not capable. The solution for this person is better left with the instructors that know her rather than these boring farts that have been in the sport forever and want to keep driving Ford model A's. People seem to be a little too safe on the internet these days. New jumpers should be able to find a canopy that is good for them and does not restrict them to wind at 5knots, what is the point in getting your license if you still have to use training wheels? .Karnage Krew Gear Store . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Liemberg 0 #10 April 10, 2006 Quoteso what, does not mean we are going to go off and kill ourselves just cause we have entered a sport that is a bit faster. Apparently some of you do. QuoteGoing backwards under canopy for someone that is off radio control is probably more dangerous than jumping a canopy that is at a 1.0 wingloading. Why? Just means you have to have space behind you in stead of in front of you... When you (through training) are CAPABLE to handle that and refrain from listening to those who tell you that with a smaller canopy and a higher wingload you'll live happily ever after, the differences in weather conditions will be marginal and you can jump most of the times when there's jumping going on... I landed militairy surplus rounds in 18+ knots of wind; that wasn't the smartest thing I ever did, but there are no lasting effects - I never broke a single bone in my body... Of course, 46 kg is extremely low, but coming from 240 I wouldn't let someone go to a 150 without "a few stops on the way"... Being able to handle landings going sideways, backwards or slightly uphill would be all good opportunities to stop and think. Quotethese boring farts that have been in the sport forever ...? Limping for the rest of your natural life is indeed so much cooler... "Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci A thousand words... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bigway 4 #11 April 10, 2006 I am not saying limping for the rest of life is cool at all. How come when people dont agree with the older generation in this sport they have to refer to killing yourself or breaking bones or limping for the rest of our lives?? Just cause the new generation have found out and let you know it is capable of doing you have to stick to your ways and refer to us as being stupid and we will hurt ourselves. That is not cool giving out stupid negative vibes, it is as though you want us to get hurt instead of encouraging the sport to evolve. Back in the day when you you use to think you would break bones if you docked on to someone in freefall, i bet you were the last to ever try and dock. Did you discourage that? did you discourage when squares first started coming out? Instead of a small person spending her time on the ground cause of slight wind or learning to fly and land a suitable canopy like the rest of us your opinion is she should danger herself and spend her time training and learning on how to land a parachute that is not suited backwards and sideways?? Glad you landed military surplus rounds and never broke a bone but i bet my bottom dollar you know alot of people that were not as fortunate as yourself. I on the other hand jump a semi elliptical canopy and watch many other people jump squares, ellipticals, cross-braced canopies and i too have not broken a single bone nor do i know many or seen any people who have killed or hurt themselves doing so. Times have changed mate, this sport may be about throwing drouges to you but to alot of us it is about speed, and skill, fun, family, social times. That does not make us stupid nor does it mean we are going to hurt our selves or be limping for the rest of our lives. Parachutes, are designed so much better than they use to be and a good parachute can be very forgiving, take the Safire2 for example, a very forgiving canopy. As long as her safety instructor says yes, she would be fine on jumping a 170 for a few dozen jumps, maybe then she could look at buying her first new canopy being a 149 or even a 149 7-cell. If you think a person who weighs 46 Kg's should buy themselves a 240 or even a 200 that is just plain stupid, she may as well take up doing tandems as a sport so she can 'try' and land safely. Going bacwards under canopy is no fun, you saying she should learn to start landing backwards is just stupid. You are putting a risk there that is not needed when there are so many great canopies out there that will suit her fine. .Karnage Krew Gear Store . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
feuergnom 28 #12 April 10, 2006 whoa - maybe you shopuld change your username from big way to big m.... ah nevermind step back from the computer, go roll yourself a big phat joint, have a nice smoke and once you are really relaxed star posting in speakers cormer btw: actually liemberg is one of the reasonable people in here (i've never met him but i think he's cool from what and how he says ) - so i have no idea what your beef isThe universal aptitude for ineptitude makes any human accomplishment an incredible miracle dudeist skydiver # 666 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bigway 4 #13 April 10, 2006 Quotebtw: actually liemberg is one of the reasonable people in here (i've never met him but i think he's cool from what and how he says ) - so i have no idea what your beef is I think he is too. Just hashing out a difference of opinion, nothing personal. I do feel bad about saying old fart Nothing personal, i just think for this day and age and the great parachute designs we have now that he is wrong. Telling someone it is okay to be flying backwards is bullshit. We have come to far in this sport to be going backwards. It is never ok for a jumper to be in the sky if they are going to have to land backwards. Canopies have come a long way and the right canopy for a person who weighs 46 kgs is not a a 200, 210, really, maybe not even a 190. 170, maybe, even if it had to be a dosile 7 cell. .Karnage Krew Gear Store . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #14 April 10, 2006 QuoteI am not saying limping for the rest of life is cool at all. How come when people dont agree with the older generation in this sport they have to refer to killing yourself or breaking bones or limping for the rest of our lives?? We've been around much longer than you and have seen a lot more of it and realize that it could happen to you and anyone else without warning. QuoteJust cause the new generation have found out and let you know it is capable of doing you have to stick to your ways and refer to us as being stupid and we will hurt ourselves. With more performance comes more potential for hurting yourself. It's not about "generation gap"..it's about handling the added performance of the gear. QuoteThat is not cool giving out stupid negative vibes, it is as though you want us to get hurt instead of encouraging the sport to evolve. In your defensiveness, you're missing the point entirely. QuoteBack in the day when you you use to think you would break bones if you docked on to someone in freefall, i bet you were the last to ever try and dock. Did you discourage that? did you discourage when squares first started coming out? Nope...encouraged knowledge, training and safety...which is what's going on here...again, you're missing it. Quote...nor do i know many or seen any people who have killed or hurt themselves doing so. Good for you! Now go read the incident and fatality reports. Quote...to alot of us it is about speed, and skill, fun, family, social times. This is where I am saddened...I see no mention of safety and "speed" is listed first. QuoteThat does not make us stupid nor does it mean we are going to hurt our selves or be limping for the rest of our lives. Well ignorance is one thing, carelessness and disregard for safety is another. QuoteParachutes, are designed so much better than they use to be and a good parachute can be very forgiving, take the Safire2 for example, a very forgiving canopy. Only if you take the time and effort to learn how to fly it. Quote...As long as her safety instructor says yes Asking the safety instructor is a good thing. QuoteIf you think a person who weighs 46 Kg's should buy themselves a 240 or even a 200... ...you saying she should learn to start landing backwards is just stupid. Putting words into someone's mouth invalidate's any argument you may have.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skybytch 273 #15 April 10, 2006 QuoteIf you think a person who weighs 46 Kg's should buy themselves a 240 or even a 200 that is just plain stupid, I haven't seen anybody saying that. What I see here is people saying that there's nothing wrong with loading a canopy under 1.0 when someone is still learning, especially when that person is a featherbutt, and that going from a 240 to a 170 in one jump isn't a real good idea. Personally, I think a 170 is a good starting point for someone who weighs about 100 pounds. Remember, most people who weigh that little will need to wear weights to keep up with heavier people in freefall; that means that 100 lb person could be out the door at 135 lbs or more. 135 lbs exit weight is about a 0.8 wingloading on a 170. That is not at all unreasonable. Even Brian Germain, who arguably knows more about parachutes and learning to fly them than everybody posting in this thread put together, says that wingloading is not unreasonable. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bigway 4 #16 April 10, 2006 QuoteThis is where I am saddened...I see no mention of safety and "speed" is listed first. Safety goes without saying QuoteWe've been around much longer than you and have seen a lot more of it and realize that it could happen to you and anyone else without warning. as it could going backwards QuoteGood for you! Now go read the incident and fatality reports. should i also read the daily obituaraies? in the paper QuoteWell ignorance is one thing, carelessness and disregard for safety is another. my point exactly, going backwards falls in this catergory. Are you saying that a 170 and maybe after a few dozen jumps a 150 would be wrong for someone of this weight? QuoteAsking the safety instructor is a good thing. Is the only thing and the definetly the first thing and last thing to do. Quote Putting words into someone's mouth invalidate's any argument you may have. i was saying what he was implying. He was saying a 170 would not be an option. I am not trying to be personal i just do not see how a good lecture, advice and training for a suitable canopy that is designed to go forward under her wing loading is bad compared to a canopy that is designed to go forward but under wingloading she has a greater chance of going backwards. How on earth is that ever safe? Safety is the first thing, the most important thing. Fun and speed come second. I do not suggest that she is ready for speed but do suggest she is ready for fun. Nobody has fun going backwards, it can be very frightening and extremly dangerous. .Karnage Krew Gear Store . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bigway 4 #17 April 10, 2006 I agree with what you are saying 100%. We were talking about a wingloading, there were no mention of weights. I can not see a person just off AFF wearing weights though. Even if they were, maybe they are doing some solos before they jumping with others at that stage anyway. Nobody said the canopy sizes as i did, sorry. i was reading between the lines. There is not much more in between a 170 and a 240, i think i forgot to mention 190 maybe. .Karnage Krew Gear Store . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Liemberg 0 #18 April 10, 2006 QuoteHow come when people dont agree with the older generation in this sport they have to refer to killing yourself or breaking bones or limping for the rest of our lives?? Because older skydivers have seen their share of fatalities, broken bones and people still limping five or ten years after their accident? QuoteThat is not cool giving out stupid negative vibes O well, one mans signal can be another mans noise - what else is new? My perspective on life and skydiving is that of the one that has to call the ambulance and talk to the press. I have learned that in skydiving, as in other walks of life, stupidity can be recycled and so every now and then there's another new kid on the block who wants to discuss the wonderfull new invention of the wheel and the concept of 'roundness' So be it. "People try to put us down. Ju-ju-just because we get around. Things they do look awfull cold. Hope I die before I get old..." Cool. Who? Limp Bizkit of course! QuoteBack in the day when you you use to think you would break bones if you docked on to someone in freefall It was even worse: I used to think that "docking on to someone in freefall" when done UNCONTROLLED could result in having your leg severed below the knee. That was all a stupid rumour of course - never happened... Quoteshe should danger herself and spend her time training and learning on how to land a parachute that is not suited backwards and sideways?? If a 170 is too large and therefore not suited - even downright dangerous, how did she survive the training jumps on a 240? QuoteI on the other hand jump a semi elliptical canopy and watch many other people jump squares, ellipticals, cross-braced canopies and i too have not broken a single bone nor do i know many or seen any people who have killed or hurt themselves doing so. Maybe you haven't been watching long enough? Other than that, selective perception is always a possibility... Thanks for explaining modern parachutes to me. I needed that... OK enough fooling around with you & back on topic: Of course, with adequate training a person just off student status could very well jump a 150 when her bodyweight is 46 kg as long as she has a clear understanding of the non-linearity when it comes to scaling parachutes. This means that with the same wingload a smaller parachute tends to react more brisk on steering input (i.e. "faster turns"). The fact remains however that making the same mistake close to the ground on the larger, less loaded parachute in general will result in a less severe outcome. If you panic because all of a sudden the wind changed and now you are landing sideways in stead of into the wind, the larger canopy will be more forgiving when your sudden state of fear lets you do something stupid close to the ground. YMMV. "Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci A thousand words... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bigway 4 #19 April 10, 2006 QuoteIf a 170 is too large and therefore not suited - even downright dangerous, how did she survive the training jumps on a 240 With massive wind limits one can only imagine. Anyway, as you said, enough said. The person in question i am sure will listen to you over me with your experience. That is fair enough and the right way to take advice. Though lets just hope their DZO gets the last say. Blue skies. .Karnage Krew Gear Store . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
phoenixlpr 0 #20 April 10, 2006 One girl from our club is jumping with a Sabre120. Her weight is less than 50 kgs approx. I don't know her jump numbers. I suspect she has bought that gear with 60-80 jumps. I can ask. I do know that WL and Size nazis will crucify me for this post. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bob.dino 1 #21 April 10, 2006 QuoteThough lets just hope their DZO gets the last say. Trust me, he will. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HydroGuy 0 #22 April 11, 2006 Here is Brian Germain's proposed chart for downsizing...I eliminated a lot of heavier exit weights to make it a smaller file.Get in - Get off - Get away....repeat as neccessary Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DiscoStu 0 #23 April 11, 2006 Get her to read the link provided by Daves response. Its best she knows what the pros and cons of downsizing are, and dosen't only rely on soley others judgment, her saftey is her responsibilty too. Also it may pay to get her to enquire directly to Phil, cause again as Dave said he will probably expose restrictions. If she has mainly had one instructor also get them to advise her. I downsized from the 240 to a 170 (just under 1.0 WL). This was a big step and I sought advice and blessing from one of the tutors who had taken me on several B-rels and knew my canopy skill level. Also from memory I though I saw a 220 student main at the drop zone. Unless its been retired might pay to take a look. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fcajump 164 #24 April 11, 2006 QuoteHere is Brian Germain's proposed chart for downsizing...I eliminated a lot of heavier exit weights to make it a smaller file. If you would not mind, please PM me the full file. We "plus-sizes" would like to see it too... Jim exit - ~254Always remember that some clouds are harder than others... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
monkycndo 0 #25 April 11, 2006 Here is the chart. Not sure if it is the most current. Brian was looking for input. I pulled it from his website.50 donations so far. Give it a try. You know you want to spank it Jump an Infinity Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
