0
Marisan

HP From an Old Fart

By Marisan, in General Skydiving Discussions

Recommended Posts

chuckakers    425

chuckakers
Quote

It is not the canopy's fault. It's the pilot's.


Quote



I agree Chuck, but another point to ponder is ~ have the capabilities of the machine outpaced the human element and it's abilities to control it consistently?

Quote



No and sort of. On the no side, Luigi Cani has successfully and repeatedly landed a 37 square foot canopy because he has the acquired skill to do so. If I tried that I would probably end up being scooped up with a spoon because i don't have that club in my bag. I mention the 37 canopy specifically because it is the best example of the theory you cited above. From a hyper-performance perspective, it's as "capable" as it gets, yet Luigi lands it without a problem, so no, canopies have not outpaced the human element - assuming that human has the required skills.

On the sort of side, today's canopies *can* outpace their human counterparts, just an an F-18 *can* outpace its pilot's abilities to even stay conscious. I say *can* because it again comes down to how the machine is operated. My son is a competitive canopy pilot and I have attended numerous meets with the big dogs in attendance. At each meet, the one thing I noticed was how the pilots and their canopies were capable of doing things that the pilot's body simply couldn't take, even when the maneuver was properly performed. I even suggested and believe we will eventually see rigs that are built specifically for swooping with features built in to protect the pilot like stiff back pads that will keep the swooper from breaking a back by slamming down onto the bottom edge of the reserve container during accuracy landings like Warren Cleary did at the Big Boy Pants event at Mile Hi. Butt plates and hard pads in MX pants have been in use for a while. It's only a matter of time before a rig manufacturer starts incorporating safety elements into their rigs.

However, to your point. There is no canopy made today that can't be landed safely consistently with a properly skilled pilot at the controls. The issue you cite is more of pilots without the skill to land safely or pilots who are performing intentional maneuvers that result in landings the human body can't handle.






It seems more & more that the margin of error grows increasingly smaller as the canopy size decreases and the wing loading goes up.

That's nothing new to aviation, ya don't see a lotta X-15's toolin' around the boonies...damn tough to land 'em.

As I mention in one of these threads, I think if there was a full accounting available of not only the fatalities but also of the life altering injuries caused by pilot error on the HP canopies, the situation would be given a lot more scrutiny than it is even now.
Quote



I agree that as loadings get higher and canopies go faster, margins get smaller. However if you look at the accidents, especially the non-fatals you mention, I think a bigger problem than the uber swoopers at 2+:1 are the weekend jumpers who are - for some insane reason - being encouraged to downsize. Many of the injuries I have seen have happened to people with a few hundred jumps at 1.3 to 1.7 to 1. What makes these crashes particularly stupid is that there's typically no reason for the person to have that much performance in the first place. What's the point in going fast for those people? They don't swoop and fall on their faces trying to land in light winds.

I see the pervasive and widespread insistence that jumpers downsize to be one of the cool kids and the common acceptance of higher wing loading in general as the biggest culprit in canopy related injuries.

The proof is easy to see. Look around the DZ and see who isn't getting hurt. By and large, the least amount of injuries are among lightly loaded, conservative flying jumpers. Bottom line - if you don't go fast, you can't get hurt going fast.






I would also like to add, it looks to me like things ARE changing a bit.
There have been numerous threads of this type over the last several years, some less productive than others.

It's seems to my untrained eye anyway that the discussion has been turning more toward acknowledgement of a problem and and finding workable solutions that ever before in the past.

That's a good thing, this isn't a battle between swoopers and non, it's a crisis in the sport that needs to be dealt with by all.

It's a 'process' arriving at a safe middle ground, it's unfortunate that it takes us so long to get the wheels rolling, especially when lives are at risk.
Quote



Yes, and I think it's a matter of changing the culture. I get asked a lot about gear from noobs at the DZ and canopy downsizing comes up often. My first response is always "why do you want to downsize?" The answers vary of course, but there's usually something in there about being able to battle higher winds or wanting something that "isn't a dog". These are not necessarily bad answers if someone has a couple hundred jumps and are still loading at .9:1 on the same canopy they bought when they graduated student training, but the problem is many people believe that after taking that next step to 1.1 or 1.2:1 they must go even faster after another 100 or 200 jumps. The reality of course is that 1.2:1 is a plenty of juice for any skydiver under all safe jumping conditions. Some will argue that that's not enough speed for particularly windy days, but I ask what the hell people are doing jumping in winds that high to begin with?





I keep thinking about the Y mod and the speed at which it was implemented...a couple people died because the gear though safe when utilized properly, 'could' be unsafe if 'human error' was allowed into the equation in a small measure.

What was it...a couple weeks and that whole end of the sport was changed forever...surely there is SOMETHING we can do to slow the HP canopy carnage?
Quote



I don't see that as a good comparison. In the Y mod thing, no one had to curtail their favorite activity to solve a problem. Unfortunately in this situation that's different.

"Solving" this problem may never happen, because there will always be jumpers who want to fly fast regardless of what they jump. We were hooking Cruiselites and Pegasus canopies when I started jumping, so it isn't the fact that we have fast canopies that makes us fly them that way.

However we can dramatically reduce the crashes and in my opinion is isn't rocket surgery. It all happens at the DZ level.

1. Demand lower wing loading on new and intermediate jumpers. Just draw a damn line and stick with it as a start. No ellipticals until 300 jumps (example). No loadings higher than 1.1:1 until 300 jumps (example). No canopy downsizing greater than 1 size in the same canopy design and no downsizing at all until the canopy is fully mastered (and everyone knows damn well how to spot the guys who don't "have it"). Only repetition can build skill, so we need to mandate more jumps in the canopy choices department.

2. Focus the attention on skill development instead of knowledge. It doesn't do a damn bit of good to know all the silly shit these people are being taught in all these canopy classes if they don't have the acquired skill to fly their canopy to begin with. Skill means everything. Knowledge only means knowing why your femur is pointing the wrong way.

3. Change the culture. This means speaking up when you see stupid shit and encouraging even slower progression than is mandated. It means the big dogs taking the lead in their advice to others. Fullface helmets weren't cool until competitors started wearing them. No one wanted an AAD until Tommy started using one (and died failing to use it). We - experienced veterans, gear dealers, DZO's, etc. - all need to DEMAND slower progression and high skill sets.



Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

chuckakers    425

chuckakers
Quote

Quote

have the capabilities of the machine outpaced the human element and it's abilities to control it consistently?



I would vote no, and I would base this on the success of the majority of HP canopy pilots.

Consdier for a minute that while you might see a dozen fatalities of experienced jumpers on HP canopies, the vast number of pilots who jump them regularly without incident.

Add to that the idea that many HP pilots do hop n pops in order to train for swooping, and thus end up making more jumps per day than others. Add to that the idea that each one of those jumps involves a multi-roation, high speed landing, and you can see that the level of risk, and the exposure to that risk is potentially higher than for any other group of jumpers, yet you don't see an unusually high number of incidents related to that group.

The reason is simple, and it's because the equipment is sound. It's consistant, reliable, and performs as expected every time, with the variable being the pilot. Take the example of the Penta-thing that collapsed in Dubai. It folded up, and then reinflated, and the jumper landed without incident, however, the collapse itself was huge news to swoopers as that sort of thing is unheard of for the given conditions. For a very good reason, swoopers have become accustomed tot he idea of their canopies working 'as designed'.

The problem, is in the pilots, or more specifaclly, the lack of training. The equipment has outpaced that by a mile, and it did it many years ago. We're not to the point that we need a computer to fly our canopies for us like an F-22, but we are to the point that you need a good deal of training and experience to be able to them safely, more along the lines of an Extra 300.

Is there anything wrong with an Extra 300? Countless aerobatic competitors will argue no, and would probably go the opposite way and suggest that the airframe is 'brilliant'. At the same time, the inhernt instability, roll rate and high stall speed would add up to more than a handful for a low time pilot, who might view it as a 'death machine'.



I agree with your assessment for the most part, but in my mind the training is far less important than simple jump numbers. Training can accelerate the rate at which jumpers can learn to use any variety of techniques, but nothing can replace repetition as a means of improving performance, especially when pucker factor becomes an element in the real-world environment.

This is why airline pilots spent countless hours in sims. Knowing what to do does not translate into proper action. Practice does.

Flying too much performance with too little experience is our biggest problem, and the one that few seem to be focusing on.
Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

airtwardo    7

airtwardo

This is why airline pilots spent countless hours in sims. Knowing what to do does not translate into proper action. Practice does.

Quote



Actually it's not really all that much, two days once a year...day one to 'practice' a bit and day two - known as the 'you bet your career' evaluation. ;)


Anyway~ what I'm getting from you guys is that the problem is two fold at its core.

-Training and currency on type.

-Peer pressure to move quickly toward less forgiving canopies.

Both are obviously things that can be addressed without causing too much unrest, given the right environment. :$:ph34r:

So...how DO we go about creating a more positive 'safety culture' that could have some 'real' impact?

The regulation thing is a slippery slope, tough & costly to design & implement, and as always only has the teeth 'we' give it.

And it's nearly impossible to dictate attitude, that rarely works as hoped.

Just gets me thinking, where is the middle ground and how can we get there quickly and effectively...I believe something has to be changed - but change it the wrong way and we can conceivably cause a lot more harm than good in as much as proving ineffective = knee jerk, and a waste of resources.











~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

chuckakers    425

chuckakers
Quote

This is why airline pilots spent countless hours in sims. Knowing what to do does not translate into proper action. Practice does.

Quote



Actually it's not really all that much, two days once a year...day one to 'practice' a bit and day two - known as the 'you bet your career' evaluation. ;)


Anyway~ what I'm getting from you guys is that the problem is two fold at its core.

-Training and currency on type.

-Peer pressure to move quickly toward less forgiving canopies.

Both are obviously things that can be addressed without causing too much unrest, given the right environment. :$:ph34r:

So...how DO we go about creating a more positive 'safety culture' that could have some 'real' impact?

The regulation thing is a slippery slope, tough & costly to design & implement, and as always only has the teeth 'we' give it.

And it's nearly impossible to dictate attitude, that rarely works as hoped.

Just gets me thinking, where is the middle ground and how can we get there quickly and effectively...I believe something has to be changed - but change it the wrong way and we can conceivably cause a lot more harm than good in as much as proving ineffective = knee jerk, and a waste of resources.



My bad, I must have been going off my military experience. Those guys spent buttloads lot of time in the sim, especially before being certified in a new plane.

My argument stands. Knowledge means next to nothing without skill, and skill can only be gained through repetition.
Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Marisan    0

Marisan

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4317092;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread

More of a botched landing under a high performance canopy than a botched high performance landing.

When will you ever learn>:(

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

lvintw    0

lvintw
Quote

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4317092;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread

More of a botched landing under a high performance canopy than a botched high performance landing.



Which proves once again that we need restrictions on these canopies. Call it a ban if you wish, but that may be the only thing that saves these fools from themselves.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

davelepka    4

davelepka
Quote

Which proves once again that we need restrictions on these canopies



What canopies are those? Steerable squares?

The thread makes no mention of the size or type of canopy, nor the experience of the jumper. To the contrary, we know that he wasn't doing anything more than a 90 degree turn, as anything bigger then that is banned at Lodi.

Even a 220 sq ft canopy is capable of producing a descent rate of 40mph + in a 90 degree turn, and a 40 mph impact is more then enough to produce the type of injuries descirbed in the thread.

So what is your point then? We go back to rounds? Squares only 250 sq ft or bigger?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

robinheid    0

robinheid
Quote

Quote

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4317092;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread

More of a botched landing under a high performance canopy than a botched high performance landing.



Which proves once again that we need restrictions on these canopies. Call it a ban if you wish, but that may be the only thing that saves these fools from themselves.


Well said, whuffo.

"Which proves once again that we need restrictions on these canopies parachutists. Call it a ban if you wish, but that may be the only thing that saves these fools from themselves."

44
B|
SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.)

"The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Marisan    0

Marisan

You are now putting students out on canopies that would have required at least 200 to 300 jumps experience to jump in my time.

Your excuse is: 1/ how will they get back from a bad spot? and 2/ what about high winds?

The answer to these is:

1/ Learn how to fcuken spot.
2/ Keep your students ON THE GROUND in high winds!

Jesus Christ, what does it take to make you people see>:(

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

wolfriverjoe    1,523

wolfriverjoe
Quote

You are now putting students out on canopies that would have required at least 200 to 300 jumps experience to jump in my time.

Your excuse is: 1/ how will they get back from a bad spot? and 2/ what about high winds?

The answer to these is:

1/ Learn how to fcuken spot.
2/ Keep your students ON THE GROUND in high winds!

Jesus Christ, what does it take to make you people see>:(



And how many of those students are getting hurt?

Compared to how many students got hurt under rounds?

I'm not disputing the fact that people are making bad decisions and paying the price.

But some people just can't be reached. Look in the "Katana vs Crossfire" thread for a good example of this.
"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

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.

Guest
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.

×
0
Go To Topic Listing