Inappropriate student canopies for lightweight people.

[Trae 1]

in reply to Finns ........"I'm brand new at this, weigh 175 without a rig, and In reply to Finn's "weigh 175 without a rig and am jumping with a Manta 288. I'm having the same issues as mentioned here with regards to penetration. ........................... Are my issues more likely skill or equipment related? "
.......................................................................

If you are landing backwards &/or spending most of your descent going backwards then it is my feeling that the issue is gear related ( or too high a wind) and possibly due to instructor irresponsibility.
Of course your relatively low experience levels may contribute to you not handling this situation but then it seems like your instructors should be more responsible and either get you to wait for suitable conditions or get you a correctly loaded student canopy.

If you are going backwards and the winds are below the student limits then you have a 'too big a canopy ' issue.

What a lot of people seem incapable of understanding is that a too lightly loaded ram air canopy just doesn't fly right.

I weigh about 65kgs and once did a jump with a tandem rig 425sq ft canopy(no passenger). This was the scariest canopy ride I ever had. The thing kept folding under and dropping me suddenly and basically moved around without any direct control input. Flaring became a joke as the canopy basically did what it wanted to . I manged to fly it down somewhere near where I wanted to go and I was thrown around by turbulance causing me a hard landing. My ' friends' thought I was being hopeless or something....NOT.

It was like trying to fly a bubble compared to my usual properly loaded canopies. I did my student training on 35' roundies . We were always being blown backwards. A large Ram-air just doesn't work well if too lightly loaded. The large roundies were quite ok with my lighter weight. I've owned canopies from 230sq ft down to 120 sq ft.


in reply to Tso-d chris "My point in this thread has been that some people were claiming too big canopies were keeping people from landing in the designated landing area, and that was negligence on the part of the instructors, when in fact that is a symptom of a poor spot. "

..............................................
It is too easy and not reasonable to simply blame the student or "the spot".

It's my feeling that :- putting a lightweight person out under too big a canopy resulting in them being blown into a dangerous landing zone is negligence on the part of the instructor/student operation.

:-If the wind comes up and the jump is not aborted then that is negligence as well.

:-If the student receives inadequate target control/ guidance then that also is negligence.

One thing I noticed from the statements and transcripts was the extent that incompetent people will go to to cover their negligent behaviour.

This issue is really quite simple . The right canopy for the right job.

Most people get this . Don't let the courts teach you this lesson.

[Erroll 80]

Quote

Quote

If they're flying slower than the wind, no spot is going to fix that problem.

Heh, tell that to the guys that use to jump rounds.

At the risk of this seeming like a hijack:-
A lot has been said about the spot. When I started, most of the student-reserves were rounds and we were taught to spot for the reserve, not the main. I'm curious if that doctrine is still taught today, with the majority of reserves being square? In other words, given that mains and reserves still tend to have different sizes and flight characteristics, should you be spotting for the reserve or the main?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

If they're flying slower than the wind, no spot is going to fix that problem.

Heh, tell that to the guys that use to jump rounds.

At the risk of this seeming like a hijack:-
A lot has been said about the spot. When I started, most of the student-reserves were rounds and we were taught to spot for the reserve, not the main. I'm curious if that doctrine is still taught today, with the majority of reserves being square? In other words, given that mains and reserves still tend to have different sizes and flight characteristics, should you be spotting for the reserve or the main?

That's how I was taught, yes....

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[faulknerwn 38]

I think how they fly depends on turbulence tho., I weigh ~130 lbs and jumped a 375 sq ft canopy last year just for fun. It was stable as a rock, no issues. had a good flare. My wing-loading was only about .4 on the sucker.

W

[Trae 1]

In an ideal world the instructor should be spotting for the reserve while of course allowing for an acceptable ride on the main.

A lot of the hard learnt lessons with round parachutes re spotting and wind effects have been diluted in this modern large aircraft, GPS ,square reality. Some students and lots of novices get to jump what used to be considered fairly hot parachutes .

A lot is expected of modern students some people would say too much is expected .
Over reliance on high tech gear (eg expecting the canopy to get them home , expecting the AAD to save their lives , doing the spotting from the GPS ) can have repercussions when things don't go to the perfect plan. It also allows for funny discrepancies as the gear is generally much better and can hide other deficiencies a bit such as poor spotting. A poor spot under a roundy and there was no hiding it.

I've noticed a lot of modern skydivers don't really know how to spot for themselves never having had to do it much. Some number of instructors and very experienced skydivers also appear a bit retarded in their spotting abilities instead relying heavily on pilots and GPS..

Often the poor ol' student is blamed for getting it wrong when it all could just be a bit much too soon for them.
Decent instructors pick up on this and can modify their input if the student requires more attention or just a bit of extra guidance at some point.
The less skilled instructors tend to blame the student when it is perhaps at least partially the instructors fault for not recognising when a student needs to take more time to learn.

Rushing students through the AFF course in record time can become a point of pride for some instructors with questionable teaching ethics.
Whenever an instructor boasts to me about his last student only taking two or three days to do the whole course I seriously doubt whether the student has received adequate basic training.

The current high incidence of landing accidents should be recognised as the deficiency in training that it reflects.

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

It's my feeling that :- putting a lightweight person out under too big a canopy resulting in them being blown into a dangerous landing zone is negligence on the part of the instructor/student operation

Please explain how a good spot will not allow lightly loaded canopies to make it back to the landing area (and no farther). It's just applied basic physics. If the student overflies the landing area, the spot was too short.

If an instructor cannot spot for a large canopy, is it reasonable to believe they will be able spot for a smaller canopy any more accurately? The end result is that the student may land out at higher speeds, out of sight, and without the (arguable) benefit of radio assistance.

If "most of your descent" is spent going backwards, I would suggest exiting upwind from the landing area, so that the canopy can be flown in a downwind direction.

I spent a few seasons on an airport with two competing dropzones, one of which used ridiculously large student canopies, while the other used canopies that offered closer to a .8-.9:1 loading. Guess which one had substantially more student injuries? I'll give you a hint: it wasn't the one that used ridiculously large student canopies.

Quote

If the wind comes up and the jump is not aborted then that is negligence as well

What if the winds increase between exit and landing? It is not uncommon.

Quote

One thing I noticed from the statements and transcripts was the extent that incompetent people will go to to cover their negligent behaviour.

On this we agree.

[riggerrob 643]

Quote

Quote

If they're flying slower than the wind, no spot is going to fix that problem.

Heh, tell that to the guys that use to jump rounds.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

That's one of the reasons we stopped dropping students with rounds ... 20-plus years ago!

[riggerrob 643]

Quote

Quote

Quote

If they're flying slower than the wind, no spot is going to fix that problem.

Heh, tell that to the guys that use to jump rounds.

At the risk of this seeming like a hijack:-
A lot has been said about the spot. When I started, most of the student-reserves were rounds and we were taught to spot for the reserve, not the main. I'm curious if that doctrine is still taught today, with the majority of reserves being square? In other words, given that mains and reserves still tend to have different sizes and flight characteristics, should you be spotting for the reserve or the main?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Spot for the reserve freebag.
Those suckers are expensive!

[riggerrob 643]

The 14 mph wind limit was originally written to prevent jumpers from being dragged after landing.
It still applies.

As for landing backwards ... back when rounds were fashionable, everyone landed backwards and thought nothing of it. After squares - for students - were introduced (early 1980s) we concluded that landing backwards injured far more students, so the better DZs quit dropping students when winds were strong enough to land students backwards ... around 14 mph for average-sized students.
Light weight students need lower wind limits or smaller canopies. Smaller canopies are expensive, so not all DZs can afford the full range of student/transition canopies.

An earlier poster was correct in stating that under-loaded canopies do not fly "properly." True, but under-loading is erring on the side of caution. I have seen many tiny Japanese girls land softly under Mantas. They lacked the arm strength - or confidence - to properly flare Mantas. Under-loaded Mantas don't really flare they just slowly "mush" into the ground. However, they were going so slowly before flaring that they land ridiculously soft anyways.
So the disadvantage to under-loading student canopies is that students can develop bad flaring habits that will hurt them later in their skydiving careers.
Some times instructors hang light students under huge canopies because they do not trust tiny, timid students to fly properly.
For example, the last student that I saw injured under a Goliath 340 decided to ignore her radio instructor on a medium wind day. She completely over-flew the DZ, landing cross-wind between a farm tractor and a sewage settling pond. She was fortunate to only break a leg.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

At the risk of this seeming like a hijack:-
A lot has been said about the spot. When I started, most of the student-reserves were rounds and we were taught to spot for the reserve, not the main. I'm curious if that doctrine is still taught today, with the majority of reserves being square? In other words, given that mains and reserves still tend to have different sizes and flight characteristics, should you be spotting for the reserve or the main?

Back in the time of rounds, wasn't the 182 the typical aircraft? So you only had 4-5 people to get out. Now we have 23 people exiting an otter, sometimes with on only one drop run. More so for the King Air/Caravans/Pacs with 15ish. So now we're spotting such that both the first person and last person out can make it home. It seems to work only so so - the economics of doing only one run is compromising the spotting, or the exit separation.

Normally AFFs are slotted just before the tandems, though I'd hope any unusual wind loadings would get treated differently.

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

the economics of doing only one run is compromising the spotting, or the exit separation safety.

[Trae 1]

I think we all agree that sometimes accidents just happen.
Some things are unfortunately outside our control.

If the wind comes up after exit and before landing and it wasn't seen coming well this could be due to poor local knowledge or just plain unlucky.

in reply to "Please explain how a good spot will not allow lightly loaded canopies to make it back to the landing area (and no farther). It's just applied basic physics. If the student overflies the landing area, the spot was too short. "
.............................

What a good spot won't necessarily allow is for a student under a too lightly loaded canopy to get back safely if the wind is too high. The lightly loaded canopy may not be sufficiently controllable for the student to steer it as required.
This is particularly worriesome if the wind is at marginal levels. When everything is nice and calm perhaps it doesn't have the same potential dangers.
As the wind picks up the lightly loaded canopy is much more susceptible to any turbulance .

This has been the main point of this discussion..initially.

The point is that putting students or novices out under too lightly loaded canopies in marginal conditions is not to be recommended and could be considered negligent behaviour.... at the very least poor skydiving practise.

.....

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

The point is that putting students or novices out under too lightly loaded canopies in marginal conditions is not to be recommended and could be considered negligent behaviour.... at the very least poor skydiving practise.

Putting students out in marginal conditions is not recommended under any canopy.

Unfortunately, not every DZ can keep ideally sized canopies for all sizes of students. Generally, if the right size is unavailable, the practice is to err on the large side. If this means that the student is inevitably going to land backwards, the max winds for that student should be re-evaluated.

It is not unheard of for DZs to manifest their students throughout the day with the anticipated landing winds in mind. (ie. putting heavy students out during the stronger mid day winds, while waiting to put the light students out until close to sunsett, after the winds die down)

Bottom line is skydiving is dangerous, and no precaution one might take is going to change that. Risk can be managed, to an extent, but not eliminated. Reducing risk in one scenario often increases risk in another scenario. Student jumps are no different.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Unfortunately, not every DZ can keep ideally sized canopies for all sizes of students. Generally, if the right size is unavailable, the practice is to err on the large side. If this means that the student is inevitably going to land backwards, the max winds for that student should be re-evaluated.

so again, economics is compromising safety.

[AFFI 0]

Quote

so again, economics is compromising safety.

The unfortunate truth is yes, you are correct and this occurs not just in skydiving but in every conceivable aspect of human existence where money is involved. Just ask the Space Shuttle Astronauts…

Mykel AFF-I10
Skydiving Priorities: 1) Open Canopy. 2) Land Safely. 3) Don’t hurt anyone. 4) Repeat…

[billvon 2,998]

>so again, economics is compromising safety.

True in every aspect of skydiving. We don't have part-121 (or even part-135) approved planes because they're too expensive. We don't replace our risers and lines every hundred jumps or so because it's too expensive. We don't use oxygen going to 13,500 because it _usually_ isn't needed and it's expensive. We don't have a guy standing in the landing area at every DZ setting a big arrow for landing direction because you'd have to pay him.

The issue is spending enough money to be _reasonably_ safe.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

The issue is spending enough money to be _reasonably_ safe.

Granted. So does putting 100lb-ers on 290s qualify? Not every DZ can stock rigs down to the 190 class, but why not a 230? Can also be used for post AFF progression for more typical sized students.

[billvon 2,998]

>So does putting 100lb-ers on 290s qualify?

The big safety issue to me is harness size. A small japanese woman in a regular one-size-fits-all Telesis is dangerous. If they have a harness that fits, and the winds are appropriate, a 290 is not dangerous. On the other hand they won't learn much from flying it since it won't flare effectively, so a 190 would be a better learning tool. (That's what we had in our small container.)

[kwarthen 0]

From the original post regarding oversized canopies:

>Increased susceptibility to turbulence and decreased penetration issues<

In early 2000 my best friend had a canopy collapse in mild turbulence during her student training. She weighed about 100 lbs. The canopy was a Manta 288. Winds were light but the student landing area was a relatively small field with trees on 3 sides. DZO/STA/AAFI on radio. Approach as planned. The collapse occurred around 100 feet altitude and she fell approximately 50 feet before re-inflation began. Despite a plf attempt she struck hard enough to fracture 2 bones in her foot. Kept her out of jumping for several months and she had to overcome a lot of canopy fear to get back. We still jump together and consider the injury a matter of instructional ignorance rather than negligence, though that difference is arguable in life risking situations.

We are all passionate about skydiving but that passion shouldn't result in complacency and blindness. There is absolutely no excuse for putting the small profit ahead of the welfare of a student. If a dz can't provide the proper equipment they shouldn't accept the student. Safe gear use requires a reasonable match to student size as well as ability. A 100 lb. student and a 290 square foot Manta are not reasonably matched when one considers the possibility of turbulence.

Blues,

Ken

[EvilLurker 2]

Quote

Safe gear use requires a reasonable match to student size as well as ability.

I agree. A huge Manta or Mighty Mac isn't safe for a 100 pound person to jump in any kind of marginal conditions, whether the harness fits or not. The DZ I trained at had student rigs down to 215 size and if you weighed 150 or less, you could jump it. It allowed for a logical progression as you gained skills and gave the lighter weight jumpers something that resembled an actual ram-air canopy experience on days with wind.

[divegoddess 0]

I'm still trying to wrap my head around this wing loading thing. I think I understand, but I'm just not sure if my understanding is correct. I only weigh 107 lbs soaking wet and so this kind of thing concerns me. I am lucky enough to be training at a dropzone that has a variety of student gear. They put me in a Navigator 200 for my first AFF jump, I decended really slowly and even though I was one of the first to exit, I was the last to land.BUT I didn't really know what to expect on my first jump. Still I know this is something I should be aware of as a light weight.

I have a question though. The recommended weight for the canopy that I'm flying currently is 130. that should be your exit weight correct?

Thank you for these threads, they help me out alot.

[EvilLurker 2]

Quote

The recommended weight for the canopy that I'm flying currently is 130. that should be your exit weight correct?

Yes, the PD student recommendation is 130 lbs. and that's you plus gear, so you're right about there at 107. You should be fine in a wide range of wind conditions under that canopy.

[divegoddess 0]

Thank you

• Quote