Unintentional Downwinder

[AndyMan 7]

I read that differently.

From what I read, any talk of turbulence being the problem is misplaced. Since he didn't stall and didn't drop straight down, then the cause of his ill landing wasn't turbulence. The cause of the problem was his unfamiliarity with the perceptive distortions of a normal, every day down-wind landing.

So I say the solution is to correctly observe the current winds before you climb into the aircraft, after you've deployed your parachute, as you approach your landing pattern, as you prepare to land, and as you flare.

Landing into the wind is often preferable, but landing cross and downwind are important skills to have. Be aware of how the canopy appears to react differently in different winds, but understand that in most cases, that perceived difference is only your perception.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[davelepka 4]

My suggestion was that the lack of flare from his canopy could have been related to the gusting tailwind, which effectively lowered his airspeed, decreasing the effectiveness of his control inputs.

If the gust would have exceeded the full flight speed of his canopy, the result would be a stall. In this case, the tailwind was not sufficient to induce a full stall, but it did 'soften' up his toggles, and lead to him pounding in.

All of the above is speculation, of course. The possibility always exists for simple 100% pilot error.

[billvon 2,990]

> Since he didn't stall and didn't drop straight down, then the cause of
>his ill landing wasn't turbulence.

Turbulence can do a great many things. I was doing a 90 degree front riser landing about a year back, one that normally gives me a 50 foot planeout or so. I hit some funky air, lost lift, almost buried the toggles, and managed to pull out the landing - but was on the ground, sliding, within 5 feet. Where did all that energy go? I assume that I hit enough of a shear to lose airspeed but not enough to stall the canopy.