talking to a dead man

[rmsmith 1]

Quote

So do you think that I don't have the interests of people in my mind and hart?

Stalin claimed to have the worker's best interests at heart. Surely a command system could distribute the country's resources more efficiently than those capitalist folks, right?

Suppose the Lada had an engineering error making it unsafe for the average comrade to drive. Why surely the command system would alert all comrades, right?

Now recall those capitalist folks at Ford Motor Company. They were not forthright in alerting the motoring public about the Explorer's tendency to roll-over during an sudden steering correction at higher speeds when the Firestone tire shed its outer tread. Neither regulation nor driving education was required to correct the problem. The media transmits the stories, and the public decides to purchase other vehicles and tires. Its the market system at work!

The same applies to canopies too; recall the Crossfire issue, or the Dash-M issue. The imformed public's purchasing decisions with provide the impetus for change.

In the mean time lets hold off on the regulatory pestilence. People are smarter than you think!

[Ron 10]

Quote

n the mean time lets hold off on the regulatory pestilence. People are smarter than you think!

Well several people were DEAD wrong last year....

People THINK they are better than the last guy to bounce.

Ron

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[PhreeZone 20]

How is publishing an manufactoring issue with a canopy going t oprevent people from jumping too small of canopies?

How many people are still overloading their reserves? And this is after a well published issue with one type of reserve.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[billvon 2,989]

>Stalin claimed to have the worker's best interests at heart.

I think once we bring former communist leaders into the discussion it's really starting to drift. I think Godwin's Law applies here.

[skybytch 273]

Quote

Stalin claimed to have the worker's best interests at heart. Surely a command system could distribute the country's resources more efficiently than those capitalist folks, right?

And this has what to do with what size canopy a person with 100 jumps flies in the US?

Regulation sucks. If someone can present a workable way to make education work to reduce landing injuries and deaths amongst our newer jumpers NOW, I'll be 100% against any form of guideline or recommendation or regulation, whatever you want to call it.

Too many jumpers are DYING under perfectly good canopies. They're doing it EVERY WEEKEND. How many more have to DIE before people will accept that education isn't working fast enough and some form of guidance from the organization charged with self-regulating the sport is needed?

A long time ago someone said to me that the BSR's are written in blood; how big does the pond have to be before something is done to stop the carnage?

[freakydiver 0]

Are that many more jumpers dying say in the past three years than say the three year span before that? (i.e. I am too lazy to look up the numbers). I hear a lot of good advice from experienced jumpers and instructors at the three DZs I frequent most directed towards new students regarding downsizing. Whats wrong with just getting the education part of it right? I can think of many examples of where a student or lowtime jumper was talked out of a canopy purchase because someone reasoned with them. Granted education will never weed out the idiot who just wont listen, but do you really think regulation will? Just because there are regulations on other aspects of the sport of skydiving doesn't mean deaths don't occur in those other areas. Education is key. Getting a new student to realize early on in their carrer that listening to your elders is key. Keying in on hot shot low number jumpers is key. Getting the local DZO or S&TA in the loop is key, they can make the call on someones abilities under canopy because they wouldn't be in the position they are in otherwise (I would hope). I've wrestled with this particular issue in the sport of skydiving and gone back and forth, but I really don't think regulation is the answer. I think getting people to realize that a good canopy swoop takes a long long time to perfect and can have VERY negative impact on the quality of one's life is key, and getting a new student or low time jumper to see that is key. If they don't, it won't matter what obstacles are put in their way in terms of regulation. It isn't that difficult to forge a log book and all it takes is one little mistake to make walking or breathing a bitch for the rest of one's days.

-- (N.DG) "If all else fails – at least try and look under control." --

[skybytch 273]

Quote

Are that many more jumpers dying say in the past three years than say the three year span before that?

Seven people have died around the world in canopy accidents in the last TWO WEEKS. Granted, not all of them had less than whatever number of jumps, not all of them were jumping higher wingloadings and not all of them were related to low turns. But still - ten years ago it was extremely rare for anyone to die under a perfectly good canopy...

Quote

I think getting people to realize that a good canopy swoop takes a long long time to perfect and can have VERY negative impact on the quality of one's life is key, and getting a new student or low time jumper to see that is key.

I haven't seen anyone disagreeing with that. Tell us how to make that happen on every dz in the US, and how to make it happen quickly.

[freakydiver 0]

Ten years ago, the participation in the sport of skydiving was half of what it is today (again, this is a guess, although I think I just read this recently, and I'm too lazy to look it up). Using the incident rate as a gauge would snuff out this whole thread right here and now because the fact of the matter is, there are less injuries per skydiver today than there were 10 years ago due to numbers alone. I disagreed with this fact as well until Kallend put it into numbers for me awhile back, but it is true. The death rate per year hasn't grown nearly as fast as the participation has. Anyhow, I'm straying away from what I really wanted to say. I don't think regulation will really stop the idiot who wants to get that bad ass fast canopy and hook himself into the ground. But, if early on in that person's career he/she saw the effects of a small canopy and a mistake under it, they would think twice about their own personal progression. I know I did. I only had a 100 jumps when I got my Sabre 135 and hooked it into the ground. I left a five inch divot where my face hit and cracked my Fac Diver completely in half on impact. It scared the piss out of me, the ground all coming straight at me. I thought I was done. Luckily since I'm gumby (old nickname given to me for being so freakin limber and flexible) I walked away with nothing more than a headache. Now, if we can get people to realize during their first 50 jumps THROUGH AFF jumpmasters, DZOs, and S&TAs or any freakin body with more than a couple of hundred jumps that small canopies and even small bad decisions can really fuck someone up, that would seem to me to be more than enough. If someone showed me a video of some swoops gone bad B4 I bought that 135 perhaps I would've thought twice about my dumb ass no out setup that got me into trouble.

"Tell us how to make that happen on every dz in the US, and how to make it happen quickly."

It is every single employee's DUTY to check out every single jumper on site that day and know them in and out. Its required by law. Perhaps we could start there. Perhaps the manufacturers have some responsibility in the matter. Perhaps manufactures should (god i kant spell, sorry all) require the local DZO or S&TA or at the very bloddy least, an AFF jumpmaster to sign off on canopy purchases. Give someone with the knowledge the ability to say yes they are ready for such and such a canopy or no they are not.

I still hold my argument that not that many more people are dying in the sport of skydiving over say five years ago and am open to correction by all means. Also, ten years ago, it was even more extremely rare for anyone to be in a headdown attitude or have participated in a 300 way. Those are all aspects of the sport that self regulation has managed to get most participants through safely. Self regulation made the 300 way in Arizona successful because those involved really checked out all of the participants and gave them the yes or no. Why couldn't / shouldn't the same approach be used with canopy purchases....

Blue Skys

-- (N.DG) "If all else fails – at least try and look under control." --

[Ron 10]

Im not too lazy

2001 36 fatalities.
12 under canopies.
only 5 under 500 jumps

1. 30 y/o, 4700 jumps 2.0 Wing load
2. 38 , 1 jump student
3. 41, 920 1.5
4. 40, 4000 CRW landing (lost toggle)
5. 52, 40, 1.1 Wing load
6. 39, 600, no WL info
7. 30, 70 jumps, Wingloading listed for EXPERT
8. 41 ,3300 1.4 turbulance
9. 40 , 1000 Demo into Stadium.
10. 63, 4000 low turn at DEMO
11. 23, 201 jumps 1.3 WL
12. 29 467 CRW landed in lake.

2000
32 fatalities 8 with good canopies
1. 28 y/o, 178 jumps 1.1 wingload
2. ?, 100 jumps, 1.3 WL
3. 39 , ?, ? this skydiver made an intentional turn low to the ground to pick up speed for landing
4. 25, 1200, 1.5 WL
5. 43, 100, ? WL
6. 42 ?,?
7. 42 , 98 ?WL
8. 42, 1000, ?WL

Seems to me that the # of EXPERIENCED jumpers dieing under canopy is lowering..While new guys with less than 500 jumps increases.....

Huh? I wonder why? Oh maybe EXPERIENCE?

Something that no amount of classes and videos will give you with out the jumps...Yes, Just having a lot of jumps does not mean you have skills, but it does mean you have EXPERIENCE. Something you will not get without jumps.

Ron

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[freakydiver 0]

EXACTLY. Who better knows the experience of a jumper besides those that jump with them? Also 30 was just about the average when I first started jumping 10 years ago I would gander...

I think perhaps one thing that all swoopers should realize is that a canopy loaded heavily versus a canopy loaded say at mid-level will give the "average" swooper about the same distance. I say "average" meaning that is not all the jumper does - i.e. hop and pops and swoop. They take a weekend off here and there. They are not entirely in tune with their canopies. Is 30-40 feet THAT IMPORTANT to go to a higher loaded canopy?

"Something that no amount of classes and videos will give you with out the jumps...Yes, Just having a lot of jumps does not mean you have skills, but it does mean you have EXPERIENCE. Something you will not get without jumps. "

How can you say that (perhaps I missed your angle and that isn't directed against my post) - but, you show enough video of swoops gone bad and teach people about why bad swoops hurt then perhaps they wouldn't ever get themselves into that position to begin with until asking many questions of many locals.

-- (N.DG) "If all else fails – at least try and look under control." --

[dreamsville 0]

Don't forget about the 3 or 4 low turn injuries in the last 2 or 3 weeks that I can think of, in addition to the deaths. Those could almost as easily have been deaths, especially the one that I may visit in the hospital ICU this week.
|

I don't drink during the day, so I don't know what it is about this airline. I keep falling out the door of the plane.

Harry, FB #4143

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Im not too lazy

2001 36 fatalities.
12 under canopies.
only 5 under 500 jumps

1. 30 y/o, 4700 jumps 2.0 Wing load
2. 38 , 1 jump student
3. 41, 920 1.5
4. 40, 4000 CRW landing (lost toggle)
5. 52, 40, 1.1 Wing load
6. 39, 600, no WL info
7. 30, 70 jumps, Wingloading listed for EXPERT
8. 41 ,3300 1.4 turbulance
9. 40 , 1000 Demo into Stadium.
10. 63, 4000 low turn at DEMO
11. 23, 201 jumps 1.3 WL
12. 29 467 CRW landed in lake.

2000
32 fatalities 8 with good canopies
1. 28 y/o, 178 jumps 1.1 wingload
2. ?, 100 jumps, 1.3 WL
3. 39 , ?, ? this skydiver made an intentional turn low to the ground to pick up speed for landing
4. 25, 1200, 1.5 WL
5. 43, 100, ? WL
6. 42 ?,?
7. 42 , 98 ?WL
8. 42, 1000, ?WL

Seems to me that the # of EXPERIENCED jumpers dieing under canopy is lowering..While new guys with less than 500 jumps increases.....

Huh? I wonder why? Oh maybe EXPERIENCE?

Something that no amount of classes and videos will give you with out the jumps...Yes, Just having a lot of jumps does not mean you have skills, but it does mean you have EXPERIENCE. Something you will not get without jumps.

Ron

so what was the increase in the percentage of accidents for of jumpers with under 500 jumps? how about that statistic as a ratio of total jumps made by a "inexperienced" jumpers?

i dont think the numbers you are throwing around add up the conclusion you assume it does. You need to add some more detail to your numbers before you draw such broad lines

total number of jumps per year?
by each experience level?
currency at present wingloading for each incident?
number of jumps on specific canopy types?

if more jumps were made by jumpers with under 500 jumps in any single year you certainly would expect there to be more accidents than in a year with fewer jumps as with your blanket regulation simple numbers dont paint a very complete picture.

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[skybytch 273]

Quote

It is every single employee's DUTY to check out every single jumper on site that day and know them in and out. Its required by law.

What law? Isn't that regulation?

Quote

Perhaps the manufacturers have some responsibility in the matter. Perhaps manufactures should (god i kant spell, sorry all) require the local DZO or S&TA or at the very bloddy least, an AFF jumpmaster to sign off on canopy purchases. Give someone with the knowledge the ability to
say yes they are ready for such and such a canopy or no they are not.

The manufacturers are NOT going to take on that responsibility. Several of them have told me that flat out.

As for "signing off" by a DZO, S&TA or AFF JM - these are the same people recommending small canopies to new jumpers right now. How do we get through to THEM that 1.3 wingloadings aren't safe for the majority of people with 50 jumps? Remember, these are already the people giving out the type of advice that gets newbies injured or killed (or so full of gear fear that they end up quitting the sport).

Quote

I still hold my argument that not that many more people are dying in the sport of skydiving over say five years ago and am open to correction by all means.

The overall fatality rate hasn't changed much at all in the past ten years. The difference is that ten years ago most fatalities were not under a perfectly good parachute; today they are. The widespread usage of AAD's, particularly the Cypres, has reduced no pull and low pull fatalities down to a more reasonable level. We've traded one method of dying for another.

Somehow carrying an AAD became cool over the past ten years. Unfortunately, it's not "cool" to jump a conservatively sized canopy today. That is the attitude that needs changing.

Those of us suggesting "regulation" are offering what we believe to be a rapidly implementable, workable and hopefully temporary solution to a bloody problem, whether we like the idea of more rules or not. No one is disagreeing that education is the ultimate answer, or that regulation is NOT the ultimate answer.

Again. Tell us how to get every DZ, every DZO, every S&TA and every instructor on the same page, teaching and recommending the same things to people of the same experience and ability level, and tell us how to make that happen next month, not next year or the year after that, without some form of guidelines/recommendations/regulations. If you can't do that, then all this protesting that regulation is wrong is nothing more than noise.

[billvon 2,989]

>mandating a simple scale to canopy size restriction wont do much
> more than push the average number of jumps for each accident
> victim a bit higher since your not actually requiring them to LEARN
> how to fly any particular wing your just having them land under a
> parachute a few extra times.

If it were possible to make 1000 jumps and _not_ learn anything about flying a parachute I'd agree. But there are several ways to learn to fly a canopy:

1. Simulation, like a wind tunnel. Not practical yet.

2. Ground training. Good, but requires complementary air work.

3. Air instruction - jumps with planned TLO's, videos of landings, reviews. A good way to learn quickly.

4. Independent instruction. Learning on your own, through diligent practice of flat turns, flare turns etc. A decent way to learn but not too many people do this.

5. Plain ol experience and osmosis. Basically if you jump 1000 times, odds are you'll have to land crosswind, downwind, have to avoid someone at some point, have a mal etc. As long as you're on a forgiving canopy you can do these things and not die - and afterwards know a little more about canopy flight. Jumping 1000 times means you'll see 20,000 or so landings; that's a lot of seeing people land to pick stuff up by osmosis.

If you have a really good program (say a combination of 2 and 3) you can progress quickly. If you have a lousy program or no program (like 5) it takes a lot longer to learn. However, there is no option 6 - make 1000 jumps and be no better than you were at jump 1. People _do_ learn through experience, as long as they are on a canopy forgiving enough to survive that experience.

>as they would if we simply stopped skydiving too why dont we just
> outlaw that and solve the whole issue? if noone is jumping out of
> planes no one will die under canopy

The reductio ad absurdum argument holds no water with me. Having regulation in the sport (which, if done by USPA, is entirely voluntary) is not the same as outlawing skydiving.

>a simple skills evaluation irreguardless of jump numbers would be
> far more effective and perhaps even save a few of you 2000 jump
> wonders from dying under wings your ability isnt up to yet

I agree; if you have a canopy flight school at your DZ they are qualified to do such a test. But most people are not. I'm an AFF-I and was an S+TA for a few years; I have 3300 jumps, 1200 of them with students, and over 1000 jumps on canopies loaded from 1.7 to 2.1. I'm pretty sure I could decide if someone jumping a 2.5 to 1 canopy was safe to do it or not based on a few jumps, but what about a place with three 500 jump AFF-JM's and a rarely-jumping DZO? And if they're busy, how do they justify staying on the ground to evaluate someone? In an ideal world they would go to any length to evaluate the safety of the jumper, but in the real world the task gets designated first to the DZO, then a coach, then Terry the guy who mows the lawn and flies the Cessna.

In addition, if I was really concerned (and was in charge) the answer would be no anyway - if the first "eval" jump is a fatality that's a pretty bad system.

So I'm not sure a simple (and optional) skills eval would work if your desire was to reduce fatalities under open canopies. You'd need to incorporate it in the ISP somehow - show flat turns, flare turns, rear riser landings etc on a canopy loaded X to 1 before getting signed off for a canopy loaded X+.2 to 1 by a canopy coach, if you wanted to progress faster than the "standard" speed (which is designed to be conservative, planned for people who learn using method 5.)

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

Yes, Just having a lot of jumps does not mean you have skills, but it does mean you have EXPERIENCE.

Well I'm not going to argue this point, in fact I am going to agree. Last week I was talking with a friend who's got 1000+ jumps and is a tandem master. We of course were talking about canopies and wing loading at some point in the conversation. And while we weren't talking about myself downsizing anytime soon, we did talk about elliptical versus semi-elliptical and whether or not I could handle an elliptical right now (which he thought I likely could). Well at some point in the conversation I remember saying something along the line of "well you're way more experienced than I am", but I wanted to use the word experienced rather than better. He likely is better (because of his experience) but we've never really jumped all that much together and who knows?

On another note, I do realize that to some of you, I am flying a much higher wing loading than you'd recommend. But when I purchased my latest canopy, I got it from a DZO (who likely consulting a highly respected canopy pilot and instructor here on DZ.COM as to whether or not I could handle it). The DZO didn't have any problems selling me my Sabre2 (loaded at 1.4:1) but when I asked about demoing a Crossfire 2 sometime in the future, his guard lite up and he immediately started to ask me about my canopy progression expectations. So I do know that some people are willing to try and keep me in line and educated me as to the dangers of canopy flight. But ultimately it is myself who must take responsibility to ensure that I fly my canopy responsibly (to my experience level) and to not fly a canopy type and/or size which I may not be ready for.

For the record (in case the DZO and instructor are reading this post as they are DZ.COM members), I am happy to report that to date I have stood up 37 of 38 landings with my Sabre2 and am enjoying it thoroughly. Plus I realize that this canopy gives me plenty of performance and there is no need to be thinking about flying another canopy anytime for the next few hundred jumps. I realize that my health is at risk every time I jump, but I'd also like to think that as long as I don't do anything stupid (ie: low turns) I should be able to build upon my success rate in landing this canopy time and time again.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[Cajones 0]

Perhaps rules for wingloading will help as the rules for pull altitudes did, in the weight they give the Instructors and S&TA's.

In the past, some people were reluctant to ground people for low pulls. In spite of the fact they were killing skydivers. With the implementation of standards for pull altitudes, this takes some weight off of those Instructors and S&TA's who are biting their tongues, right now.

Give them some teeth, and guidelines to follow. When they have cause to approach a jumper about their canopy skills/wingloading, they're simply enforcing the rules - not being "the asshole."

I take a bit of offense to the comment about S&TA and JM's recommending small canopies to jumpers. I don't doubt that a few may be - certainly not all (I certainly don't).

If there were BSR's (the earlier comment about "written in blood" - very true - how much more do we need to write some more) concerning wingloading, perhaps those few S&TA's and JM's would point people in a better direction.

I'm not big on regulation. I'm not a fan of seeing friends/potential friends injured/dead either. This is where the solutions start.

The laws of physics are strictly enforced.

[rmsmith 1]

Quote

Well several people were DEAD wrong last year....

People THINK they are better than the last guy to bounce.

I find it interesting that you want to impose regulations through USPA. I see USPA as part of the problem as every issue of their magazine depicts swoopers "carving the water", and canopy ads that depict small high peformance canopies (back to the almighty buck!), touting fashion rather than basic understanding of equipment, etc., regardless of the outcome to their members.

It's rather like Hollywood's moguls depicting guns violence in so many movies while in real life these same folks are the most vociferous anti-2nd amendment champions!

[freakydiver 0]

"What law? Isn't that regulation?"

You see what holds up in court. I gurantee you this sitting right next to a trial lawyer that has tried 14 skydiving cases four of which had to due with DZO negligence. It is their dire responsibility to say yes or no to someone jumping on their DZ because THEY ARE THE DZO.

"The manufacturers are NOT going to take on that responsibility. Several of them have told me that flat out."

Wasn't one of your original questions how can we bring safety to the table quickly? Why not build a rapport with those manufactuers so they play an active roll in selling parachutes?? Honestly, if I were a canopy manufacturer, I might be so inclined so sell a canopy with less of a performance envelope to someone knowing damn well I'd make more money off of them because they will live to upgrade down the line.

"As for "signing off" by a DZO, S&TA or AFF JM - these are the same people recommending small canopies to new jumpers right now. How do we get through to THEM that 1.3 wingloadings aren't safe for the majority of people with 50 jumps? Remember, these are already the people giving out the type of advice that gets newbies injured or killed (or so full of gear fear that they end up quitting the sport). "

Not true at all, before the passing of Jeff Sands, I WITNESSED HIM TELL TWO 100 jump wonders they were not ready for canopies loaded at 1.4. WITNESSED. Also, 1.3 should be relatively manageable by any jumper with a license IMHO - IF they were taught to plan out their patterns and think ahead with regards to out.

"If you can't do that, then all this protesting that regulation is wrong is nothing more than noise."

Well shoot, I guess I'm just full of noise. I guess I learned nothing in my 10 years in the sport. I guess my opinions holds no water. Actually, if you ask me, I'ver heard DZO's, S&TA's, AFF Jumpmasters, Static Line jumpmasters ALL reccommend against a canopy purchase for a particular student. So perhaps you are just choosing to hear the noise you want to hear. Don't act like every single DZO (etc......) is an idiot. THE FATALITY RATES are just about the same as they were ten years ago, the number of jumpers has increase exponentially. Its simple math. Its not like your example is occuring every which way.

-- (N.DG) "If all else fails – at least try and look under control." --

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"You need to add some more detail to your numbers before you draw such broad lines"
Okay, the way I see it is, regardless of the stats, these are AVOIDABLE incidents. On that I think we all agree.
What everyone is striving for here is to find a way, a means, a strategy to avoid them.

Me ? I'm not sure what the answers are.
Peer pressure.
Unofficial dropzone regulation.
Official governing body regulation.
Regulation of equipment suppliers, both private and commercial.

Of the above I know which one appeals to me more right now. The trouble is, making it work before the other options have to be considered.
I'll probably have to end up living with all the options in some form or another. More hassle.

This is a cool thread, I wish Aggiedave was here.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[skybytch 273]

Quote

I take a bit of offense to the comment about S&TA and JM's recommending small canopies to jumpers. I don't doubt that a few may be - certainly not all (I certainly don't).

Didn't mean to offend, please accept my apology. I'm not saying all of them are doing it. None of the AFFI's that I know do it.

But it is happening - I talk to their students at least once a week and I get to explain why going one or more sizes larger than "God" recommended to them might be a better idea. Some of them listen. Others buy their gear elsewhere.

[skybytch 273]

Quote

Wasn't one of your original questions how can we bring safety to the table quickly? Why not build a rapport with those manufactuers so they play an active roll in selling parachutes??

They aren't going to get into regulating who can jump what, and they have very good reasons why they won't. Hopefully one of them will pop in on this thread and can explain further.

Quote

Not true at all, before the passing of Jeff Sands, I WITNESSED HIM TELL TWO 100 jump wonders they were not ready for canopies loaded at 1.4. WITNESSED.

Great. Good for him. I've witnessed other DZO's, S&TA's and instructors do basically the same thing. But not every DZO (S&TA/rigger/instructor) is/was Jeff.

Quote

So perhaps you are just choosing to hear the noise you want to hear.

I've been jumping for 13 years. I've been selling gear - to people all over the world - for the last 6 1/2 years. I've been reading and posting here for over 2 years. I talk to hundreds of jumpers about gear every week. I have a pretty good handle on what's going on out there.

I'm glad the rating holders and DZO's that you've interacted with recommend conservative canopies. I've already said that I'm not saying ALL of them do it. I'm saying there ARE DZO's, S&TA's, riggers and instructors out there telling people to buy small canopies at low experience levels. Sorry if that's hard to accept, but it's happening.

[PhillyKev 0]

Ok...so this thread has gotten quite long since I last looked at it and didn't get through all of the new posts. But what I saw was a debate between having strict guidelines related to jump numbers vs. canopy loading OR qualification testing for downsizing.

What about actually reading someone's log book? I mean, no, 400 jumps on a 1:1 loaded canopy doesn't mean you're ready for a 1:1.6 loading. But if you have a steady progression of downsizing logged along with comments regarding your landings, how you performed, where you improved, where you need improvement, someone reading that log book should be able to judge pretty well if you're following a safe path or being reckless.

Isn't that why we keep log books? For those of us that actually write in them, that is.

[billvon 2,989]

>I were a canopy manufacturer, I might be so inclined so sell a
> canopy with less of a performance envelope to someone knowing
> damn well I'd make more money off of them because they will live
> to upgrade down the line.

PD does this exact thing. They sell the Silhouette, a canopy _designed_ to be a larger but still well-performing canopy i.e. a Sil170 performs like a Sabre 150. They are unpopular here in the US. Canopy manufacturers can offer a whole line of choices, but unless they refuse to sell at all to certain people (there's that nasty mandatory word again) then people will continue to buy what they want, and often that's not an appropriately docile canopy.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

I've witnessed other DZO's, S&TA's and instructors do basically the same thing. But not every DZO (S&TA/rigger/instructor) is/was Jeff.

I didn't buy my gear from Jeff, but as a regular at Mile-Hi he was aware of my 1.4:1 wing loading. But he let me jump there because he's seen me land and commented a few weeks ago that he thought I was a safe skydiver. Hopefully I can continue to prove him right.

Quote

I've been jumping for 13 years. I've been selling gear - to people all over the world - for the last 6 1/2 years. I've been reading and posting here for over 2 years. I talk to hundreds of jumpers about gear every week. I have a pretty good handle on what's going on out there.

If anybody, I would think someone in your position would have the best handle of the mood of the skydiving community when it comes to gear selection. And I hate to say this, but I didn't buy my current canopy from SQ1 because I knew you would try and talk me out of it.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[rmsmith 1]

Quote

This is a cool thread, I wish Aggiedave was here.

Yes, the Bytch really cranks 'em!