My frank and valiant opinion on downsizing questions

[BMFin 0]

Quote

Making sure people are ready _before_ they downsize is one way to keep your friends out of the hospital (and the morgue.)

I agree. Though I do not agree with the way most people are making sure that a person is ready to downsize.

I also may have a bit different opinions on where to draw the line of safety.

Remember, jumping out of an airplane is never safe.

[billvon 3,008]

>Though I do not agree with the way most people are making sure
> that a person is ready to downsize. I also may have a bit different
>opinions on where to draw the line of safety.

So what's a good way to make sure they're ready to downsize? (I am making the assumption that, since we have a lot of canopy fatalities lately, what we're doing now doesn't work so well)

>Remember, jumping out of an airplane is never safe.

Quite true, but many of us nevertheless try to make it as safe as reasonably possible.

[Unstable 9]

Just off the top of my head, this has been bugging me as i've been following this thread all day--

How can you have 49 Jumps and a B licence, YOUR NOT EVEN QUALIFIED BUDDY!!!

sds

=========Shaun ==========

[BMFin 0]

Quote

So what's a good way to make sure they're ready to downsize? (I am making the assumption that, since we have a lot of canopy fatalities lately, what we're doing now doesn't work so well)

I think this list of yours is pretty close to what I think is a good way to see if one is ready. Sadly most people here just sees the jump numbers..

Quote

>Remember, jumping out of an airplane is never safe.

Quite true, but many of us nevertheless try to make it as safe as reasonably possible.

Agreed. I would like to emphasize the word reasonably.

[BMFin 0]

Quote

Just off the top of my head, this has been bugging me as i've been following this thread all day--

How can you have 49 Jumps and a B licence, YOUR NOT EVEN QUALIFIED BUDDY!!!

sds

No need to shout my friend. We have different system in Finland. We get A licence after about 10 jumps. B-licence after about 30 jumps. And C-licence at the end of our student career. (about 50-60 jumps.) C-licence in Finland means we are allowed to jump independently. D-licence comes automatically after 500jumps.

[Unstable 9]

Hey thats pretty cool. I didn't catch that, i was too busy shouting.
That doesn't sound like a bad system.

sds

=========Shaun ==========

[Hooknswoop 19]

I originally posted this under "Talking to a dead man". I have made changes and updates. Sorry, again, for it being so discombobulated.

Different people advance their canopy control skills at different rates.

Different wing loadings, landing altitudes (Density Altitudes), and types of canopies, all result in different levels and types of performance a canopy produces.

The landing areas are different from DZ to DZ.

The higher the performance the canopy, the better the pilot needs to be to safely fly it (and maintain the same margin for error).

Good reactions, an understanding of aerodynamics that apply to canopies (How a canopy flies, theory), good depth perception, the ability to accurately evaluate your skills, eye-hand coordination, dexterity, and good situation awareness are important attributes to becoming a good canopy pilot.

The above skills aren't worth much without experience. Experience isn't worth much without the above skills.

The higher the performance the canopy, the easier it is to get injured.

The lower performance the canopy, the less likely the pilot will be injured. (An AFFI I knew would land his Manta 288 with the brakes release and not touch the toggles. He would PLF and get up.)

Too many skydivers feel they are the exception, better than their jumps numbers would suggest they are.

Too many skydivers want to be "the cool skydiver swooping down the beer line" before they are ready, in an effort to 'fit in' and be 'cool'. Just skydiving impresses 'whuffo' friends, to impress skydiving friends, you have to stand out, be better than your friends were when they had the number of jumps you do.

A canopy control class can improve a pilot's skills, reduce the chances of an incident and possibly allow a pilot to learn at a faster rate. This is not universal, and the impact depends on the instructor, the syllabus, and the student. They can be difficult to attend (cost/travel/time/availability).

Landing fatalities and injuries are bad for the jumper involved and the sport as a whole.

Self-regulation is better for the sport than if the FAA where to step in to make and enforce regulations. (Not likely to happen).

Fatalities and, to a lesser extent, injuries bring skydiving to the general public's and the FAA's attention, which is bad.

A high profile incident or high number of incidents may force the FAA to step in. I don't see this as likely, they don't have the budget to hire more people to enforce skydiving regulations.

A canopy regulation based solely on jump numbers would in some cases allow a jumper to progress too fast, some too slow (for their capabilities), and some just right. If such a system was adopted, there might be a rush to downsize and be 'grand fathered in', resulting in people flying canopies they are not ready for and resulting in the opposite goal than intended, i.e. more instead of less landing injuries/fatalities.

A canopy regulation that allowed waivers would have to have designated, qualified people to sign off the waiver. Not all DZ"s have qualified people that can make this judgment. Also a 'Canopy I/E' would be forced to say "no" a lot, making them unpopular/disliked, similar to S & TA's today. (I know that not all S & TA's are disliked, but it does happen where an S & TA has to say "no" and the person holds it against them) Not a job I would volunteer for, BTDT.

A DZO may choose to simply 'cap' the wing loading of their jumpers, avoiding having to make a decision about a pilot's skill and the suitability of the canopy they are/want to jump. (On this one, if a DZO doesn't want to address this issue and institutes a 'cap' (especially a ridiculously low cap) on wing loading, then either let the S & TA/Chief Instructor handle it, drop your GM ("Keeping skydivers skydiving"), or don't run a DZ.)

How many DZO's/S &TA's ground someone that shows up at their DZ and is obviously in over their head with their canopy, loosing their business? How many S & TA's are over-ruled by the DZO so the DZ can sell jump tickets?

Applying a fixed system to a range of people/abilities would be unfair to some. Jumping a canopy that is a size or two (or more) larger than the person can handle doesn't create an unsafe situation, jumping a canopy a size or two (or more) smaller than the person can handle does result in an unsafe situation.

If you are bored on your canopy, get your pro-rating with it. See how good you really are with it.

Landing injuries usually only injure the pilot making the mistake, they rarely injure others.

Tracking skills are not keeping pace with canopy performance.

Aircraft pilots are regulated because they can affect the public's safety. There is a big difference between a single seat and two seat ultra-light.

Creating a flexible system requires qualified evaluators and can be more work as people challenge it believing they are the exception. This is basically what happens now, and varies from DZ to DZ, but is informal with no guidelines. Also, the Instructor, DZO, S &TA, I/E, Chief Instructor, etc, must first watch the jumper fly and land to make a call on the pilot's abilities. I may not be possible for someone to watch the pilot for a few jumps and by then may be too late.

The more downsizing is regulated and restricted the less injuries/fatalities there will be. The more regulations and restrictions there are, the more they cut into the freedom and enjoyment and personal responsibility of skydiving. There has to be a happy medium between freedom and regulation. I think this issue parallels the much larger National Security/Personal Freedom debates sparked by 9/11. How much personal freedom are we willing to sacrifice in the name of security? The United States accepts 50,000 deaths each year on the roadways as acceptable for the freedom of travel and the speeds allowed. How many little crosses do you see on the sides of roads? How many serious accidents have you slowly driven past? How much more are you willing to pay for a safer car?

Is what we have now insufficient? If yes, is a good solution to write some guidelines for DZO's/S & TA's/Instructors, etc. to help make these decisions and guide jumper's decisions on canopy choices? What should our 'goal' be? How many injuries per jumps is acceptable? How many fatalities under good canopies per jumps is acceptable? How do we achieve that goal without eliminating/significantly reducing the freedoms that help make skydiving what it is? Any sort of change will restrict some people from downsizing, making it unpopular with the people affected. Even some people that wouldn't be affected would be against it, as they would be against any further regulation.

This is a tremendously difficult, emotional, and complicated issue.

Hook

[BMFin 0]

Very true...

What caught my attention the most was :

Quote

A canopy regulation based solely on jump numbers would in some cases allow a jumper to progress too fast, some too slow (for their capabilities), and some just right. If such a system was adopted, there might be a rush to downsize and be 'grand fathered in', resulting in people flying canopies they are not ready for and resulting in the opposite goal than intended, i.e. more instead of less landing injuries/fatalities.

This may be very true. In Finland we have restricted our wingloading <1.34 for people <250jumps. What a lot of people (maby me included too) dont understand is that this 1.34 isnt the optimum. It is the maximum. They dont see it as an option to load their first canopy at 1.2 or 1.1 for example. They may think that becouse we are regulated by the authorities we are safe as long as we play by the rules.

I do not think everyone after 50 jumps is ready for a 1.3 loaded canopy. But I also think many of us are.

I chose 1.3 because from the jump no.1 I have had all standup landings. I have been able to land very accurately in my opinion. (we also have to do 10 landings within 10 meters to get our licence)

[dgskydive 0]

If you talked to as many people everyday about downsizing as Lisa and I do you would have the same reactions as us. You would be schoked at how many people get the wrong info even from there instructors. I think it's great that they are grilled about there choices in our forums. Hopefully we have saved some femurs or even lives this way. I don't see to many canopy Nazi's here. I just see a lot of concerned jumpers not wanting to see someone kill themselves. Lisa and I will be the Nazis when that guy with 40 jumps calls and says he wants a Stiletto 97 because he can downwind a 230 and needs more performance. We had a guy not to long ago who tried just that. The bad thing was someone had already let him jump one at his home DZ. Where were his instructors? Where was the S&TA? Someone had to step in and keep this guy from becoming an incident. We even gave up his name to PD! He will not see any small canopies from PD for a long time. If we where wrong for doing that, I don't wanna be right. I agree with you that they should get input from the people on the ground at their hme DZ! But that is not always gonna help.

Dom

[betzilla 56]

Quote

wouldn't the biggest determining factor be a jumpers comfort level on their current wing.

This would be a good point IF we didn't know that there are people out there who are "comfortable" doing stupid shit that's likely to get them killed.

I've also seen people get talked into small stuff that they're NOT comfortable with, but who were flattered by the fact that someone thought they could handle it.

So while we might hope that comfort and common sense go hand in hand, clearly they don't always.

[grasshopper 0]

Quote

If you are bored on your canopy, get your pro-rating with it. See how good you really are with it.

I thought this was worth repeating. it can be a very humbling experience shooting pro-accuracy on a high-performance canopy, but it sure is fun (and challenging,but not boring).

[jumpgod 0]

in an earlier post, someone brought up a valid point saying that you can do just about anything with any canopy....within reason. and that the best canopy pilots can make an old 7 cell swoop like a high performance....just a thought.

1) skydiving's dangerous....take your time and do it right....learn the moves....be patient....'rome wasn't built in a day'

2) experience is the only true ally....along with education and safety

3) downsize only when you have absolutely mastered all you can do with your current canopy. land it, safely, in all conditions....all types of maneuvers....and when you are absolutely certain that you have mastered it....then move on to the next canopy.

someother thoughts.

high performance: malfunction -- cut-a-away more likely e.g. 1) spectre et. al. main canopy....line twists....stable flight....kick out....no chop 2) diablo et. al. high performance...line twists....spiral out of control....cut-a-way

high performance: low turn = ouch
conservative 7-cell: low turn = shit that was close

jg

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

I do not think everyone after 50 jumps is ready for a 1.3 loaded canopy. But I also think many of us are.

Perhaps too many think so. Just because someone hasn't killed themselves in 50 jumps, doesn't make them safe.

How many wind conditions have they jumped in? Have they landed off in a tight landing area? What if they go to an unfamiliar dz? How about someone cuts them off and they have to downwind it?

I very rarely think that anyone with less than 150 jumps should have a greater than 1 to 1 load.

If often appears that people ask questions to get someone to agree with them, not to get answers. Canopy threads are like that.

[bwilling 0]

Quote

Point is: Where to draw the line of safety ??

This is easy, really... draw it on the side where half the fatalites in skydiving aren't happening under perfectly good parachutes, and we'll be making some headway...

You can debate this until the cows come home, but as long as people are being severely injured and killed under the very instrument that's supposed to save them, skydiving as a sport has a problem...

I realize that skydiving itself is inherently dangerous, but in almost every other area of the sport, we try to minimize the risk... and if we start doing that with sane canopy selection, and continued education in canopy control, we could cut the number of friends being hurt and killed in half.

and I'm all for that.

"If all you ever do is all you ever did, then all you'll ever get is all you ever got."

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

I realize that skydiving itself is inherently dangerous, but in almost every other area of the sport, we try to minimize the risk... and if we start doing that with sane canopy selection, and continued education in canopy control, we could cut the number of friends being hurt and killed in half.

I am totally in agreement with you. I wish that people of all experience levels would have discussions with the S&TA at their dz and then accept the decision of the S&TA. They didn't get that job by being first in line when K-Mart opened.

[JYorkster 0]

Maybe once you have been in the sport a little longer, and have seen a few serious injuries due to someone jumping a canopy too small, your opinion will change.

Just because you have 49 jumps, are jumping a small canopy and haven't been hurt (yet), does not necessarily mean that the advice given is wrong.

Just my $.02,

Rock

[mikkey 0]

"I do not think everyone after 50 jumps is ready for a 1.3 loaded canopy. But I also think many of us are.

I chose 1.3 because from the jump no.1 I have had all standup landings. I have been able to land very accurately in my opinion. (we also have to do 10 landings within 10 meters to get our licence) "

I think this says it all. If you think that the above "qualifications" make you a safe pilot under a 120 loaded at 1.3 at 50 jumps then I must say - probably being rude here - you have no idea what you are talking about.

BTW note that Finland like the other Scandinavian countries have wing loading regulations. Seems the Finnish one is different from the Swedish and Danish ones which I think is more restrictive at lower jump numbers. However, they do all stop hundred jump wonders from flying pocket rockets at high wing loadings. And I think this actually has had an influence on the fatality rates "under canopy" in these countries.
We probably have beaten this "horse" to death in multiple threads anyway. Some people want to jump what ever they want and others do not think it is a good idea. I will just continue to check the incident forum and be depressed about the number of people getting killed or maimed under perfect canopies.

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[Iflyme 0]

Quote

We cant stop traffic accidents 100%

Of course we could ... problem is -- nobody has the political will to to it.

[RevJim 0]

Quote

The problem is that people get bored with how quickly their canopy turns and how long it dives and how fast it comes in on landing, all the things that ARE NOT IMPORTANT TO LANDING YOU SAFELY. Yet people are making canopy downsizing decisions based on how fast the canopy feels instead of their likelihood of being able to land it safely in conditions that are less than ideal.

I essentially started off too small, and learned on what now seem like a napkin, to me. I gradually upsized until I hit the level where the canopy actually felt slow and boring, which for me is my 150. 150 is the size I'll be staying at for awhile, since it a very comfortable wing.

When I feel like going back down in size, I'll just ditch the square and swap in an elliptical, of the same size. I honestly think I found my sweetspot wingload. It's just that I found it by going the wrong direction. In a sense, I guess I'm happy to be here, since I started out way too small.

It's your life, live it!
Karma
RB#684 "Corcho", ASK#60, Muff#3520, NCB#398, NHDZ#4, C-33989, DG#1

[mikeat10500 12]

Quote

I'll just ditch the square and swap in an elliptical, of the same size.

Sounds smart to me!
My DZO went from a square 140 to a Stiletto 150
and seem very happy with it. I have jumped both,
the 140 is faster but the Stiletto is better in many ways.
...mike

-----------------------------------
Mike Wheadon B-3715,HEMP#1
Higher Expectations for Modern Parachutists.