Wing Loading Restrictions? (Skydive Kansas)

[Ron 10]

You and I have been down this road before....

You need to look at the incident reports...Most are under 500 jumps with 1.5 wingload...And most were trying to get their swoop on.

Some not, and some had more than 500 jumps, some had a higher wingload, some lower, but read the reports.

<500 jumps + >1.5 wingload = dead jumpers.

It really is simple math.

I don't blame them for wanting to limit the exposure that they face.

And more is comming.

When to many pilots killed themselves in high performance aircraft he FAA came in and made a checkout....When too many people ground looped tail draggers...FAA came in with an endorsment...

It is comming FAA, USPA, DZO's....its comming. We have shown that we do a very bad job of controlling ourselves.

And your gun control argument is flawed....You don't HAVE to own a gun...And that is what the liberals are fighting..They want to BAN them...You have to have a canopy to skydive...It does not have to be a pocket rocket.

They are trying to limit risk based on wingload which evidence has proven to be a factor in accidents and deaths.

Ron

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

[Steel 0]

First of all on page 35 April/2003 is shows 54% of the fatalities with jumpers having over 500 jumps. But I realize this is all fatalities not just landings. With the landing fatalities they were not kind enough to break it down for us. (I wonder why) In anycase I don't argue for people with less than 500 jumps. But the fact that you mention that proves my case. Their rule is for everybody not for inexperienced jumpers. I don't have time right now to go to skydivenet.com and search every single incident to give you a full set of statistics for the past ten years of fatalities on the basis of jump numbers, wingloadings and intent. But I have done this in the past and I don't recall a significant number of jumpers planning to swoop and having it go sour to the point of a fatality. If somebody out there has more time they can do it themselves and they will then perhaps understand the truth.
Blue Skies!

If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

[Ron 10]

Well I have done it...and showed it to you...and you ignored it.

But hey you don't like the rules at that DZ...Don't jump there.

They have the right to have whatever rules they want.

Ron
Im done here, just like the last time you don't listen

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

[kansasskydiver 0]

I have an answer to all of this, come to Kansas State Parachute Club instead

www.ksu.edu/ksupc

Skydive Kansas, well, I won't comment on what I think is going on there but it's sad to say that they actualy came from my dropzone. KSUPC is a college run dropzone and we have been seeing a lot of people coming to us from Skydive Kansas becasue they're being run off either due to wing loading issues, AAD, or just not being able to jump. They have turned into a tandem factory or something I'm not sure.

For thier pig roast last year we let them use our plane for that day. I drove out there and they wouldn't let me jump because I was 2 lbs over weight. I was jumping a sabre 210 and weighed 256. I could have taken a crap and been able to jump. It happen with a couple of us.

So come to KSUPC next time your in kansas $15 to 10k. Prove your jump numbers and that you have jumped the equipment before and we're usualy fine with you jumping it. (edited to add) If you have 10 jumps and are jumping an FX it's a different story
Blue skies

Chris "Flash"
KSUPC

<--- See look, pink dolphins DO exist!

[PhreeZone 20]

>If you're jumping what you own, you must know what you're doing right?

I know of more then one person thats bought a canopy thats well beyond their skill level and paid large hospital bills due to it. Thinking that just since you own sometihng means you know what you are doing gets people killed. I've jumped 120's but I won't do those again soon since I don't have the ability to fly them at all times.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[kansasskydiver 0]

Ok i refrased that quote. What i meant was if you have 1400 jumps your AFF, SL, and pro and you've jumped the canopy for X number of years like this case, then you know what you're doing and there shouldn't be a reason to turn him away. Sorry about the misunderstanding

<--- See look, pink dolphins DO exist!

[mjosparky 4]

Hook,
Your harness/container was TSO'ed to 300, but what was your reserve canopy tested/TSO'ed to.
Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Your harness/container was TSO'ed to 300, but what was your reserve canopy tested/TSO'ed to.

My Javelin is under TSO C23c, 254 lbs./150 kts
My Micron is under TSO C23b standard, up to 5000lb shock load, for which there is a chart. A set of numbers are 200 mph with 400 lbs. I am 213 lbs. under that. For 150 mph it is 660 lbs. I am 473 lbs. under that.

Reserve Max Weight: 220 lbs. I am 33 lbs. under that.

Quote

Is a dz like this likely to produce world champion skydivers? Not if the local jumpers aren't willing to travel or bring in high level coaching.

They can't bring high level coaching w/ a 1.5:1 wing loading restriction.

Quote

re: low currency numbers for staff. One Cessna dz's don't turn lots of loads, and the ones they do turn only carry four people. It can be a real challenge to get 3 jumps done in one day sometimes. How long is the season in Kansas? Do the math; those numbers aren't bad at all if they only have one plane and a four month season.

I learned to skydive at a 2-Cessna DZ, just like SK. I still averaged 250 jumps/year there. As for the season, KS can't have worse WX than CO, and I have been jumping year-round here.

I completely agree that they have every right to make any rules they wish. I even understand why they would want to make the rules they have. They obviously are commited to safety, which is a great thing. But again, their rules brand me and many other skydivers (AZ Airpseed, Golden Knights, etc.) as unsafe skydivers, unable to jump at their DZ. Does anyone really think Airspeed is un-safe? Besides SK, I mean.

Hook

[kansasskydiver 0]

I jump at a single C-182 dz and make about 200-250 jumps a year. It is possible, just have to have teh dedication to watch the wind blow somedays

<--- See look, pink dolphins DO exist!

[weavermc 0]

Since I had some time to research, I found the link from ATAIR (maker of Cobalts) which shows that they recommend a slightly-higher-than-normal wing-loading due to its design. (Just in case anyone wants to see)

http://www.extremefly.com/aerodynamics/faq.html#one

[Remster 30]

Quote

found the link from ATAIR

Sure.... make a merky discussion even merkier.... Why dont we throw in RSLs !

Remster

[weavermc 0]

I was just backing up my earlier comment about why I jump a Cobalt 120 with an exit weight of 240lbs.

I have a lot of jumps/experience and downsized slowly...

Just wanted to show "the world" what I was talking about

[PhreeZone 20]

They are not viewing them as unsafe, just unwelcome. I've heard of a DZ that has a similar restriction (much less loading) due to their limited landing area and lack of outs. They are just making the decision that they would rather cater to jumpers that are under a lighter loading then most other places.

Plenty of the GK's can come in an train on Stlye and Accuracy and still be at or under a 1:1 loading. The StarTracs are pretty large canopies and the parafoils are even larger.

Winter in the midwest is way worse then what last winter in CO was like. You and the entire CO crew were out jumping while we had months of 500 foot ceilings and 15 degress on the ground and 25 mph winds. Even with a Cessna we could'nt even taxi it due to poor flight conditions.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[billvon 2,991]

>Make the right mistake under any canopy and something is going to
>hurt.

I agree, but the conclusion that "therefore you can get hurt under any size canopy, size isn't the issue" doesn't follow. That's like saying you can get killed in a car crash even if you're not drunk, so driving drunk isn't a safety problem.

The reality is that jumping smaller canopies is more dangerous. Someone with excellent canopy skills is safer under a 1.5 to 1 canopy than a 2 to 1 canopy, just as someone with lousy canopy skills is safer under a .8 to 1 canopy than a 1.5 to 1 canopy. If you hit turbulence and your canopy collapses at 20 feet, all the skill in the world won't keep the laws of physics from taking over - and at that point, the slower you're going the less you're going to get hurt. That's just one example.

[billvon 2,991]

>What i meant was if you have 1400 jumps your AFF, SL, and pro and
> you've jumped the canopy for X number of years like this case, then
> you know what you're doing and there shouldn't be a reason to turn
> him away.

I know several AFF-JM's with around 1000 jumps who can't land for shit. They would have to upsize to jump at this place, and their upsizing might just prevent an injury (for several of them, another injury.)

[billvon 2,991]

>If someone goes in, will there be a 'no-skydiving' rule?

If they go in due to a no-pull, a cypres-required rule would be more in line with what they've done.

>Their rules tell me that they think I am an un-safe jumper because I
> don't have an AAD and have above an 1.5:1 wingloading. That is
> close to being an insult and completely un-fair.

They are telling you you are a less-safe jumper, which is their right to decide. I can't jump my BASE rig at most DZ's, despite the fact that I pack my BASE canopy more carefully than the local riggers pack reserves. This isn't unfair either, it's just life at a US DZ.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

They are not viewing them as unsafe, just unwelcome.

Why would anyone w/ a wing loading over 1.5:1 be unwelcome? So why would I be unwelcome? Why would Airspeed be unwelcome? Why would so many other jumpers be unwelcome. Would you be welcome w/ less than 500 jumps and your 136?

Quote

I've heard of a DZ that has a similar restriction (much less loading) due to their limited landing area and lack of outs.

Is this the case at SK? A small landing area? How do they teach AFF then?

Quote

They are just making the decision that they would rather cater to jumpers that are under a lighter loading then most other places.

Based on what? They could just as easily cater only to jumpers with round mains and reserves, and it would be just a silly.

Quote

Plenty of the GK's can come in an train on Stlye and Accuracy and still be at or under a 1:1 loading. The StarTracs are pretty large canopies and the parafoils are even larger.

Obviously I was referring to the other GK's, with Stilettos. And AZ Airspeed, and all the other good 4-way teams out there. And how about the best free-fliers?, nope not welcome.

Quote

Winter in the midwest is way worse then what last winter in CO was like. You and the entire CO crew were out jumping while we had months of 500 foot ceilings and 15 degress on the ground and 25 mph winds. Even with a Cessna we could'nt even taxi it due to poor flight conditions.

From another KS jumper:

I jump at a single C-182 dz and make about 200-250 jumps a year. It is possible, just have to have teh dedication to watch the wind blow somedays ***

SK's staff doesn't jump much. No way around that.

How did they figure out the 1.5:1 max wing loading rule? I get the impression, that SK is a small student-oriented DZ that doesn't want visiting fun jumpers. Fine, they should drop their USPA Group Membership, and go about their merry way. I don't believe a DZ should be a GM and not allow fun jumpers. Now I know they do allow fun jumpers, but they definitely discriminate. Their rules are for safety why else would they have them?)? That implies anyone that doesn't fit into their 1.5:1, AAD, etc mold is un-safe. Hence the rules and the rude treatment the original poster was given. Not exactly a family atmosphere, for outsiders anyway.

Hook

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

>If someone goes in, will there be a 'no-skydiving' rule?

If they go in due to a no-pull, a cypres-required rule would be more in line with what they've done.

What if someone goes in with a main-reserve entanglement, no skydiving rule, or no main rule? What if an AAD misfires, causing a main-reserve entangelment, a no-AAD rule?

Quote

>Their rules tell me that they think I am an un-safe jumper because I
> don't have an AAD and have above an 1.5:1 wingloading. That is
> close to being an insult and completely un-fair.

They are telling you you are a less-safe jumper, which is their right to decide. I can't jump my BASE rig at most DZ's, despite the fact that I pack my BASE canopy more carefully than the local riggers pack reserves. This isn't unfair either, it's just life at a US DZ.

I agree that a DZ wouldn't allow either of us to jump w/ our BASE rigs, for a number of reasons, one of which is that it isn't in-line with the industry standard.

I disagree that it is their right to decide that I am less-safe than they are. I take that as a personal insult. I have more skydives than any of them, and more ratings. I fly a canopy at a higher wing loading, successfully, than any of them. I have never been injured.

I think they are kidding themselves if they believe they are safer than any number of highly experienced skydivers that have a wing loading of 1.6:1.

I also think that by drawing the line at 1.5:1, they are saying anything above that is unsafe, otherwise they would have a rule that anyone over 1.5:1 would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine if they will be allowed to jump there. If I showed up at SK with an AAD and a 1.6 wing loading, I wouldn't be allowed to jump, even though I would be arguably safer than most, if not all, of the other jumpers on the DZ.

The 1.5:1 wing loading rule is a close-minded absurd rule.

Hook

[skybytch 273]

Quote

I disagree that it is their right to decide that I am less-safe than they are. I take that as a personal insult. I have more skydives than any of them, and more ratings. I fly a canopy at a higher wing loading, successfully, than any of them. I have never been injured.

I've never needed a Cypres, but until last year I couldn't have jumped at a USPA group member dz near me solely because I didn't have one. I didn't take that as a personal insult, and the dz didn't mind too much that I didn't jump there.

Perhaps the owners of Skydive Kansas don't care that people of your experience (and higher) won't be jumping there. Perhaps they want to have a "tandem factory" dz. Those aren't much fun for experienced jumpers, but you know what? The dzo's are the ones who put the money up to build the playground, they can do whatever they want there.

We whine so much about "freedom of choice" when it comes to what size canopy we fly, whether we wear a helmet or audible or AAD... I don't see that a DZO deciding who can and who can't play with his toys (aircraft) in his yard (dz) is any different. He's excercising his freedom of choice as a business owner. It may bite him in the ass later on, it may not. That's the chance he's taking by having that rule.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

I've never needed a Cypres, but until last year I couldn't have jumped at a USPA group member dz near me solely because I didn't have one. I didn't take that as a personal insult, and the dz didn't mind too much that I didn't jump there.

I think requiring a Cypres is different than a max wing loading rule.

Quote

Perhaps the owners of Skydive Kansas don't care that people of your experience (and higher) won't be jumping there. Perhaps they want to have a "tandem factory" dz. Those aren't much fun for experienced jumpers, but you know what? The dzo's are the ones who put the money up to build the playground, they can do whatever they want there.

I think you are right, they do not want experienced jumpers there, but they should admit it, don't hide behind a 'safety' rule. Drop the USPA Group Membership if you don't want fun jumpers there. Don't be hypocritical. (Not you, the DZ). Can't have it both ways.

Quote

We whine so much about "freedom of choice" when it comes to what size canopy we fly, whether we wear a helmet or audible or AAD... I don't see that a DZO deciding who can and who can't play with his toys (aircraft) in his yard (dz) is any different. He's excercising his freedom of choice as a business owner. It may bite him in the ass later on, it may not. That's the chance he's taking by having that rule.

I completely agree that it is the DZO's choice and right to make rules as he/she sees fit. But again, don't decide you don't want fun jumpers and hide behind a 'safety' rule to keep them away. Don't put up a USPA GM banner and not allow fun jumpers to jump there. Make rules, but make them for good reason. Stand up and do what is right.

If I owned a sandwich shop, could I post a sign that said "This business refuses to serve Chinese people due to the threat of SARS"? I could claim I was doing it for the safety of my customers, that it would be bad for business if one of my customers caught SARS in my sandwich shop and died. Even though I knew nothing about SARS and was only posting the sign because I didn't like Chinese people and didn't want them in my shop. (I don't really dislike Chinese people).

Hook

[JeffGordon 0]

Quote

I agree that a DZ wouldn't allow either of us to jump w/ our BASE rigs, for a number of reasons, one of which is that it isn't in-line with the industry standard.

Doesn't FAR part 105 say all intentional parachute jumps must be done with a piggy back reserve system? That would exclude most base rigs.

Skydive Myrtle Beach (which is nowhere near Myrtle Beach) requires jumpers under 500 jumps to restrict wing load to 1.4 or less.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

Skydive Myrtle Beach (which is nowhere near Myrtle Beach) requires jumpers under 500 jumps to restrict wing load to 1.4 or less.

That's not nearly as drastic as what Skydive Kansas is doing. I'm sure many of you 1000+ jump wonders would agree that us 100+ jump wonders are putting ourselves at more risk jumping wingloadings we may not be ready for. But to tell a 1000+ jump wonder (who may or may not be a world class canopy pilot) they can't jump because they exceed a certain wingloading is harder to understand. But the bottom line, is that it is their business and they choose to run it the way they see fit.

Just adding my two pesos to the pot ...

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

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Doesn't FAR part 105 say all intentional parachute jumps must be done with a piggy back reserve system? That would exclude most base rigs.

Part 105, TSO's, safety, any number of reasons you aren't allowed to jump a BASE rig from an airplane.

Don't piss on my head and tell me it's raining.

Hook

[billvon 2,991]

>What if someone goes in with a main-reserve entanglement, no
> skydiving rule, or no main rule? What if an AAD misfires, causing a
> main-reserve entangelment, a no-AAD rule?

Yes, there are many other scenarios you could list that might result in an absurd restriction. I've thought them all up myself; I used to argue with Buzz until I was blue in the face over the mandatory-AAD issue. The bottom line for him is that it's his DZ. He could require you to wear a chicken suit if he wants. The bottom line for me is that Perris and Elsinore are 70 miles away.

>I disagree that it is their right to decide that I am less-safe than
> they are.

DZ's do that all the time. I've personally grounded people who I decided weren't safe enough. Some DZ's decide that you aren't safe enough if you don't have an AAD, or if you want to fly camera and don't have X jumps, even if you already have dozens of camera jumps elsewhere. They can do that because they own the DZ.

> I take that as a personal insult. I have more skydives than any of
> them, and more ratings. I fly a canopy at a higher wing loading,
> successfully, than any of them. I have never been injured.

I guess I used to get insulted by stuff like that, but I just don't any more. I've had people tell me that I couldn't jump a given canopy, or that I couldn't get on a big-way because I wasn't experienced enough. One of those was after I'd organized several DZ records and had way more experience at big-ways (and larger successful dives) than the organizer. It's not a personal insult, it's just life in skydiving.

>I also think that by drawing the line at 1.5:1, they are saying
> anything above that is unsafe . . .

Yep.

>I wouldn't be allowed to jump, even though I would be arguably safer
>than most, if not all, of the other jumpers on the DZ.

Again, I could argue all that. My BASE rig is safer than Carmen's old Northern Light; I am safer without an AAD than Mark is with his AAD and his Stiletto 135 that he can't land. It just doesn't bother me any more. If Buzz had a 1.5 loading rule I'd either jump my Silhouette there or go to Perris.

>The 1.5:1 wing loading rule is a close-minded absurd rule.

No more so than an AAD-required rule or a you-must-have-500-jumps-to-jump-a-camera rule. It's just a rule, like hundreds of others. By definition, most of them are closed-minded. That's the intent, generally, of rules - it avoids arguments by being closed minded and inflexible. In this particular case I can understand them being inflexible, because 99% of the people in skydiving are positive they can jump canopy X without getting hurt. If they were flexible, they'd get an argument from every single jumper that arrived there. At least this way jumpers know to not even show up.

In any case, we can still vote with our feet. If indeed high loadings are not much more dangerous than low loadings, expect their rule to backfire - they will lose jumpers and go out of business. That cuts both ways, of course. If, by that rule, they avoid fatalities and lawsuits, other DZ's may adopt a similar rule - and that would be too bad.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Very good points, hard to argue with them. I guess my real hang-up is they are being un-truthfull, which bugs me. Make rules in the name of safety, great, it is hard to be against safety, right? But don't make rules to keep fun jumpers away in the name of safety. If a DZO doesn't want fun jumpers, fine, but don't hide behind safety rules.

The original poster wasted a 1.5 hour drive to go give these people his money, and they rudely turned him away. They have updated their web page which shuld help prevent future occurances, but they should simply change it to read "NO FUN JUMPERS ALLOWED".

Hook