Will Your Wingload Save You?

[PhillyKev 0]

I did read all of the posts. Your original post said:

Quote

a remark was made by a poster that his wingload would not have presented him with as severe an emergency as it did the jumper that experienced the brake line mal.

Where did anyone say anything about reacting more slowly to the emergency because of their wingloading? He said it wouldn't be as severe, and it wouldn't.

This whole thread is ridiculous. Noone seems to be disagreeing at all, the only point you seem to be arguing is the semantic value of "less severe". It's ridiculous and pointless.

Bottom line...if you think that wingloading makes no difference to survivability of a mal...go jump a 46.

If you think you're immune to certain mals because you have a light wingload....go take up golf.

[rgoper 0]

Quote

while it's true a "lighter" wingload would "slow things down a bit" it should not be taken for granted, and it should not be relied upon. all malfuntions should be addressed with immediate identification, assessment and the proper emergency procedure initiated immediately.

hey, mr braintrust:

which part of this paragraph don't you understand? don't come at me with your BS.

Quote

If you think you're immune to certain mals because you have a light wingload....go take up golf.

i know i'm not immune to anything, i never made any such statement, your just trying to start some shit, it's friday evening and you probably half drunk right now, so piss off.

--Richard--
"We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist"

[PhillyKev 0]

Once again your lack of comprehension is admirable. I was not addressing you or claiming that you thought that way. I was summarizing my post and making a statement using the generic "you" to identify the reader in general.

I'll refrain from childish personal attacks and libel and let your clear lack of ability to communicate effectively speak for itself.

[rgoper 0]

Quote

Once again your lack of comprehension is admirable. I was not addressing you or claiming that you thought that way. I was summarizing my post and making a statement using the generic "you" to identify the reader in general.

after careful perusal of your prior post one can only surmize that it's your reading comprehensive skills in question, not mine. (of course, i realize it may be the climate, but my real bet is it's the alchohol) i'll not quibble with you any further, you come and take something intended for safety and training and turn it into a pissing contests for your own vendetta, whatever it may be, you have my congradulations.

[skybytch 273]

Rule #1.

Perhaps it's time to step away from the keyboard.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

of course, i realize it may be the climate, but my real bet is it's the alchohol

In the morning I'll be sober....you'll still be, well, you.

Cheers.

[rgoper 0]

Quote

In the morning I'll be sober

i doubt it.

[skybytch 273]

Both of you. Knock it off. Right now.

If you'd like to continue insulting each other, please make use of the PM feature.

[Cajones 0]

Okay... Time for another actual malfunction in an effort to clear some of this noise up and provide something useful from all the BS tangents...

When I was a young static-line instructor, I accompanied a student on a 45-second delay. During his skydive, she was supposed to execute a 360 degree left turn, followed by a 360 degree right turn, within 30 degrees of her original heading.

After initiating her first turn, she began to turn very, very fast - the word spinning comes up, but her body position was creating it, and she did nothing to counter it.

Following the skydive she said she was disoriented by the fast turn and lost altitude awareness - she deployed while in this orientation resulting in some hellacious line-twists. Unable to clear the malfunction by her decision altitude, she initiated her emergency procedures. She was still kicking out the twists as she pulled the SOS handle, resulting in a reserve that also had some line twists. These were cleared in time to have a safe, into-the-wind landing. This former student is now an Instructor, and has been known to fly jumpers from time-to-time.

Conclusion she has talked about during discussions about her first cutaway: "Thank god I was under a huge canopy, if I was under a 'napkin,' I'd be dead." I put quotes around the statement, as these are her words (as closely as I can write them). Her wingloading saved her (my interpretation).

- Cajones

The laws of physics are strictly enforced.

[apoil 0]

Quote

>If you are going to compare it to driving, wingloading is directly
>comprable to a high power to weight ratio. A fast car.

I would disagree. A small canopy cannot be stopped as quickly, or slowed effectively without stalling; even a powerful car can. Indeed, many powerful cars have _better_ brakes than their cheaper counterparts. So a better comparison would be to compare a small canopy to a car with poor brakes.

fair point.
Obviously the automobile analogy does not translate so well to parachuting.

Although, the smaller canopy has higher airspeed which results in much more power to halt and even reverse the descent speed. It's that forward speed thing that creates all the complex dynamics.

[JeffGordon 0]

when I first started flying my 150, I biffed in twice. The first time, I bounced hard enough to frighten other jumpers who were watching, the second time, I spent a good 10 minutes "gathering my lines". If I had been jumping a 120 instead of a 150, I don't think I would have walked away from either of these f#$% ups. So yes, wing loading saved me.

[billvon 3,008]

>Although, the smaller canopy has higher airspeed which results in
> much more power to halt and even reverse the descent speed. It's
> that forward speed thing that creates all the complex dynamics.

And downward speed. You need a lot more skill to be able to deal with the greater descent and forward speeds, and you _still_ can't slow down a Stiletto 97 as much as you can a Triathalon 160 - even though the Stiletto has a much better flare.

>But AVERAGE jumpers don't jump 2.0 wingloadings.
>They are either above average in skill or above average in stupidity

Unfortunately we're getting there. Lisa had a sub-50 jump wonder try to buy a Stiletto 97. These people are getting more and more common. 2 to 1 canopies are no longer considered deathtraps, now they're just moderately advanced canopies, and if I try to tell someone at 200 jumps they're not ready for one, I'm an asshole because I'm telling them they suck. "Everyone else jumps one! Joe Speed has a 3:1; I'm being conservative!"

Why do they do this? Because just about every jumper out there thinks they're above average in skill. Often the best I can do is to try to talk them into getting education and jumping a larger canopy for a little while, so that the inevitable screwup leads to a broken femur instead of a fatality.

>An injury is more likely in the event of an error, but I've seen injuries
> pretty fairly distributed across the wingloading spectrum as well as
> the experience spectrum.

Yep. Many of the broken legs you see at the 1.8:1 level were only broken legs because of the jumper's skill - not enough to avoid injury, but enough to save his life. That means he's been getting some education (or experience) but not quite enough. One of my goals would be to get him either the education or larger canopy needed to let him avoid the injury in the first place.