Will Your Wingload Save You?

[apoil 0]

Quote

>None die from it being too heavily loaded either.
>It's just a contributing factor.

While literally true, you could say the same about drunk drivers. Drunk driving doesn't kill people, rear ending other cars at 50mph does. However, being drunk makes it a lot more likely that you'll rear end cars at 50mph.

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

Bringing in impairing conditions bleeds the issue over into something much more controversial. But let's run with it. While Statistics certainly do bear out that driving drunk does result in more accidents, it's misapplication of statistics to say that being drunk will result that I myself am more likely to rear end a car at 50 mph. Because it's not necessarily the case.

Just as it's not the case that jumper x under a 2.0 wingloading is more likely to break his leg or kill himself. He's just more at risk if he makes a makes a mistake and everyone knows that.

[Ron 10]

Quote

Try harder.. you just agreed with me.

I have GOT to stop doing this. *Next thing you know I'll be freeflying.*

Quote

The MISTAKE is what killed them. The wingloading was just a contributing factor. Had they not made the mistake, they wouldn't have died, under either canopy.

I agree....But the wingload is a LARGE factor.

If you hit the ground under a .9 loaded stiletto..You will get hurt.

If you hit the ground under a 3.9 loaded stiletto....Chances are you are toast.

Yes, it is the mistake that kills them. And you can get killed under ANY wingload if you screw up...Damn here I go agreeing again....*So I should start with a sit right?*

However the amount of wingload can greatly complicate the injuries....To the point of eliminating them, or causing death.

So you could limit wingloading to low timers, and let them live long enough to make a few mistakes....And make sure than you can handle your reserve size when *it* hits the fan.....

Ron

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

[billvon 3,008]

>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.

>Just as it's not the case that jumper x under a 2.0 wingloading is
> more likely to break his leg or kill himself.

An average jumper is more likely to injure or kill himself under a 2.0 wingloading than under a 1.0 wingloading, just as an average driver is more likely to injure or kill himself if he tried to drive with a .12 BAC vs a .06 BAC. Common sense.

Are there exceptions? Is there some guy who's such an amazing driver that he can drive more safely when he's drunk than someone else can if he's sober? Of course; there are skydivers who are safer under 2:1 canopies than other jumpers under 1:1 canopies. That does not mean that driving drunk is as safe as driving sober. That's sort of silly to even propose.

[rgoper 0]

all of this extra rhetoric is fine, but as original author of this post, my question still stands and has had little if any resonses in a "yes" or "no" format. your wingload will not save you no matter what it is if the problem isn't properly identified and dealt with accordingly and in a timely manner. this doesn't have anything to do with drunk drivers, or statistics from any other types of incidents. can you depend on your wingload to buy you more time? as i've stated before, a lower wing may slow things down a bit of course, but should you rely on this for a contributing "comfort factor" you'll be N.F.L. again, never take anything for granted...ever.

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

[billvon 3,008]

>my question still stands and has had little if any resonses in a "yes"
>or "no" format.

That's because most questions in skydiving don't have a yes or no answer. See if you can answer any of these questions purely yes or no:

-Will a cypres keep you alive?
-Should you cut away from line twist?
-Should you use an RSL?

A low wingloading will save you under many conditions. When everything goes right, then you can land safely under almost any wingloading. When everything goes wrong, the biggest parachute in the world will do you no good (if it's in tatters, or if you land in front of a train.) In between, there are many cases where a large parachute will save your life but a small one will not. There are very, very few cases where the opposite is true.

[rgoper 0]

Quote

your wingload will not save you no matter what it is if the problem isn't properly identified and dealt with accordingly and in a timely manner.

what does anything you just said have to do with this statement from my last post to this thread? in my mind you either agree, or dissagree with this statement, which was my whole point at the onset of the post.

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

[billvon 3,008]

>in my mind you either agree, or dissagree with this statement, which was:

"your wingload will not save you no matter what it is if the problem isn't properly identified and dealt with accordingly and in a timely manner."

Oh, OK. I disagree. Sometimes a light wingloading will save you even if you do not identify and deal with the problem in a timely manner. People have survived landing under lineovers, with damaged canopies, and with broken lines. They should have cut these away, but since their canopies were big enough, they survived.

[rgoper 0]

Quote

After opening and once clear of other canopies, each jumper should check the canopy’s controls. If the controllability check fails and the problem can’t be rectified by the decision altitude (2,500 feet for students and A-license holders; 1,800 feet for others), the jumper should cut away and deploy the reserve.

is this agreeable? landing with lineovers, not a very good controlability check.

Quote

Sometimes a light wingloading will save you even if you do not identify and deal with the problem in a timely manner. People have survived landing under lineovers, with damaged canopies, and with broken lines. They should have cut these away, but since their canopies were big enough, they survived.

let's just say for arguments sake a sky diver deploys at 2500 AGL and experiences a blown cell in the canopy, their wingload is 1.1:1, what is it now that the cell is blown? is it still a 1.1:1? i think not. the same physics apply for a lineover, there are a few malfunctions that will increase the wingloading on the remaining parachute, since in some instances it isn't all there anymore. and i should have stated that no matter what the wingloading is, in the event of a malfunction, partial, or total, wingloading should not be depended upon, or give a false sense of security for a safer, final emergency scenario.

Edited To Add:

for general good safety procedures, treat a 1.1:1 wingload malfunction with the same tenacity you would a 2.2:1 wingload.

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

[Cajones 0]

Don't despair, Bill. I agree with what you posted. And I look forward seeing the agree/disagree comments from rgoper on the other statements you made, since everything is black-and-white in his world.

In the meantime... If your canopy is less than perfect - should you chop it?



- Cajones

The laws of physics are strictly enforced.

[rgoper 0]

Quote

Description: After an uneventful 4-way group freefall skydive, this jumper experienced a pilot-chute-in-tow malfunction at 3,000 feet AGL. He pulled his cutaway handle first but did not immediately pull the reserve ripcord. Eventually, the pilot chute opened the container and deployed the main parachute, which immediately separated from the harness. At some point, the jumper evidently manually pulled the reserve ripcord to initiate deployment but ran out of altitude and struck the ground before the reserve could inflate.
Conclusions: The jumper apparently knew that he had an equipment problem but chose to jump with his parachute system in disrepair. He reportedly said on the way to the drop zone that his pilot chute was beginning to hesitate and that he planned to have it replaced.

Section 5-1 of the Skydiver’s Information Manual recognizes two procedures for dealing with a pilot chute in tow, both of which have pros and cons. One is to pull the reserve immediately; the other is to cut away and then deploy the reserve parachute. Due to the high descent rate of a pilot-chute-in-tow malfunction, a jumper must choose a procedure in advance, practice and review it frequently and respond quickly and correctly if the situation presents itself. Had this jumper deployed the reserve without a cutaway or immediately deployed the reserve after he cut away, it may have changed the outcome. An AAD or reserve static line may also have prevented this fatality.

failure to identify, failure to react, and his freaking wingload didn't save him. black and white? maybe, reality...oh yeah. could an RSL, or an AAD made a difference here?

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

[dreamsville 0]

Agreed. Also, I don't know if you've had anyone tell you that they landed a torn canopy, yet didn't know it at the time. Someone I know said that they thought the canopy flew a little funny after opening, not spinning or diving, just not quite right. After landing, the person discovered tear(s) in the topskin that weren't evident from below. Needless to say, this canopy was pulled from service. I don't know if it was worth fixing.
|

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

[billvon 3,008]

>is this agreeable? landing with lineovers, not a very good controlability check.

Not at all; you _should_ cut away and open your reserve. Sometimes jumpers screw up and don't do that. If that happens it's better to be injured than be dead, and a lower wingloading will keep you from being dead more often.

>and experiences a blown cell in the canopy, their wingload is 1.1:1,
>what is it now that the cell is blown?

1.23

>for general good safety procedures, treat a 1.1:1 wingload
>malfunction with the same tenacity you would a 2.2:1 wingload.

In most cases yes. In some cases (line twist) it is more likely to clear with a lower loading. In some cases (broken steering line, minor canopy damage) it might be possible to land a lower wing loading, while the higher wing loading might require a cutaway.

[skybytch 273]

Quote

failure to identify, failure to react, and his freaking wingload didn't save him. black and white? maybe, reality...oh yeah. could an RSL, or an AAD made a difference here?

Quote

The jumper apparently knew that he had an equipment
problem but chose to jump with his parachute system in disrepair.

The lowest possible wingloading isn't likely to save you if you don't maintain your equipment. Wingloading had nothing to do with this fatality.

If your point is that everyone, regardless of what size canopy they fly, needs to avoid becoming complacent then I agree with you. If that isn't your point, then I'm extremely confused.

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

your wingload will not save you no matter what it is if the problem isn't properly identified and dealt with accordingly and in a timely manner.

You're wrong. If you were right then we wouldn't have any problems putting students under a Sabre 90something. Do you think that's OK? If not, why not?

Quote

this doesn't have anything to do with drunk drivers, or statistics from any other types of incidents.

It has everything to do with statistics from skydiving.

Quote

can you depend on your wingload to buy you more time?

Yes. That's absolutely what you can do. You can also depend on a lower wingload to increase the survivability factor of any landing.

Quote

but should you rely on this for a contributing "comfort factor" you'll be N.F.L. again, never take anything for granted...ever.

Wrong. The FJC definitely counts on the lower wingloading to save most if not every student on their first few skydives. Why else would we put students on such large canopies? (I'll give you hint, it isn't because students look cool wearing extra large gear.)

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[rgoper 0]

Quote

If your point is that everyone, regardless of what size canopy they fly, needs to avoid becoming complacent then I agree with you. If that isn't your point, then I'm extremely confused.

this is 98% of my point. but the other 2% is for a skydiver to handle a malfuntion in a more relaxed manner just because they are flying a light wing is, in my opinion, a mistake. if you have line twists on student status, and you have deployed at 4500' AGL, well, yeah then you have a lot of extra time. i like to see students in hanging harnesses and use a stopwatch and time how long it takes to clear the mal, and become S.S.S. again and altitude aware again, you'd be surprised how many lose altitude awareness. personally, i don't let anything give me a false sense of security because of good equipment, low wingload, open landing areas and plenty of outs. there was a time in my skydiving carreer i was waiting until 1500 AGL before deploying an 750'-800' sniviling Triathlon canopy, until the S&TA gave me a talking to, and what he said made sense, it was ignorant on my behalf.

Edited To Add:

Quote

i agree with everything you said, no counting on "comfort factors" but one should try to create "comfort factors.

i asked this poster to "sell me" on this idea, never responded, i'm lost on this one....create a "comfort factor?" maybe he was referring to CH&A in the jumpship?

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

[skybytch 273]

Quote

but the other 2% is for a skydiver to handle a malfuntion in a more relaxed manner just because they are flying a light wing is, in my opinion, a mistake.

Gotcha. I disagree though. Most people jumping lower wingloadings are newer jumpers (and some older formerly injured jumpers too...) . Most of those newer jumpers have never had to cutaway or avoid an obstacle on final or a number of other situations. Since most things happen slower on a lightly loaded canopy the jumper has a bit more time to deal with whatever situation s/he is confronted with - extra time that they just may need since it's probably their first experience with shit happening.

[Michele 1]

Quote

extra time that they just may need since it's probably their first experience with shit happening.

Yeppers....I know I need the extra time. On my mal, it took a little while for it to get going, and I wasn't at all sure what was happening...or why...just that a few things weren't right. I shudder to think what would've happened had I taken longer...or been under a smaller, more heavily loaded canopy.

Think about it this way. I pulled at 5,500...and was under my reserve at just under 3,000. That's 2500+ feet.

That's one of the reasons I tend to pull higher - because it took me a while to identify, assess, and decide...time I'll not have if I pull at 3,000...in a spectre...

But that's just my story. YMMV....

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[Remster 30]

Quote

1.23

You sure it wasnt a 7 cell?

Remster

[Cajones 0]

Quote

failure to identify, failure to react, and his freaking wingload didn't save him

Wingloading had nothing to do with this fatality. An RSL may have saved him. An AAD more likely would have. These three factors (AAD,wingloading, and RSL's) are the distinctly different issues.

Most tragic incidents are a chain of events. The key to preventing these tragic events is in identifying and breaking this chain. Any of these three devices can contribute to diverting a series of events away from a tragic ending.

You were given opportunities to spell out the intention of your statements and the purpose of this thread. You made one very simple statement to do so...

Quote

all of this extra rhetoric is fine, but as original author of this post, my question still stands and has had little if any resonses in a "yes" or "no" format. your wingload will not save you no matter what it is if the problem isn't properly identified and dealt with accordingly and in a timely manner.

More than one person has tried to explain to you that there is no "yes" or "no" formatted response. Not a well thought out one, anyhow.

The purpose of this forum is to discuss and learn. Many, many people view these threads without comment. Some of them are students or low-time jumpers. People like Bill and Lisa (skybytch) are especially conscious of this in their replies. Others, I'm certain, are also.

As you argue (read - not discuss) the points given by replies by taking them on tagents and possibilities unrelated to the issue, you add noise and confusion to this - a learning - environment.

I know of no other way to educate and discuss issues than giving examples,statistics, realistic scenarios, and sharing personal experience. Especially when the topic of discussion does not have a black-and-white or "yes" and "no" answer.

Most of these themes have been used here to near exhaustion. I'll make one more use of one, as I still have hope you are not simply a troll looking for a place to argue and create controversy (if you are, please relocate to the nearest bridge - the only bridges found on this website are under the "Talk Back" forum).

Early in my skydiving history, I remember the first Boogie I attended. I was jumping borrowed gear, that included a Pegasus main (and a round reserve). The main was fairly large, the actual square footage - I do not know. I was flying in my holding area, and another load that got out after the load I was on started flying into the pattern area as I was about to, also. Not wanting to attempt to merge with much faster traffic, I opted for a secondary landing area. Still a bit confused, and very few jumps on this particular main, due to the sudden change in plans, or simply because I lacked the skills/experience as a canopy pilot, I set up very long on my final. Mistakenly, I applied some brakes to "slow down" and try to shorten my approach. This just made my approach even longer. I did some s-turns, and found myself flying crosswind with other jumpers flying toward me (they would've passed beneath me, I was later told with an acceptable margin). This added to my stress, as I thought I was messing up their landing pattern. I initiated a hard 270 degree toggle turn at what witnesses called "about 100 feet." I had barely enough time to get back under my canopy (or so it seemed - again witnesses told me I completed the turn above 30 feet), get my feet together, and flare.

It scared the bejeezus out of me. With the experience I carry today, I know, had I been jumping a more heavily loaded canopy (like a Nova 150, which I bought 2 years later) - I'd be maimed, or more likely - dead.

My light wingloading "yes" saved me.

- Cajones

The laws of physics are strictly enforced.

[Ron 10]

Quote

all of this extra rhetoric is fine, but as original author of this post, my question still stands and has had
little if any resonses in a "yes" or "no" format

Yes it saved my ass.

I had about 370 jumps and I got a Stiletto 120. 1.4 wingload. I hooked that fucker in on jump # 3 on it....I was told by my friends that I should have gotten a 107...If I did, I would most likley been dead.

So yes.

I know not doing the low turn would have been the best way, but I THOUGHT I WAS GOOD.....An error in judgment, which in this case if I had the 107 might have been fatal...

So yes.

Ron

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

[rgoper 0]

Quote

Wingloading had nothing to do with this fatality

i already said that, didn't i?

Edited To Add:

Please to god, go back and read the very first post in this thread. i just bet ya if i said white, ya'll would have said black, and vice-versa. should i provide incorrect information about safety and training rather than get into a pissing contests, just delete the damn thing.

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

[jerm 0]

K. I read the post that you were referring to, and had a similar reaction to you. HOWEVER, i think you invited the above rigormorol with a muddled opening post. Let me see if i can clarify

CAN wingloading save you? yes
WILL it definitely save you? no
should you make gear choices to stack the odds in your favor? sure

and to the real point of discussion as i understand it:

should you base your reactions to a malfunction on your wingloading -- dismiss the severity of a mal because of a lighter leading, hoping it will save you?

no, you should base it on whether or not the canopy is safely landable. wing loading can be a factor in this -- i would be more likely to land a sabre230 with 2 broken broken A lines than a velocity 99, but that is because the 230 is more likely to be landable.

If the canopy is NOT safely landable, then NO... do NOT rely in your wingloading saving your ass, start your emergency procedures.

Yes, complacancy bred by the general forgiveness of lighter wingloadings is a bad thing. But complacency is out sport is almost always a bad thing (i only say almost to keep the nitpickers at bay)

YES i think the person who posted that needs a good talking to, unless we grossly misunderstood him.

is that more fo what you were looking for?

Landing without injury is not necessarily evidence that you didn't fuck up... it just means you got away with it this time

[rgoper 0]

Quote

Most, if not all, new threads here should start with the report of an actual incident. General safety issues or small and potential incidents should be posted to the Safety and Training forum.

the above taken from the "Incidents Forum" thus the reason i started a new post here to begin with, but i guess that's what i get for following the rules.

personally, i thought the opening post was so clear Ray Charles could see it. i admit, i'm no journalist, and never claimed to be, but i have written quite a few safety and training manuels for my profession, a lot of my ideas led to changing safety policies and procedures. it is my belief that there are a select few who feel if they didn't think of it theirselves, they don't want anyone else giving advice, even if the intention is to try and give someone food for thought, or maybe even save a life.

it seems you read it quite well.

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

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

but the other 2% is for a skydiver to handle a malfuntion in a more relaxed manner just because they are flying a light wing is, in my opinion, a mistake.

Do you actually think someone has a mal, than makes a determination on how fast they should react to that malfunction based on their wingloading?

Everyone reacts to a malfunction as quickly as possible. Period. It might be slower for someone who isn't as quick witted as others or who has less experience or who hasn't had a mal, etc.

The point is, some people react more slowly, and a larger canopy WILL increase their chances of survivability...PERIOD.

[rgoper 0]

Quote

If it still happens my wingloading (1:1) won't create such a big problem

taken from the "Incidents" forum.

Quote

Do you actually think someone has a mal, than makes a determination on how fast they should react to that malfunction based on their wingloading?

now, i'll pose the same question to you. i wouldn't...ever, which is why i created this topic to begin with, please read ALL of the posts. thank you.

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