polarbear

Geez, guys...you keep this up and we'll wind up with chest strap restrictions in the rules... "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

Truth hurts, don't it? "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

Just out of curiosity, is your ZP JVX the same size as that Hybrid (87?) How does it fly, comparitively speaking? I like this all sail model but if the ZP flies just as nice it would be tempting to go ZP for easier packing... "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

Well, you got me all freaked out. My JVX is right at 500 jumps. I just finished looking over the top and bottom skin and to the best of my ability I can't find anything wrong. Nothing that looks like a coating flaking off, and I tried blowing/sucking air through at least one spot on both the top and bottom skin on each cell, including several spots between the tail and bridle attachment points. Nothing (maybe I just don't suck hard enough). As far as the appearance, I do notice that the threads that make the ripstop pattern are 'shiny'. Can't remember if it looked that way new or not. I can say that the canopy still seems to open and fly correctly, but a) I'm not a good enough pilot to max the canopy out and b) this change probably occurs slowly enough you wouldn't notice anyway. I'd sure like to get a look at some fabric in this deteriorated condition, so I know what to look for. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

Just out of curiosity, what exactly is the problem with the sail material? I remember hearing last year some people were having trouble with white. I hadn't heard there was a problem with the other colors. I have an allred sail cloth JVX and I haven't noticed anything, but I admit I haven't really looked. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

All the comps I've been to have been run such that they try to get competitors through when the winds are low. If they have to postpone an event to get to more favorable wind conditions, they will. The only time that hasn't happened was at the world cup a coupld of years ago in Lake Wales, and it was always windy at that time, so they had to put us up in winds. What I would say is that I don't like having to compete if it gets much above about 7 mph, but when the winds get high it really seperates the men from the boys. Those condtions are tough to swoop in. Also, it's obviously critical that when putting on a comp that each competitor get even winds. When the winds get high they are often gusty which leads to uneven conditions. The other thing I would say is I was at one comp where we wound up going downwind in ~10 mph. This was back before the weight limits, so people were wearing 30 lbs, 40 lbs, or even more, then ripping it downwing in fast conditions. The result was some pretty scary landings and a couple of injuries. I'd say for safety resons it's just plain dumb to do that. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

Taking pictures of nude male swoopers - GRANT'ing "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

How 'bout 'using your winnings to bail yourself out of jail' - OWEN'ing "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

Can you do any size turn you want out at the tunnel landing area? "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

You look like David Lee Roth in those things, man. I take my all-sail JVX to terminal regularly. It works fine for me. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

I did a search on this an couldn't come up with anything. Anybody know if there is special technique needed for sewing HMA? I figured I'd use a straight stitch with E-thread and just hand-walk the machine to make sure I stayed in the middle of the line. Anybody know anything? Do I need a certain needle size? "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

Huh...I don't know what to say. I received NO briefing at all, they just signed me up. I was actually very carefully listening becasue I wanted to know if they were limiting turns so I'm pretty sure I would have heard it. I also never saw anything in writing, and I again I was specifically watching for it. Oh well...it doesn't really matter now, I guess. I think you're right that the 'best' solution is for all us big turners to start using better judgement again and I think you're right that there will always be someone, who messes up. I also think there are several good ideas out there for addressing this problem, none are perfect but I think all of them can be more effective than SDAs policy. I also think SDA could easily implement a different solution if they wanted to. I do agree that if SDAs policy is right then they won't have to push it. But that's exactly where I'm coming from...SDA shouldn't be 'contacting other DZOs to get them to follow suit' - that's a crusade. If their policy is the best way it will sell itself. Personally, I think it's not the best way - at least not the only way - and that's why I think SDA needs to keep it to themselves. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

Really? I was there for 4 days; I never heard one thing about it. There were LOTS of people doing big turns on every single load - I never heard or saw anybody get chewed out for it. No announcements over the loudspeaker. Nothing in the boogie briefing. My comment was meant to be a rhetorical question that would highlight what I perceive to be the fallacy in SDA's rule and the attitude behind it. If their new rule was meant to be a quick fix to an immediate problem while they came up with something better, I wouldn't have a problem. But their attitude that it is the only possible solution and that they are going to convince everyone else to follow the same rule is, in my opinion, bogus. I think they've come up with a lazy solution that will only be partially effective and I don't think they have any business pushing it on anyone else. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

I'm saying low passes can be profitable...it's just that SDA is stupid about the way they do it, so for them the probably do lose money. My whole point was that if SDA was a little smarter about how they did low passes they wouldn't have an economic problem. But again, they don't want to work the issue. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

I'm not saying there is no danger. I'm not saying this isn't a problem. It is...the one thing I agree with Bryan Burke on is that when we start killing innocents becasue of our stupid mistakes, we WILL receive all sorts of unpleasant attention. I am saying that the attitude that 'it is impossible to do a 270 when anyone else is in the air without lethal results' is simply untrue. Yes we've had three recent collisions...but we've had tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of successfully and safely executed 270s. What's the difference? Judgement. Seems to me as swooping gets more popular, as more people are doing it more often, we are losing the critical skill to abort. Don't know about you...but I'd rather see this problem go away becasue the participants use their heads then see DZs try to substitute rules for brains. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

Two questions I have: 1) If banning anything over a 180 is such an obvious and necessary solutionto this problem, why didn't Larry/Bryan have that rule in effect at the holiday boogie, where it might have actually done some good? 2) If 270s are so inherently dangerous, why were they practiced for so long without much trouble? (Hint: becasue the people executing them were paying more attention...) "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

I have to say I'm very irritated about this, mostly becasue of Larry's/Bryan's attitude that they're right and they're going to go on a crusade to convince other DZOs. Skydive AZ could work this problem if they wanted to - without to much effort, I might add. They have a tremendous amount of landing area; it would be easy to set up an HP landing area (even if it's out in the desert with no grass). They could do hop n' pops, but they don't. They claim they can't fit in low passes with multiple planes running, but every other multi-plane DZ I've been to doesn't have too much trouble fitting in low passes. SDA just doesn't want to do low passes - hell, they've even prevented me from doing low passes in the past even when they are running one plane. I've even had them not allow me to do one, but then they do allow one of their staff members to get out low...it's totally bogus. The truth is they just don't want to work the issue. And as far as economics goes...the way SDA does low passes it doesn't surprise me they lose money. Every time I see them do one the pilot flies away from the airport until he gets to 4,000 feet, then he turns and does like a 4-mile jump run and STOPS CLIMBING for the whole run. Why can't they setup such that they hit 4000 feet just as they pass over the DZ? The door opens, one or two guys get out, no fuel is wasted. Or, keep climbing on jump run...if the hop n' pops get out at 5 or 6K, so what? Even if they didn't pay for 6K, it wastes less fuel to keep climbing than it does to stay at 4K for several minutes. As I see it, SDA is increasingly focusing on a specific demographic...they want either 1) competition teams doing large numbers of practice jumps or 2) coaching students who are doing large numbers of jumps. If you don't fit that demographic, they don't want to work with you. That's fine, it's their right...but why can't they just say so? If SDA just doesn't want to work the issue, I guess no one can make them. But Larry Hill's attitude of 'I'm going to contact other DZO's to get them to follow suit' is bunk. He apparently thinks he's fixed the problem at his DZ. Leave it at that , Larry...don't go on a crusade to kill serious swooping just becasue you don't want to work the problem. There are lots of ways to address this issue; yours isn't the best. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

Another common factor is that at all of these incidents, people were jumping in airspace occupied by jumpers they don't regularly jump with. It's easy to be predictable when you're with people who know you...evryone at my DZ knows what my canopy looks like and how I land; I know what there's looks like and how they land; it's easy to be predictable. Traffic issues are a non-occurrance. Fill the air with people who are not familiar with each other and no one knows who is doing what. That really ups the danger. Maybe small canopies should be sold with a jar of tar and a bag of feathers...that way we can all tar and feather ourselves and save everyone else the hassle of doing it for us.

Maybe 6 months, maybe more, maybe less, but I think you're right. This sounds a lot like the popular 'no hook turn' rules that were around when I started jumping. Eventually they were ignored - but this ONLY happened when people learned how to turn safely. My bet is if we as a collective started paying more attention to what we were doing and made better judgements on when and how to turn...rules like this will become uneccessary. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

This wouldn't be the right choice for a blanket policy. My DZ doesn't have the real estate for multiple landing areas, but we also only operate out of a Cessna with only 4 people in the air at a time. We have other options to manage traffic and they seem to be working fine. I'd prefer this problem be solved at the individual jumper level - but barring that, it has to be solved individually by each DZ. A USPA policy is not the answer. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

At face value it makes sense, but my experience is that SDA hardly ever allows hop n' pops becasue they run multiple airplanes. The past few times I've been there I've only been able to do a hop n' pop first thing in the morning. In my opinion, this effectively kills anything over a 270 at SDA. I guess they have to do what they think is right...but I'd like to see more thought go into this before placing such a harsh rule. I really think there is more going on here than just 'a 270 doesn't fit in the landing pattern' - I think Spizzzarko hit it right with his list of causes. But SDA has never been the most swoop-friendly DZ, in my opinion. It's a great facility but it is really focused on freefall. I just hope other DZ's don't follow suit. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

One thing I thought I'd add. While my JVX 83 seems to be about the same square footage as the Velo 90, it is a much thinner airfoil. The Velo is about an inch thicker at the thickest point of the airfoil. That in and of itself doesn't mean anything, but thinner airfoils usually are most efficient at higher speeds, which in the case of canopies means more wingloading. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

From my observations, the canopies have roughly the same dimensions. They have pretty different planform shapes which probably means they have different aspect ratios. Having said that, I doubt the aspect ratios are that different - certainly not as much as you find comparing a conventional 9-cell to a conventional 7-cell. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

I've also observed the measurement difference, first comparing a JVX 87 to Velo 90 and then a JVX 83 to a Velo 90. The JVX 83 seems to be just about the same size as the Velo 90. I don't think that entirely explains the super-high wingloading preference of the JVX, though...I wear more lead with the JVX 83 than I did with the Velo 90 and it just keeps going. I've worn as much as 35 lbs with both canopies, which puts me at 2.6 on the Velo and 2.85 on the JVX. The Velo flew well but it felt 'overloaded'...the touchdown was hard and it didn't seem to actually be performing any better than at 2.4-2.5. The JVX at 2.85 I could still run out on my feet no problem and it actually seemes to prefer that heavy of a wingloading. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

This is something that really needs to be hammered home. Whatever education, recommendations, guidelines, or rules USPA might decide to implement, the jumpers in these situations surely would have met those standards. They simply made a bad choice at a critical time. I'm really in favor of the grass roots idea. Let's face it, not all DZ's are the same. In some cases, segregating the landing areas works, but not all DZs have the real estate to do that. In some cases, having the HP guys doing hop n' pops is the hot ticket, but again, not all DZs will do that...if they are running multiple planes, for instance. What has to happen here is each DZ has to find something that works for them, AND THEN MAKE SURE THAT ALL JUMPERS ARE THOROUGHLY BRIEFED ON THAT PLAN. I emphasized the last line becasue most of my dropzone went to Eloy for the holiday boogie and NONE of us received any kind of breifing whatsoever regarding high performance landing procedures. To me, that means there was no plan - it was just a free-for all. That last stement was not meant to imply that the DZ is at fault...they're not. All I am trying to say is that in order for traffic to flow smoothly there has to be a plan that everybody knows, recognizes, and follows. In the abseb\nce of a plan, you have Chaos, and Chaos will eventually produce collisions. These accidents have been picked too death in other threads, but one factor I'd like to point out is that they ocurred at a boogie...i.e., when there were a bunch of people in the sky who didn't usually jump together. Most swoopers are predictable in their patterns, but if you don't jump with them regularly, it's hard to recognize that predictability. One fairly simple thing that can be done at any DZ is for each load to take the time to discuss amongst themselves what kind of canopies people are flying, what types of approaches they are doing, and then plan the dive to accomodate everybody. As a swooper who makes big turns, the safest environments I have flown in when there is traffic have occured when someone took the time on the ground to find out what everybody was doing after opening. "Who's landing in such-and-such landing area?" "What kind of canopy are you flying?" "What colors are that canopy?" What type of approach are you doing?" After asking those questions, you then go around and say "Well, maybe I'll pull a little high and let you land first" or "Maybe I'll plan on landing in a different landing area" or whatever else is necessary. It's especially important to do this when you have people jumping together that aren't used to jumping together, and thus can't recognize what everybody else is doing. We already take the time on the ground to ask each other what we plan to do in freefall. We do that so we can form a plan as to how to not collide with each other in freefall. Why not do the same thing for canopy work? Of course, it isn't a complete fix, but it at least alows for the formulation of a plan. At least each jumper would know ahead of time what's coming. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"