Skydive City fatality
Trying2Fly
>
>I have learned there was a low time jumper fatality
>at Skydive City this past weekend. about 70 jumps, hook
>turned in with a Sabre.
>
>
Why are these low timers getting high performance parachutes. The asshole
who sold it to him should be shot. and his name made public, and banned
from jumping, who is (s)he.?
dha...@ibm.net
at Skydive City this past weekend. about 70 jumps, hook
turned in with a Sabre.
As a reminder, please please teach your juniors how to live
under high performance canopies. Shit can happen.
I have second hand info, anyone with better/more details,
please feel free to post, thanks
Jonofun
deceased name is Dave Sharley. He had about 70 jumps and was getting
reacclimated after a bit of a lay off. He had about 30 recent current
jumps. He was trying out a Sabre 170. He was coming in on final at about
300ft. he realized he was over shooting the target. he turned back
downwind. When he saw the other canopies coming at him on their final he
hammered a toggle at about 60 feet. you can imagine what happened. What
pisases me off is when something like this happens everybody automatically
thinks and sayas hook turn. This incident does not fall under that
catagory.
I would like to comment on what I think about the transistion that
people make to smaller canopies. Now I know people look at me and shake
their heads( i weigh 220 and jump jonothan-jedi 120) BUt I fly the canopy
i fly because I know what it will do. It amazes me that a person with a
100 jumps can walk into a place and walk out with a sabre or other high
performance canopy and with some minimal instruction be out in the air on
it. These people are sent off with the new 2 stage landing flare in their
heads but I rarely hear them really drilled about that the canopy is much
faster airspeed about the drastically different charactaristics of flight.
But what is more important than all of this when everything is normal
stuff is teaching these people how to fly these canopies when everything
is not normal.
1. how to fly in brakes.
2.how to use ther rear risers to do flatter unsteep turns to avoid
obstacles.
3. how to use the front risers as opposed to the toggles for a low maybe
necessary turn in which the speed must be kept.
Ive lost two really close friends to low turn impact. One was Gary Riech
who was a very and I mean very experienced canopy pilot. he tested the
novas and swore by them until a 110 collapsed and killed him. The other
was Tomala Collins who had about 250 jumps and had been jumping a sabre
and being very conservative and safe but she got caught on a long spot and
got into some building power line obstacles and did a low toggle turn. In
the end my point is that here we have somebody being safe but on these
canopies it is not enough because someday your are going to get into a
tight spot and you are not going to know what to do. You will not hnow the
safe way to turn that canopy without throiwng your ass into the ground. I
hop that some of you people that are flying these canopies now are
thinking as you read this and asking yourselves ( Do I really Know How to
Fly this Canopy?) Blue skies
Andrew Greenshields
>
>Why are these low timers getting high performance parachutes. The asshole
>who sold it to him should be shot. and his name made public, and banned
>from jumping, who is (s)he.?
I disagree. People need to assume responsiblity for their own
actions. If you go out and buy a high performance canopy, make sure
you know how to fly it. It's not as though the dangers of hook turns
are rarely talked about.
--
Andrew J. Greenshields N3IGS |"What you can't see can't hurt you."
an...@cs.clemson.edu | -- Marie Curie
USPA C-24393 |-------------------------------------
http://www.cs.clemson.edu/~andy/andy.html | #include<std_disclaimer.h>
Timothy McMichael
: In article <3tspas$31...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>, dha...@ibm.net writes:
: >
: >I have learned there was a low time jumper fatality
: >at Skydive City this past weekend. about 70 jumps, hook
: >turned in with a Sabre.
: >
: >
: Why are these low timers getting high performance parachutes. The asshole
: who sold it to him should be shot. and his name made public, and banned
: from jumping, who is (s)he.?
I guess you haven't heard of Roger Nelson's operation, with students
under sabres. As a matter of fact, I've been told by a wide variety of
sources (riggers, instructors, etc) that nobody should by f-111 for a
general purpose canopy, unless you can't afford one. I consider a
lightly loaded zp safer than my PD-210. Now if the jumper in
question was loading it up, and was urged to buy it, that's one thing,
but a general statement like that seems pretty inappropriate without
knowing the details.
Tim McMichael
DW24601
I spent several months at Rogers Nelsons place (Skydive Chicago). It is
EASILY one of the finest dropzones in the country. I have also spent a
number of years at Archway skydiving (now in Vandalia Ill) where they use
Manta's.
In my 8 years in the sport, I've seen a lot of students do a lot of pretty
silly things. (It's natural. Even an intelligent persons brain, when
presented with too many new stimuli, can do pretty weird stuff). I can
catagorically say that if two students pull the same bone-headed stunt,
one of them under a Manta, and one of them under Rogers Sabre-230's, the
Sabre student will be hurt worse. I have seen an in-ordinate number of
students at Skydive Chicago (Rogers Place) injured, at that was just
during one summer. (Part of that could have to do with the wind
conditions in which the students are allowed to jump in Chicago). Even
de-tuned, a zero-p canopy responds "better". Even a Sabre as large as 230
(or whatever they use in Chicago), when turned too low to the ground,
hammers pretty hard (a lot harder than a Manta, at any rate). (Please
don't take any of the above as a gripe against Skydive Chicago. It's a
great place to jump, Rogers a *top-notch* organizer, and I've had a LOT of
great skydives there)
My friends, too many low timers are impacting the ground under
canopies that they obviously cannot handle. And I've seen
hyper-experienced, top-flight skydivers RECOMMENDING these high-perf
canopies to them. Just because a person can take a parachute out, take a
parachute-ride under it, and land it, does not mean they can handle it.
In real skydiving, there are a myriad of situations they will have to
face, and if they're not ready for each and every one of them, then
they're not ready for a high-perf, zero-p parachute.
As far as there not being room left for F-111 in the sport? There are
still a lot of people who like to skydive, but aren't hyper-specialized:
I, for instance, take my PD-210 on night jumps, beach jumps, hyper-tight
landing area jumps, pick-up crw loads, and any other skydive that sounds
like fun. Yeah, sometimes I wish I has something a little or a lot
faster. But there have been a few times when my body remained un-broken
because it was F-111 over my head and not zp.
This is not a condemnations of zero-p canopies (I also own a Stiletto
135). They have brought a new frontier and a wonderful challenge to our
sport. Possibly the most exciting thing to happen to skydiving since
square parachutes. But let's keep them off of low timers.
Just my fiftieth of a dollars worth...
-Doug
Barry Chase D9545/AFF I'95/Tandem Instructor
>
>My name is Robert Mahaffey and I do some jumping at Skydive city. The
>deceased name is Dave Sharley. He had about 70 jumps and was getting
>reacclimated after a bit of a lay off. He had about 30 recent current
>jumps. He was trying out a Sabre 170. He was coming in on final at about
>300ft. he realized he was over shooting the target. he turned back
>downwind. When he saw the other canopies coming at him on their final he
>hammered a toggle at about 60 feet. you can imagine what happened. What
>pisases me off is when something like this happens everybody automatically
>thinks and sayas hook turn. This incident does not fall under that
>catagory.
Robert's (as well as others) objection to the use of the hook turn is
often just the generalization of a low turn resulting in a high speed landing,
whether it was intentional and safely done or otherwise.
> I would like to comment on what I think about the transition that
>people make to smaller canopies. Now I know people look at me and shake
>their heads (I weigh 220 and jump jonothan-jedi 120) But I fly the canopy
>I fly because I know what it will do.
I know Robert fairly well, and indeed, I am one of the people amazed by
the canopy he flys, but that would more likely be my opinion at his wing loading
than his skills.
In fact, Robert has become and extremely skilled flyer, although at the
cost of biffing his knee on an occasion or two. I seem to recall that surgery
was a result one of those times, and I have told the humorous tale of the earth
shaking on his landing.
Ask HIM how he didn't get a ticket whilst speeding home that same day.
>It amazes me that a person with a
>100 jumps can walk into a place and walk out with a sabre or other high
>performance canopy and with some minimal instruction be out in the air on
>it. These people are sent off with the new 2 stage landing flare in their
[info about required lessons snipped]
This is true. The people who are selling equipment oten tell the
customer "You'll be fine, just stage a flare."
This could be the desire to just sell a piece of equipment, or the
predictable result of a "No Rules" atmosphere that does not consider an
individual just learning a high risk sport.
>Ive lost two really close friends to low turn impact. One was Gary Riech
>who was a very and I mean very experienced canopy pilot. he tested the
>novas and swore by them until a 110 collapsed and killed him. The other
>was Tomala Collins who had about 250 jumps and had been jumping a sabre
>and being very conservative and safe but she got caught on a long spot and
>got into some building power line obstacles and did a low toggle turn. In
>the end my point is that here we have somebody being safe but on these
>canopies it is not enough because someday your are going to get into a
>tight spot and you are not going to know what to do.
An intentional hook turn to perform a high speed landing, while it looks
bad for the sport in the press and causes us the loss of friends on occasions, is
only part of the injury rate.
When I tell people to take their time in transitioning to a
smaller/faster canopy, I do not limit the 'risk warning' to intentional hook
turn dangers. I also tell them about people I have seen "twitch" a toggle to
avoid a collision, as was the case with Tomala (as Robert mentioned) and Dave.
With an awareness that has not fully developed, something glimpsed in the corner
of an eye can lead to an injury, or worse; as well as the situations described
by Robert.
Gary Reich was also a friend, and while Robert and I may differ on the
canopy vs. pilot error situation, it is a tragedy which is often all too common.
>You will not know the
>safe way to turn that canopy without throiwng your ass into the ground. I
>hope that some of you people that are flying these canopies now are
>thinking as you read this and asking yourselves ( Do I really Know How to
>Fly this Canopy?)
While "throwng your ass into the ground" may not be the most ideal way to
learn the finer details of flying HP Z-Po canopies, their should certainly be
some method of learning which might start with making jumps with no purpose but
to learn the dynamics of the canopy.
After all, our years of no-pull/low-pull fatalities are diminshing; At
the same time the fatalities that occur AFTER a good canopy has opened is
increasing.
--
Barry
- The Bat One -
URL http://www.gate.net/~barry/
DDSkydives
>uses larger parachutes, and teaches people how to fly them. Did this poor
>chap at skydive city get half the training Roger gives?
All the students at Skydive Chicago are given a tremendous amount of
classroom and ground training. I want to pass on our Golden Rules which
apply to all levels of skydiving. I even included them on the 110-way
women's record attempts.
#1 Land safely under an open canopy
#2 Land safe, not close
#3 Leave room for error
#4 Stay ahead of the jump
#5 Always have a plan
#6 Know thy altitude
#7 Know when to say no.
#8 Never give up
Be careful out there.
D.D. Bartley
Timothy McMichael
: I doubt that even Roger Nelson would have approved of this situation, He
: uses larger parachutes, and teaches people how to fly them. Did this poor
: chap at skydive city get half the training Roger gives?
As I said, without knowing the details of the incident and the jumper
involved, I'd hate to speculate on what training he's gotten, etc. But
unless we know the details, we should refrain from rounding up a lynch-mob
for the gear salesperson. And if we do know details that would show that
the salesperson (or anybody else) was at fault, we should present these
along with our verdict 8-)
Tim McMichael
Bill Von Novak
>
>Trying2Fly (tryin...@aol.com) wrote:
>
>: I doubt that even Roger Nelson would have approved of this situation, He
>: uses larger parachutes, and teaches people how to fly them. Did this poor
>: chap at skydive city get half the training Roger gives?
should we not sell fast cars to people who have speeding
tickets? or should we test people before allowing them to buy a car with
over 100 hp?
i think the best person to decide on whether a canopy is safe to
jump or not is the person buying the canopy. the seller has an
obligation to explain that a stiletto is an ultra high performance canopy,
this old PD260 is really slow, etc. they don't have the obligation to
determine if a particular jumper can handle a particular canopy.
-bill von novak D16479 AFF/SL I95 TM95
JSprad1
( I weigh 175 Ibs.) After 20 jumps I went to a Sabre 190, then a 170,
and now jump a 150. I'm still alive because of proper training and common
sense. My first rig will most likely be a 170.
Barry Brumitt
It's clear here that the fatalities I've always worried about *are*
happening. I've been pretty sure we weren't going to be losing jumpers to
intentional hook turns as often anymore. People are learning how to learn how
to do them.
However, the *biggest* danger a lowtimer faces under canopy is the
*unintentional* hook into the ground. We've *ALL* seen it. Whether it's:
1) Avoiding a previously unseen obstacle
2) Avoiding a too-close canopy
3) Trying to turn back into the wind
or
4) just plain bad judgement
it doesn't matter. All end up with the lowtimer in the ground, hurting. If
he's jumping something larger (and perhaps f111) he gets up, brushes it off,
takes some absue, and thinks about his mistake - hopefully learning from it!
If he's jumping smomething smaller (and perhaps ZeroP) he may get carted off
to the local emergency room for stiches, a cast, or worse.
The reasont to progress slowly in canopy size is to tune your skills, and to
ensure you've been exposed to a variety of situations before you move up to
something where making the wrong decision can hurt you badly.
Landing off the DZ in a tight area under a faster canopy can be very
exciting. You have to have a lot of dicipline to trade off into-the-wind
vs. longer runway vs. obstacles vs. outs. Don't tell me you under your 1.1 or
higher loaded zerop aren't just a little exciting bringing it into a tightish
area... turning just over those treetops is fun, but it could be a little too
much rush for someone without the experience.
I encourage my students to get a larger PD 9cell loaded at .8-.9 as their
firest canopy. Perhaps a Sabre at 1.1 for their second, and by then, they stop
listening to me....
Barry
--
Barry L. Brumitt | bel...@frc2.frc.ri.cmu.edu |99.9%|Disclaimer: Opinions
Robotics GradStudent| Skydive! D-15427,SL/AFF I'95 | PGP |given herein may not
Carnegie Mellon | My 15kilobytes of fame: |Savvy| be the opinions of
"Who is John Galt?" | http://www.frc.ri.cmu.edu/~belboz/ |FRC, SCS, RI, or CMU
Shannessa
you're thinking about buying gear--you're not planning on spending all of
this money on something that you don't plan on keeping for a long time.
When I buy new gear, I'm going to buy high-performance. So that's why I
decided to buy used gear this time. But some people don't want to jump
used gear that is "raggedy" or "ugly". I now have 70 jumps, I weigh a
little over 145, and I have a R202 7 cell. Hopefully I'll buy a 145 or
135, but that won't be until at least a hundred or two jumps from now.
I've been given chances to jump a friend's 155zp, but I decided not to.
There's this guy who has less than 20 jumps who did jump it tho, and he
did fine but now he's real unsatisfied with the docile 185 that he has now
(that's another reason why I didn't want to jump it).
There's lots of buildings around our DZ, and so with changes in wind
direction, the different set up pattern can be unnerving for someone like
me. Just the other day as I came in for setup (a little low) a Cessna came
down the runway and I did a hard 180 to set up of the way. Now, on the
canopy I was under it was okay although a little risky (at 500 feet).
But if that was a high performance canopy, at my skill level I could've
hurt myself. That same day I tried to set up way too low and was headed
for a downwind landing, and I could barely resist the urge to swing that
thing around. I eased it over about 75 degrees but even then I picked up
a lot of speed.. I'm only human and I make mistakes out of inexperience,
that's why I'm glad that I am jumping a canopy that leaves some margin of
error. It's sad to think that I could've gotten killed for making an
unavoidable "stupid student' mistake. There's guys at my DZ with 500 jumps
who *still* use bad judgement with their canopies! I think that really
good canopy control is something that takes a long time to learn, that the
reason why people who might not have the best control of their canopies
have been doing okay most of their careers is because the settings have
always been pretty much ideal. I have a real conservative approach about
the high performance gear--I'm not going to worry about it for a long
time.
Shanessa
Rick Holstein
>In article <3tu17j$g...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> tryin...@aol.com (Trying2Fly) writes:
> I disagree. People need to assume responsiblity for their own
>actions. If you go out and buy a high performance canopy, make sure
>you know how to fly it. It's not as though the dangers of hook turns
>are rarely talked about.
No, but a 70-jump wonder has NO business flying a high performance
canopy. He doesn't know that yet--he'll believe whatever he is told by
those more experienced than he. In this case, somebody gave him advice
that cost him his life.
Yes, I jump a small canopy with very high wing loading, but I have been
at it a few years and know the risks. I don't allow low-time jumpers to
use my canopy. Someone who does is irresponsible and at fault.
rick d-10703
Trying2Fly
Novak) writes:
> the seller has an
>obligation to explain that a stiletto is an ultra high performance
canopy,
>this old PD260 is really slow, etc. they don't have the obligation to
>determine if a particular jumper can handle a particular canopy.
>
>
I remember reading an ad from PD written to the dealers. They said that
they would not set up dealerships to businesses who did not use discretion
in selling the high performance canopys. I believe they recommended 500
skydives prior to purchasing a stellito. Of course Bill you are right, but
what happened to PDs policy?
David J Pinzino
Instead of arguing about whether low-timers should or should notbe flying
high-performance canopies, maybe someone could start a discussion on tips
for flying high performance canopies so that we all can be safer in the air.
What are the differences between flying z-po and f111? How does
it handle differently? What are the different flare aspects? When
should you be most careful? Let's answer some of these questions so that
we all can be better canopy pilots.
Blue skies,
Dave Pinzino
B-17655
John Goscinski
> should we not sell fast cars to people who have speeding
> tickets? or should we test people before allowing them to buy a car with
> over 100 hp?
>
Lousy analogy, but the above looks good to me. You need a "high-performance" license to fly a complex aircraft, you should need the equivalent on the ground. Or is the current level of safety on the streets acceptable to you?? I'll stop now since this has little to do with freefall.
john -did that guy just pass me on the shoulder?- Goscinski
SDKlein
Novak) writes:
> should we not sell fast cars to people who have speeding
>tickets? or should we test people before allowing them to buy a car with
>over 100 hp?
>
> i think the best person to decide on whether a canopy is safe to
>jump or not is the person buying the canopy
I am in total agreement. The person jumping is definately the decider of
what he or she can handle. Just as it is my decision to jump in the first
place. When people find out that I am a skydiver, I hear the normal
things.. "Why jump out of a perfectly good airplane" and etc. Their
judgement is not to jump at all. Some judge not to jump a zp canopy as a
beginer. A judgement of the past was to force beginers to jump rounds as
a beginer. Things change, people change, and equipment changes.
I believe high performance canopies should be a part of training, and
fellow skydivers should assist jumpers buying them. When my fiance and I
were purchasing our rigs, there were countless people offering their rig
for our use in transitioning from student canopies.
Can one handle a fast canopy. Can one handle their first SCR. Can one
handle the beer to follow? Personally, I would like to be given the
choice.
.... Still jumping my Maverone 240 .... My fiance Ria, on the other hand,
Ariel 135 ... Her choice
-Sean
-Formerly attached to Houston Skydiving Center
--Presently attached to my diving fiance Ria
---Awaiting ending my skydiving abstinence at Pepperell P.C., MA
jim O
How many off field landings into a tight area have you done?
Chris Jenkins
>>> i think the best person to decide on whether a canopy is safe to
>>> jump or not is the person buying the canopy
Nice idea in theory, but unless you have some information to make an
_informed_ decision, all too often new skydivers will want to buy some kit
that's going to last, and they ALL want to be performing those high speed
flights and cool turf surfs. These are easier under a highly loaded, small
z-po as opposed to a Manta for example. (I suppose you can always wear 100
lbs of weight and take some wraps!:-)
Once one is off student status, it seems that there is a void - you're no
longer a student and are expected to know everything. Once off student
status, I found getting help re canopy handling and packing almost
impossible - and we're taught on rounds! It was a MAJOR culture shock! In my
case, I injured myself under good old F-111!
It has been suggested before, but I'll add my support to canopy
control/handling being added to licence requirements to ensure a program is
in place to make sure we all know what we're doing. Mid-air collisions and
landing canopies 3 feet under the pit are all too common, and should be
preventable.
Design is moving faster than instruction and ability.
---
Chris Jenkins "For once you have tasted flight you will walk
with your eyes turned skywards, for there you
have been and there you long to return"
B 10511 (UK)
:-) "Just a newbie (75 jumps and resting, injured), but with strong
views on this subject"
Terrence Houlahan
Better yet, we (the USPA, DZ's, or canopy manufacturers) should offer
classes on low & high performance canopy piloting. We have license
requirements for freefall skills, but that's where most of the concern
seems to end. I'm a low timer, and I'd be willing to pay money for a
course on transitioning from a low performance to a high performance
canopy. Considering more people than ever before are dying under perfectly
functioning canopies, I don't understand why some type of formal education
can't be administered at the DZ level. I believe the audience is there if
somebody were to build a syllabus and combine it with some form of
practical application. Just so I don't get flamed by all the "It's my
god-given right to auger my ass straight into the ground if I want to and
you can't force education on me" crowd, such training should be optional.
Has this idea ever been kicked around at the USPA before?
--
Terrence Houlahan
B-17783
Tom Loebach
You can raise too many hackles trying to make something like this
mandatory ( RSLs/AADs) but a voluntary program offered as training
is a good idea. Newbies can get RW training, why not HP canopy
training.
I got into this sport in 1971 on a 7TU. Our DZ required 50 jumps
on cheapos before one could jump a PC. I learned RW by flopping
around and then asking questions. Today all sorts of training is
available at one DZ or another. Why not HP canopy training.
As a pilot it is mandatory for me to get signed off (read trained)
in HP aircraft before I am allowed to fly one.
Chris Hunter
>
>Chris Jenkins <Ch...@cat10.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
><<<Nice idea in theory, but unless you have some information to make an
>_informed_ decision, all too often new skydivers will want to buy some
>kit that's going to last, and they ALL want to be performing those high
>speed
>flights and cool turf surfs.>>>
>
>I think it is evry experienced jumpers responsibility to take an
interest
>in up and coming jumpers. It is also the DZ staffs responsibility to
>look out after them. I have no problem with highly experienced jumpers
>performing hook turns. My DZ rule is if you have less than 500 jumps,
>you are not allowed to do more than a ninety degree hook turn. If you
>have over 500 jumps, you hook turn at you own risk. I weigh 185 pounds
>and have just purchased a Stilletto 97 (I already have 30 jumps on a 97
>and over 1,500 Zero Perosity canopy jumps). I DO NOT RECCOMEND THIS
WING
>LOADING FOR JUST ANYONE!!!! I love to hook turn and as of this writing,
>with 2100+ jumps, I have never had a skydiving injury. I do point out
to
>ALL of my students that they will see jumpers doing these high
>performance landings and that they should never try them until they have
>at least 500 jumps and undergo comprehensive training with an instructor.
> The instructor will teach them how to safely perform 90 degree hook
>turns at a safe altitude but he also tells them they can easily make a
>mistake that can not just injure them but that can KILL THEM!
>Once they have over 500 jumps, they have to take responsibility for
their
>own actions. Until then, we need to stay on top of them and chastize
>them when needed and make them understand the consequenses of hook turns.
>
>
>As for low timers on Zero-P, I will reccomend it on a case by case basis.
> The student must be competent, mature and safety minded in order for me
>to sell him one.
>
>Blue Skies and Safe Landings!
>
>The Buzzman
>
Buzz - I have yet to see a Drop Zone (excluding Skydive Chicago, who
starts their students on Sabres right off the bat) ) that offers a course
for the begining/intermediate jumper transitioning from a F-111 to a Zero-
p......why?? I would gladly PAY GOOD MONEY!!! to learn the proper way to
fly and land a Zeror-P....it seems that in the bigger DZ's, (I'm not
going to mention names on the grounds it may get me incriminated) have
really not a heck of a lot of interest in you once your off AFF or Tandem.
....what are low number jumpers supposed to do? .....well... I guess,
JUST LIKE IT'S ALWAYS BEEN, you make your 150 to 300 jumps on a F-111 and
then all of a sudden , as if by the magic of experience, supposed to know
how to handle a Sabre, Stilletto, etc, blah blah...
Are DZ's so concerned with the money brought in by the Aff's and Tandems
that they REALLY DON'T HAVE TIME for the intermediate skydiver?....
It's beginning to seem that way.....at least ......for..me.......
Oh, btw way Buzz, count me in on signing up the the UNITED STATES
SKYDIVING ASSOCIATION!!!.......
Now, could you please send me a cool t--shirt (and maybe one for my
girlfiend???)
I bet Matt's got one already.....
Blue skies, Chris (what's with this new
'Jedi' anyway?)
Hunter , A-20428
Buzz Fink
Shannessa
were 27 FJC students about to be manifested and I wasn't quite packed. I
really wanted to get on that load, and my DZ owner said, "well, why don't
you jump this 135". I just said, "No thanks". And the guy I mentioned
before that has 27 jumps--I found out today that pretty soon he'll be
jumping a 135 since his other canopy was sold--and he weighs about 150. I
must say that I am pretty concerned. He was saying that he's a fast
learner, but I told him that 'fast learning' has nothing to do with
inexperience, and what you'll do in the heat of the moment. People at my
DZ seem to have a real casual attitude about the whole thing, although
they think that it's a "little early" for him to be jumping that canopy.
Is it like that everywhere? I mean, it seems like an everyday ordinary
thing--"oh I've got 20 jumps and I'm trying out this new zp canopy".
Actually I'm more than just a little bothered by this, and I don't want to
seem like a worrywart but I think that just tossing these canopies to low
timers is a BIG DEAL, but I seem to be the only one. Hey, it's his life,
and for all I know he'll do just fine. But still, I can't help but be
sincerely concerned.
Shanessa
Buzz Fink
>Buzz - I have yet to see a Drop Zone (excluding Skydive Chicago, who
>starts their students on Sabres right off the bat) ) that offers a
course
>for the begining/intermediate jumper transitioning from a F-111 to a
Zero-
>p......why?? I would gladly PAY GOOD MONEY!!! to learn the proper way
to
>fly and land a Zeror-P....it seems that in the bigger DZ's, (I'm not
>going to mention names on the grounds it may get me incriminated) have
>really not a heck of a lot of interest in you once your off AFF or
Tandem.
>.....what are low number jumpers supposed to do? .....well... I guess,
>JUST LIKE IT'S ALWAYS BEEN, you make your 150 to 300 jumps on a F-111
and
>then all of a sudden , as if by the magic of experience, supposed to
know
>how to handle a Sabre, Stilletto, etc, blah blah...
I can't speek for all DZ's, but I can tell you how my DZ handles this:
We are a medium size DZ and I like it that way. Almost every jumper
knows every other jumper. They keep an eye on each other and the staff
volunteers their time to help the up and coming jumpers. You reffered to
Matt, I assume Matt Swinden. He is a great example. I have personally
seen him help out several students with their 1st Z-PO canopy jump. He
spends time with them, at no profit to him self (except self
satisfaction), ensuring they are properly prepared to handle the new
canopy. We also work them down from larger Sabres to smaller ones. Alot
of the jumpers volunteer their personal canopies for this purpose.
>Are DZ's so concerned with the money brought in by the Aff's and Tandems
>that they REALLY DON'T HAVE TIME for the intermediate skydiver?....
Speaking for my DZ the answer is a definite NO. While I spend a good
portion of my time advertising for and working with students, my prime
concern is safety and reducing liability. This means ensuring each
jumper is prepared for what ever jump they are making-including their 1st
Z-po jumps.
Thanks for the post!
The Buzzman
P.S. Matt has been bugging me for a cool shirt, but I have'nt given in
yet (It would ruin my reputation as an AH)
Marty Hahnfeld
Although this topic has been beat to death over the last 6 months, I
think it is a very valid argument. However, I probably have a slightly
different perspective of things being a low-time jumper and recent
graduate of Skydive Chicago's AFP program, where I jumped nothing but
Sabre's from Jump #1. I weigh 165, so 180+ with gear and started on a
190, down to a 170 after about 10 jumps and now have 8 jumps on my own
Sabre 150 (I have just over 30 jumps).
I have read the pro's and the con's, I know they are FAST, BUT I also
believe it was MORE APPROPRIATE to start jumping what I am most likely to
continue jumping as early as possible. Does this mean I will not break my
ass one of these days? No. Does this mean ANY JUMPER with the quantity of
jumps I have is any less likely? I doubt it. Just today I watched as many
as 25 static liners land Manta 288's into some pretty damn interesting
slides, crashes, and tumbles I did not see any magic save them just
because it was large, docile, F111, etc.
The simple point of the matter is this is a heads-up sport which requires
concentration and a great amount of learned skills. I believe that these
skills will improve and become safer in time no matter WHAT YOUR STARTING
POINT WAS. Personally, I probably would have a greater chance of a
landing injury if I were to go jump a Manta 230 right now versus my Sabre.
Shannessa Writes:
re: <snip> but I told him that 'fast learning' has nothing to do with
>inexperience, and what you'll do in the heat of the moment. People at my
>DZ seem to have a real casual attitude about the whole thing, although
>they think that it's a "little early" for him to be jumping that canopy.
>Is it like that everywhere?
Fast learning by itself is obviously not enough, but a WELL EDUCATED fast
learner is a different story. Like it or not some people are capable of
taking on more agressive approaches to many things earlier than others,
and if strong fundamentals of how NOT TO GET INTO TROUBLE are instilled
then, mabey these folks can get out and jump real fast canopy's much
earlier than others. Example? C'mon out to Skydive Chicago and watch
Roger's kid Matt Skydive sometime, this kid was flying circles around
people with 5X his jumps from 50 jumps on. He now jumps either a Stiletto
107 or Stiletto 97 and is just awesome in the control and heads-up state
he is in (now at around 200? jumps). Guess it doesn't hurt that he has
been around it all his life or that he has been taught for years directly
and indirectly. But that is just the point, Inexperienced=yes, yet mature
thinking and very capable, he is not the only Skydiver like this!
People who get into Skydiving beyond Student status must take
responsibility for themselves in continuing to educate and make wise
decisions. Moreover, following the pack is not always the way to assure
yourself of complete safety and success.
Blue Skies and hope this thread is not on my newsreader the next time I
log-in!
Marty Hahnfeld
A-21765!!
Linda Dentay
> .....
>Actually I'm more than just a little bothered by this, and I don't want to
>seem like a worrywart but I think that just tossing these canopies to low
>timers is a BIG DEAL, but I seem to be the only one. Hey, it's his life,
>and for all I know he'll do just fine. But still, I can't help but be
>sincerely concerned.
> Shanessa
I've been sitting here quietly for the past few weeks reading the various discussions
on this topic and finally decided to comment. First of all, I am a pretty inexperienced
jumper (97 jumps - but over 4 years because I took some time out to have a baby).
I was having trouble getting any kind of performance out of the student Manta's and
was offered a Sabre 210 to jump. My first jump was a standup landing and I had been
having good luck on this (probably because it is not very loaded). I am still jumping
this canopy very conservatively, no radical turns, and just trying to get the feel for it.
In March I broke my leg at Deland (a sudden drop just on landing from turbulence and
just not prepared). Unfortunately, this set me back alot. When I started jumping 6
weeks later, the speed of the Sabre on landing became very frightening. I kept hearing
the snap of my broken leg. As a result, I started flaring low and taking a roll on the side that
didn't get broken. It has taken me almost 2 months of jumping to regain confidence
in myself and my canopy and am again starting to get good landings. When I was
having problems with landing after the broken leg, I suggested that maybe I should
go back on radio and get some assistance with my landings and landing approaches.
I had bought my Sabre used and had never got more than a cursory instruction on
flying and landing (really just cautions about things to look out for). When I
suggested some radio coaching, the comment was made that if I couldn't land right
after almost 100 jumps, then maybe this sport wasn't for me. So much for support
and training. This past weekend a friend took the time to review some basic theory
with me and we walked through the 2 stage flare. With this little help I managed
to get great landings - in no wind. Thank you Peter.
My second point. A friend of my has about 70 jumps and he was looking to buy
a Sabre 190. He had tried my 210 a few times and it was being recommended to him
that he buy a 190 - "it would last him longer and would have good re-sale value".
He had 2 pretty hard landings on my 210 !!
We talked over the weekend about some of the comments presented here about high
performance canopies and new jumpers. After much discussion, he has decided that
he will look for a PD 210 used for now, save a little money, build up his experience and
then go to something a little faster. Thanks to everyone for your comments on
this subject. It has helped me and helped him.
I strongly agree that canopy skills need to be emphasized more. Students get off
radio control after 2 or 3 jumps and are then expected to learn by trial and error.
So much for my brief thoughts.
Charles Thomas
lde...@ibm.net writes:
>I strongly agree that canopy skills need to be emphasized more.
Students get off
>radio control after 2 or 3 jumps and are then expected to learn by trial
and error.
This brings up something I found/find disconcerting.
At the DZ where I learned to jump, students didn't get off radio until
they were almost off student status. In fact, AFF or Static Line not
withstanding, until you were either off student status or personally
cleared to be off radio by the DZ's S&TA you jumped with a radio on.
Now, most of the time if you told them you were ok, you wouldn't get a
word over the radio. They were there "in case". In case you got into
serious trouble or started doing something stupid, they could be there to
save your ass. Sometimes they would be used to suggest a better plan of
action ("if you do some s-turns on your crosswind, you wouldn't have to
set up for such a long final").
Everywhere I've been since then, students are going up with no radios
after 3 jumps or perhaps a bit more. Seems like the old DZ had a better
idea going to me.
Barry Brumitt
> The simple point of the matter is this is a heads-up sport which requires
> concentration and a great amount of learned skills. I believe that these
> skills will improve and become safer in time no matter WHAT YOUR STARTING
> POINT WAS. Personally, I probably would have a greater chance of a
> landing injury if I were to go jump a Manta 230 right now versus my Sabre.
Yes, but when you panic and hook it into the ground when you have to avoid
those power lines you just didn't see, you'll be dead, and your buddy under
the larger canopy will just be broken up real good.
The jury is still 'out' on when it is appropriate to move to a smaller, faster
canopy. Perhaps it's good to have had time to experience some of those scary
things that can happen under canopy, and have time to see and learn from your
reactions, before making a mistake can kill you. Mind you, it can happen to
anyone, under any canopy, but we're talking about the degree of severity of
the injury.
DDSkydives
avoid
>those power lines you just didn't see, you'll be dead, and your buddy
under
>the larger canopy will just be broken up real good.
There is no way to predict what you just stated. One of the worst
accidents I saw this year was a student turning far too close to the
ground under a ....Manta. Anything can hurt you that close to the ground.
The Sabres and Stilettos from my personel experience will respond quicker
and have helped me stay out (and get out) of very nasty places.
Just my couple cents.
Besides, I was standing out their with Marty H. this weekend watching the
static liners biff in from every angle. At the same time watching the
Otter drop students flying Sabres landing quite nicely. The wind was at
around 10 to 12 and some of the lighter Manta students were getting blown
around whereas the Sabre students drove right in to the target nice and
stable.
D.D. Bartley
Bob Tessier
>
>I have learned there was a low time jumper fatality
>at Skydive City this past weekend. about 70 jumps, hook
>turned in with a Sabre.
>
>As a reminder, please please teach your juniors how to live
>under high performance canopies. Shit can happen.
>
>I have second hand info, anyone with better/more details,
>please feel free to post, thanks
Jumpers who have around 100 jumps can start to feel over confident, and
may need to be reminded that they have a long way to go. I was there, and
I came close to grief a couple times because I thought I knew it all.
Jump safely, everyone.
Rick Holstein
it continues. And I hope that you continue to jump at a big DZ with good
spotting and don't find yourself in a very tight off-DZ spot with a
highly loaded canopy, lots of quick decisions, and only 70 jumps to draw
from. That's when accidents happen. It happens to students, too.
Under perfect conditions, any idiot can be taught to land a high
performance canopy--it's not that hard. But it's the combination of a
bunch of new sensory inputs--like having to land in a tight back yard or
dealing with a "low speed" malfunction or a 4-way that accidentally
smoked through 1100 feet or any combination of the above that leads to
problems. And sooner or later, I promise you, problems happen.
rick D-10703
Barry Brumitt
I cannot agree more. 98% of the landings will be fine. It's the 2% which
happen when you don't have enough experience to draw upon that will sneak up
and bite you!
I'm pretty darned positive I could land a Stilleto at 2.0lb/ft^2 most of the
time. However, I don't pretend I could do so in *all* circumstances. Thus, I
won't jump one. Mind you, I'm not sure I can land a Sabre at 1.3 perfectly in
*all* circumstances, but I think I could keep myself from hammering in.
Another "bad" thing about higher loaded canopies with inexperienced people
isthe fact that closing speeds are right *between* canopies, so you're
reaction time is less. I cannot beleive someoen with 70 jumps reacts as well
*during* canopy openning to avoid traffic as does someone with 700.
Experience is earned. Good instruction can hasten this aquisition. Moving too
fast only increases your chance of injury. You'll be jumping a *long* time,
take your time in moving "up" the canopy scale.
Barry Brumitt
>
> >Yes, but when you panic and hook it into the ground when you have to
> avoid
> >those power lines you just didn't see, you'll be dead, and your buddy
> under
> >the larger canopy will just be broken up real good.
>
> There is no way to predict what you just stated. One of the worst
> accidents I saw this year was a student turning far too close to the
> ground under a ....Manta. Anything can hurt you that close to the ground.
> The Sabres and Stilettos from my personel experience will respond quicker
> and have helped me stay out (and get out) of very nasty places.
Agreed - either can hurt you.. And I said this in my original message.
However, are you saying that impact after a 180 degree turn under a
Sabre loaded at 1.1 wil be just as survivable as a similar impact under a PD
9cell at 0.8?
And are you saying someone with 15 jumps will be as capable as *you* at
handling the quick decision and reaction of a smaller canopy?
Puh-lease!
> Just my couple cents.
>
> Besides, I was standing out their with Marty H. this weekend watching the
> static liners biff in from every angle. At the same time watching the
> Otter drop students flying Sabres landing quite nicely. The wind was at
> around 10 to 12 and some of the lighter Manta students were getting blown
> around whereas the Sabre students drove right in to the target nice and
> stable.
Yup. However, if someone's putting 130-140 lb people under mantas in turbulent
wind conditions, someone is making an instructional error.
Again, and please read this carefully, I'm not convinced either way, perhaps
Sabres for students is the right thing... however, I worry about them moving
to 1.2-1.3 wing loadings too early in their careers.
My cents,
Jim Miller
(Barry Brumitt) writes:
>I cannot agree more. 98% of the landings will be fine. It's the 2%
which happen when you don't have enough experience to draw upon that
will sneak up and bite you! I'm pretty darned positive I could land a
Stilleto at 2.0lb/ft^2 most of the time. However, I don't pretend I
could do so in *all* circumstances. Thus, I won't jump one. Mind you,
I'm not sure I can land a Sabre at 1.3 perfectly in *all*
circumstances, but I think I could keep myself from hammering in.
Another "bad" thing about higher loaded canopies with inexperienced
people isthe fact that closing speeds are right *between* canopies, so
you're reaction time is less. I cannot beleive someoen with 70 jumps
reacts as well *during* canopy openning to avoid traffic as does
someone with 700.
>
>Experience is earned. Good instruction can hasten this aquisition.
Moving too
>fast only increases your chance of injury. You'll be jumping a *long*
time,
>take your time in moving "up" the canopy scale.
>
>Barry
I would like to applaud Barry's post. While it is understandable that
people want to use the newest, hottest canopies available it is also
very dangerous to do so before acquiring the fundamentals of canopy
control under more forgiving canopies. I know there are individuals
out there who successfully fly hi-po canopies very early in their
careers. I also know that there are many others who have tried and
paid the price. You must be very honest with yourself and determine if
you really feel you are one of those individuals who could handle it!
You should also consider that, as was stated earlier in this thread,
maybe some of those people have not yet gotten into that tight
situation that will really determine if they can handle the canopy over
their head when things start going to shit.
I can not think of any sports where people routinely start at the top,
skydiving is no different!
Jim Miller
D-7732
DDSkydives
>Sabre loaded at 1.1 wil be just as survivable as a similar impact under a
PD
>9cell at 0.8?
I'll repeat my statement...There is no way to predict what you just stated
>And are you saying someone with 15 jumps will be as capable as *you* at
>handling the quick decision and reaction of a smaller canopy?
I would never assume that and haven't
> However, if someone's putting 130-140 lb people under mantas in
turbulent
>wind conditions, someone is making an instructional error..
I don't think I said a thing about turbulance. I remember going backwards
as a student (under a Manta) with as little as 6 or 7 knots of wind. I'm
around 115 pounds. I wouldn't really catogarize that as an instructional
error more like the laws of physics
> I worry about them moving to 1.2-1.3 wing loadings too early in their
careers..
Me too! That's why we have so many sizes available for the students and
have 15 levels of AFP with a radio on every jump. We also have a helmet
rule for the recent grads. They a recommended to wear one through 500
jumps.
D.D Bartley
Marty Hahnfeld
richard_...@radian.com writes:
<snip>
>...But it's the combination of a
>dealing with a "low speed" malfunction or a 4-way that accidentally
>smoked through 1100 feet or any combination of the above that leads to
>problems. And sooner or later, I promise you, problems happen.
Rick:
Don't get me wrong, I know Shit Happens. My point is that I do not
believe that I would be that much better off under a 190 or 210 (what
most would consider a conservative canopy for me) at my experience level
having to deal with landing in someone's back yard. ZP or no ZP, I am in
trouble and if I get out of it, I was probably more lucky than good.
It all goes back to my original point of keeping your head in line and
doing the most you can NOT to get into such situations. Smoking it down
thru 1100? I guarantee you that this will NOT happen to me for a long
time, at least without the aid of a malfunction, besides I would probably
would be flying an F111 by that point anyway! (reserve), not that I would
be any better off. Another example was mentioned of hooking it to avoid
power lines, Power lines? I thought those were at around 100' or so. I
better be on a final to somewhere at that point or I am rolling the dice
already anyway.
I am not saying that good education and "always having a plan" is the
answer to staying out of all the troubles mentioned, and it seems to me
that there are combinations of personalities and situations which could
lead to trouble. I am a very conservative Skydiver, I was watching the
static line jumpers (as mentioned earlier) because I thought the wind was
a little spooky for me and my abilities, so I stayed on the ground. If I
do not know the DZ or I know I am opening over never-never land, I open
higher so I am sure to get back. I am not at the point where I have to
turn some silly last point or will be shamed.
Thanks for the good luck wishes and sorry I said Shit earlier.
Blue Skies,
Marty
John Goscinski
>
> Besides, I was standing out their with Marty H. this weekend watching the
> static liners biff in from every angle. At the same time watching the
> Otter drop students flying Sabres landing quite nicely. The wind was at
> around 10 to 12 and some of the lighter Manta students were getting blown
> around whereas the Sabre students drove right in to the target nice and
> stable.
Sounds like a difference in training as well.. Ya get what ya pay for.
John Goscinski
> Jumpers who have around 100 jumps can start to feel over confident, and
> may need to be reminded that they have a long way to go. I was there, and
> I came close to grief a couple times because I thought I knew it all.
> Jump safely, everyone.
>
According to a Parachutist fatality report that I read a while ago, the same thing applies to jumpers with up to 1000 jumps. It seems if you were going to kill yourself, you would've done it by the time you had 1K. I believe most of the hook turn fatalities occur to jumpers between 500 and 1000 jumps. 'course that could change with more low-timers on hot canopies.
John -320 jumps and just bought a sabre210- Goscinski
Barry Brumitt
>
> In article <3ugar8$n...@zippy.radian.com> Rick Holstein,
> richard_...@radian.com writes:
> <snip>
> >...But it's the combination of a
> >bunch of new sensory inputs--like having to land in a tight back yard or
> >dealing with a "low speed" malfunction or a 4-way that accidentally
> >smoked through 1100 feet or any combination of the above that leads to
> >problems. And sooner or later, I promise you, problems happen.
>
> Rick:
>
> Don't get me wrong, I know Shit Happens. My point is that I do not
> believe that I would be that much better off under a 190 or 210 (what
> most would consider a conservative canopy for me) at my experience level
> having to deal with landing in someone's back yard. ZP or no ZP, I am in
> trouble and if I get out of it, I was probably more lucky than good.
<flame>
Wrong. Wrong, wrong wrong.
If you have a canopy with a lower forward speed, and you smack into the fence
at the far end of the yard because you set up too high, you will be hurt less
than if you are under a smaller-faster canopy.
If you have to drop in over a rooftop, powerlines, treeline, if you have a
slower canopy, you can more easily get into that back yard.
You're lucky vs. good argument is utterly flawed. Do you drive really really
fast oin foggy conditions figuring if there is a surprise car in front of you
that you'll just be "lucky" if you stop in time, and that driving slower
wouldn't help!
Think, man! Don't get yourself in over your head! I don't *know* if you are or
not, but you have a lot more control over your destiny then you seem to
beleive!
>
> It all goes back to my original point of keeping your head in line and
> doing the most you can NOT to get into such situations. Smoking it down
> thru 1100? I guarantee you that this will NOT happen to me for a long
> time, at least without the aid of a malfunction, besides I would probably
> would be flying an F111 by that point anyway! (reserve), not that I would
> be any better off.
*Guarentee* GUARANTEEE!???!!!
Clue time, my friend! You *can* make mistakes! Things *can* happen! You have
to be prepared for the *worst* case, not the likely case!
> Another example was mentioned of hooking it to avoid
> power lines, Power lines? I thought those were at around 100' or so. I
> better be on a final to somewhere at that point or I am rolling the dice
> already anyway.
Ah. Of course. Even though you're canopy is pretty fast, and you might be
landing at a new DZ, you'll *always* see those power lines before you setup on
final. Will you have the best judgement when you have 1 second to react to
those surprise lines? Do you know to front riser in front of them, brake turn
away, choose to hit a tree? Can *you* make those decisions quickly? WOuld an
extra 2-3 seconds make your life easier in this situation?
Will more experience make this easier to do! Damn straight it will, unless
you've already busted yourself up by getting in over your head!
</flame>
> I am not saying that good education and "always having a plan" is the
> answer to staying out of all the troubles mentioned, and it seems to me
> that there are combinations of personalities and situations which could
> lead to trouble. I am a very conservative Skydiver, I was watching the
> static line jumpers (as mentioned earlier) because I thought the wind was
> a little spooky for me and my abilities, so I stayed on the ground.
Excellent choice! Perhaps the biggest safety rule is "know when to say no."
> If I
> do not know the DZ or I know I am opening over never-never land, I open
> higher so I am sure to get back. I am not at the point where I have to
> turn some silly last point or will be shamed.
Ah, but perhaps there's a load 2 minutes behind you that won't want you open
at 4000. Things *happen*. You *must* plan for the bad things. Experience will
make your reactions quicker... and under a faster canopy, you'll need that
experience... eventually!
> Thanks for the good luck wishes and sorry I said Shit earlier.
>
> Blue Skies,
> Marty
Likewise. All this is motivated by a desire to keep from seeing people getting
hurt. It can happen to anyone, and education and prevention is the best tools
we have!
Barry, SL/AFF I'95
Patrick
Sorry, folks, this post is kinda lame, but I gotta get it out of my system.
Rick Holsetin writes:
>It's great that you have had good luck thus far, Marty, and I hope that
>it continues. And I hope that you continue to jump at a big DZ with good
>spotting and don't find yourself in a very tight off-DZ spot with a
>highly loaded canopy, lots of quick decisions, and only 70 jumps to draw
>from. That's when accidents happen. It happens to students, too.
>[...]
I'm not particularly interested in participating in the monthly Sabre
for Students debate yet again (any more than I am interested in
participating in the weekly spotting debate), but this post struck me as
fairly condescending and Marty is a cool, safety conscious guy.
Rick, I'm sure you mean well and you just want to see folks like Marty and
I remain uninjured, but I think we deserve a little more respect than
assuming we are just "any idiots" that have been "lucky" and haven't
considered any of the things you discuss. (Please correct me if I made
an improper inference in your post.)
I certainly know that I have had to deal with reasonably tight and off-DZ
landings. The interesting thing is that not once (so far) have I even
come close to hammering the toggle in the way that seems to be assumed
in these discussions. I personally think it is because I have been
extensively trained on z-p canopies and (therefore) have had my reflexes
built so they instinctively respond to z-p more appropriately than many
folks in this forum give people like Marty and I credit for. I'm not
claiming to fly as well as an experienced jumper, but give me some credit.
In fact, I credit my Sabre with keeping me out of (getting me out of?) a
couple of fairly nasty spots--particularly as a lightweight in somewhat
windy conditions.
I am also quite thankful that I do not have to face the problem that many
in this forum have noted of transitioning to z-p with zero training
(even when requested). The assumption that someone can jump X canopy
because they have Y jumps seems silly (and I think many have noted that
here). I really think the issue of z-p for low-timers should really
be one of training for low-timers (and high-timers if they want it).
Are there situations for which I would prefer to be under a slower
F-111? Absolutely. But, I only get one for general use and overall,
with the training I have received, I believe my 1.1 Sabre is the best
(meaning safest) canopy for me. I didn't make this decision blindly.
I researched this as completely as I could, receiving opinions well
beyond the scope of my local DZ (and reviewing the data available
from my DZ).
Don't get me wrong, I do respect both the arguments and the intentions
of those who oppose Sabres on folks like me even after extensive
training. However, I just happen to disagree. If you disagree with
me (and clearly many do) feel free to say so, but I do resent the
implication that I am just some idiot who has been lucky (and presumably
is incapable of making decisions for himself).
Besides, my luck just hasn't been that good recently in any case.
Pat
--
Patrick Sugent
DW24601
> I would like to applaud Barry's post. While it is understandable that
> people want to use the newest, hottest canopies available it is also
> very dangerous to do so before acquiring the fundamentals of canopy
canopies very early > in their careers. I also know that there are many
others who have tried and
> paid the price. You must be very honest with yourself and determine if
> you really feel you are one of those individuals who could handle it!
Just in the sake of being obnoxious, I feel a need to tack an addendum to
Jims statement.
Just about every single low-timer I've seen get hurt or dead under a
too-heavily-loaded high performance canopy "thought they could handle it"
I know a 150 lb jumper with 60 jumps who is not known for being
conservative, or particularly alert. I HYPER experienced 17 year old
jumper (I get this second hand) is trying to tell him he should get a
120sq/ft high-performance canopy. What gives here?
I am so incredibly tired of low-timers with high performance canopies
doing strange things and forcing me to take evasive action, I just traded
my Stiletto 135 in for a PD-190. I'm not implying that all low-timers are
stupid, just that, (by definition) they are relatively inexperienced.
-Doug
---- Make sure the bones you break are your own ---
Timothy McMichael
: Don't get me wrong, I know Shit Happens. My point is that I do not
: believe that I would be that much better off under a 190 or 210 (what
: most would consider a conservative canopy for me) at my experience level
: having to deal with landing in someone's back yard. ZP or no ZP, I am in
: trouble and if I get out of it, I was probably more lucky than good.
: It all goes back to my original point of keeping your head in line and
: doing the most you can NOT to get into such situations. Smoking it down
: thru 1100? I guarantee you that this will NOT happen to me for a long
: time, at least without the aid of a malfunction, besides I would probably
: would be flying an F111 by that point anyway! (reserve), not that I would
: be any better off. Another example was mentioned of hooking it to avoid
: power lines, Power lines? I thought those were at around 100' or so. I
: better be on a final to somewhere at that point or I am rolling the dice
: already anyway.
: I am not saying that good education and "always having a plan" is the
: answer to staying out of all the troubles mentioned, and it seems to me
: that there are combinations of personalities and situations which could
: lead to trouble. I am a very conservative Skydiver, I was watching the
: static line jumpers (as mentioned earlier) because I thought the wind was
: a little spooky for me and my abilities, so I stayed on the ground. If I
: do not know the DZ or I know I am opening over never-never land, I open
: higher so I am sure to get back. I am not at the point where I have to
: turn some silly last point or will be shamed.
Wow, I'm amazed that there are jumpers with these attitudes still alive. I,
for one, would have to give *serious* thought to jumping with somebody with
those fundamentally flawed conceptions of skydiving. I hope that you had a
hard time articulating your points and that you don't *really* rely on luck
in off field landings, and that you don't *really* think you'll never smoke
through 1100 ft, and that you don't *really* decide to open high in the
middle of skydives without bothering to tell the groups behind you.
I think you'd better take a second look at how you worded your post. I'm
guessing (and hoping) that you'd like to re-word a few things.
Tim McMichael
tjmc...@ouray.cudenver.edu
http://ouray.cudenver.edu/~tjmcmich/index.html
Jim Miller
>
>In article <3u31de$s...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, jsp...@aol.com
(JSprad1) says:
>>
I am a low timer with 50 jumps. I started using a sabre 210 from day
one. ( I weigh 175 Ibs.) After 20 jumps I went to a Sabre 190, then a
170, and now jump a 150. I'm still alive because of proper training
and common sense. My first rig will most likely be a 170.
There is nothing very radical about a 175 pounder under a 210 square
foot canopy, or a 190 square foot canopy for that matter. It sounds to
me as though you progressed from a beginners platform to a higher
performance canopy in a rather sensible fashion. Congratulations on
your common sense!
Jim Miller
D-7732
Jonofun
Im reading alot of articles about you people fresh of student status who
feel like you know what you are doing under these sabres and stilleto's
and what ever the hell else you are flying.
I posted an article on my opinion of the canopy progression that
people make. I got a lot of feedback from people through my personal mail.
But the posting on this newsgroup from people with 30-200 jumps that
sound like a fucking authority on high performance canopy flight and I am
here to tell you that you dont have the first fucking clue. You really
believe that you do and that makes you even more dangerous. Now I know
that I am probally coming off like a prick right now but I am sick of all
you people who don't know what you are talking about sounding like pricks
so I thought it was my turn.
I am not trying to piss you guys off. I know you are learning about
this sport and are wanting to learn more. You guys with 50jumps think that
you know what you are talking about and you dont. THERE IS NO WAY AT THIS
STAGE OF THE GAME THAT YOU COULD,. The most important thing that you can
learn is that you dont know everything.
Here is an example.
the 50jump wonder goes up on a jump with his safe sabre thath he was
taught on as a student. He has always had great landings, always landed on
the airport but today the spot is long and he has no choice but to land in
a heavy are. power lines, buildings. He gets caght in a tight spot where
he has to make a turn but he is low and cannot sacrifice a lot of
altitude. It is a shame that he doesnt know any better because he does the
only thing he knows how-He pulls that toggle.Nobody has taught him how to
fly with risers. How to do flat turns. Maybe how to fly in brakes but lets
face it you dont iknow enogh about to think that fast or to react the way
you should.
Let me draw you another scenario
A guy that has been jumping for ten years but after 2000 dives wants to go
from his falcon230 to a stilleto. Unless somebody really takes the time to
teach this person they are almost in the same boat.
PEOPLE IT IS NOT THE NUMBER OF JUMPS SO MUCH THAT IT IS THAT THESE PEOPLE
ARE NOT BEING PROPERLY EDUCATED BEFORE THEY JUMP THESE CANOPIES AND SO
PEOLPE ARE DYING. PEOPLE WITH 50JUMPS 100 JUMPS 1000 JUMPS.
I AM not speaking form the pedastal here. Like I said in my previous note
I am one of those people thAT some of yall shake your heads at. I weigh
245 with gear and jump a Jonothan Jedeye 120. Coming up through the ranks
of this progression I have fucked up along the way.
A great example is that I enjoy alot of base jumping. I had done
several jumps off an aetenna until one time I went off a side that does
not have a landing area and got caught in a situation where had I known
how to fly a seven cell the way I shoul have I would have been fine.
Instead In trying to slow the canopy down to turn between the compound and
power lines I stalled it and broke my back. Here I am jumping my 120 on a
daily basis doing hook turns that would make your hair stand on end . You
would think I could fly this big sled. WRONG WRONG. every canopy is a
diiferent animal you have to educate yourself to that canopy and I am not
just talking about the different flare. But hey how do I fly this thinmg
in brakes and risers. Whats the best way to do a flat turn. A flat turn
how imortant is that. Well you under your sabre you got to make a turn to
mmiss the reaper whether it be a building or a conopy and you are at 75
ft. How important is a flat turn(not that is is really flat)
Tommy Piros said it all the time so Lets be safe out there.
Robert Mahaffey
Rhonda Lea
should change the subject line.
Barry Brumitt
> I wrote:
> >Will more experience make this easier to do! Damn straight it will, unless
> >you've already busted yourself up by getting in over your head!
>
> wisely stack more and more jumps in the logbook and gain experience. I am
> even trying to have fun from time to time! Am I over my head? I don't
> really know the answer to that. You and others here say I might be or I
> am. Roger Nelson, DD, and a host of others with all the experience you
> guys have, seem to think I am right on track. Who is right? HOPEFULLY, we
> will not ever find out at my expense (don't want a thread like this
> started by me!). All I do know is that I will do everything I can to
> learn and make wise decisions, and if new DATA is presented that shows
> the student ZP practice is flawed then I will adjust accordingly.
>
> Thanks!
> Marty
Agreed. I'm not convinced either way, as yet, however, I only worry about
people not gaining the experience and knowledge of one's canopy before having
to put that knowledge to the test -- and under a fast canopy, you have less
time to make those decsions.
And, I agree with the post stating every canopy is different. You have to gain
experience under one before the other. However, again, the fundamental
difference with a smaller canopy is *time*. You have less *time* and therefore
MUST be right on your first decision. A large canopy may give you time to
recover, do something else, or hit and not break...
I think we've beat this topic to death, not that we ever do that here... :)
Barry, who recommends 0.8 - 1.0 lb/sqft nine cells for the first 200-250
jumps, then 1.1ish Sabre/whatever for the next 250. After that, I don't have
enough experience to comment -- only 870 jumps myself!
ps. Sorry about the prior flame bait, it was intended in a humorous fashion.
Bill Von Novak
>Barry, who recommends 0.8 - 1.0 lb/sqft nine cells for the first 200-250
>jumps, then 1.1ish Sabre/whatever for the next 250.
an interesting note that came up on a side thread - people always
revert to previous training. i've seen it many times, from pilots
reading their chestmount like an aircraft altimeter to airborne students
grabbing their 'chest-mount reserve' (on a piggyback rig) as they exit
the plane.
could it be that some of the people hammering on sabres are doing
it because they're reverting to their manta training? you _need_ to
bury that toggle to get a manta to turn. they get in a tight spot, they
have to turn low, and they revert to their old habits - and hammer under
their new smaller canopy. it would explain the high number of landing-
related injuries by mid-experienced jumpers transitioning to sabres.
-bill von novak D16479 AFF/SL I95 TM95
Barry Brumitt
>
> Wow, I'm amazed that there are jumpers with these attitudes still alive. I,
> for one, would have to give *serious* thought to jumping with somebody with
> those fundamentally flawed conceptions of skydiving. I hope that you had a
> hard time articulating your points and that you don't *really* rely on luck
> in off field landings, and that you don't *really* think you'll never smoke
> through 1100 ft, and that you don't *really* decide to open high in the
> middle of skydives without bothering to tell the groups behind you.
>
> I think you'd better take a second look at how you worded your post. I'm
> guessing (and hoping) that you'd like to re-word a few things.
It's nice to see someone else picked up the *same* three criticisms I had of
that post...
Is Roger's perfect training not covering a few things?
Barry
ps. Two points to those who can spot the "flame bait" in this message...
Marty Hahnfeld
bel...@frc2.frc.ri.cmu.edu writes:
>You're lucky vs. good argument is utterly flawed. Do you drive really really
>fast oin foggy conditions figuring if there is a surprise car in front of you
>that you'll just be "lucky" if you stop in time, and that driving slower
>wouldn't help!
>
>Think, man! Don't get yourself in over your head! I don't *know* if you are or
>not, but you have a lot more control over your destiny then you seem to
>beleive!
Your car analogy isn't without flaw either, in that analogy YOU ASSUME I
know how to drive and *consciously react properly* in a situation! To
continue with that analogy, if the individual has *never reacted* to such
a situation before (regardless of if he is driving too fast for
conditions) he is more "lucky" than good to get out of it, regardless of
if he is driving a Yugo or a Porsche! It is an entirely new decision
process, PERIOD.
Barry, I understand your point, in fact I agree with much of what you
say. I would be foolish to try and argue what will and will not likely
happen with someone scores more qualified and experienced than I.
However, I also respect the opinions and facts presented by others with
equally impressive experience, and it so happens I learned from an
organization which believes new jumpers can handle and will benefit from
starting out in the Porsche. Logically it is not completely without
merit, high-performance does not just mean it goes real fast and that is
the end of it. It also means it is more responsive to input,
responsiveness which could possible save an injury just as easily as it
could cause one, agree?
>Clue time, my friend! You *can* make mistakes! Things *can* happen! You have
>to be prepared for the *worst* case, not the likely case!
Clue Time? Have I not cited that Shit does in fact happen? Have I not
cited that my canopy could very well break my ass one of these days? I
KNOW I can and probably will make mistakes, I do prepare for the worst
case, mabey you should read my posts over again if you think I am without
a clue!
>Ah. Of course. Even though you're canopy is pretty fast, and you might be
>landing at a new DZ, you'll *always* see those power lines before you setup on
>final. Will you have the best judgement when you have 1 second to react to
>those surprise lines? Do you know to front riser in front of them, brake turn
>away, choose to hit a tree? Can *you* make those decisions quickly? WOuld an
>extra 2-3 seconds make your life easier in this situation?
You interpret things loosely. All I said is that if I did not have a plan
at 100' or so in the air, my opinion is that my safety is already at risk
(ie- I am rolling the dice, testing fate, etc). Do I know what the
CORRECT move is to avoid every situation, NO, do you? It's funny, I spent
6 years racing cars and would consider myself an experienced road-racer,
but it's funny I still manage to crash them from time to time, even with
experience. And also ironic is that you know when you got out of a
situation and were "lucky", it is that point when your subconscious tells
you that "you SHOULD NOT be in this situation, and YOU SHOULD PAY for
being in this situation" but somehow you put the right pieces together
and avoided an accident.
>Will more experience make this easier to do! Damn straight it will, unless
>you've already busted yourself up by getting in over your head!
A good place to end this discussion. I agree 100%. I am trying my best to
Cicero
Just an observation, I see a softening of your normal
stance regarding student progression. I hope that your
recient trip to Skydive Chicago had something to do with
it.
Roger's students are doing great using equipment that
seems to worry so many. They are learning correct
canopy control on canopies responsive enough to make it
simple. They don't know the fear you all express and
would have a difficult time regressing to lessor canopies
or the benchmarks I to often see others determin a
what's best for them.
I have also noticed many attempts by students who want
to acknowledge they are doing well learning on the
equipment that they intend to use. However, they are
muffled by those who feel they don't know enough,
whatever, to have a voice.
Is it me or did this Thread go off the deep end? Didn't it
start as "Skydive City fatality"?
Wayne
Patrick
> an interesting note that came up on a side thread - people always
> revert to previous training. i've seen it many times, from pilots
> reading their chestmount like an aircraft altimeter to airborne students
> grabbing their 'chest-mount reserve' (on a piggyback rig) as they exit
> the plane.
>
> could it be that some of the people hammering on sabres are doing
> it because they're reverting to their manta training? you _need_ to
> bury that toggle to get a manta to turn. they get in a tight spot, they
> have to turn low, and they revert to their old habits - and hammer under
> their new smaller canopy. it would explain the high number of landing-
> related injuries by mid-experienced jumpers transitioning to sabres.
While I respect Barry's arguments about time, I am fairly convinced this is
also the case based on both information I have gathered (such as that you
have outlined) and my personal experiences. (I have also flown Mantas, but
that is a long story.)
In fact, I tried to make this exact point in an earlier post in this thread,
but clearly I failed to communicate it amongst my ranting.
RiaThomas
the world in this conversation... "too heavily loaded, high performance
canopies." The generalizations flying around here are enough to make a
semi-new jumper paranoid! It's not just f-111 vs zero-p... it's who's
flying.
With 50 jumps, at 110lbs, I love my 135... and it treats me nice.
Just had to let that out!
"When the tides of life turn against you, and the current upsets your
boat, don't think of things that might have been... just lay on your back
and float."
Barry Brumitt
> In article <BELBOZ.95J...@hoe.frc.ri.cmu.edu>, bel...@frc2.frc.ri.cmu.edu (Barry Brumitt) says:
>
> >Barry, who recommends 0.8 - 1.0 lb/sqft nine cells for the first 200-250
> >jumps, then 1.1ish Sabre/whatever for the next 250.
>
> an interesting note that came up on a side thread - people always
> revert to previous training. i've seen it many times, from pilots
> reading their chestmount like an aircraft altimeter to airborne students
> grabbing their 'chest-mount reserve' (on a piggyback rig) as they exit
> the plane.
>
> could it be that some of the people hammering on sabres are doing
> it because they're reverting to their manta training? you _need_ to
> bury that toggle to get a manta to turn. they get in a tight spot, they
> have to turn low, and they revert to their old habits - and hammer under
> their new smaller canopy. it would explain the high number of landing-
> related injuries by mid-experienced jumpers transitioning to sabres.
Very interesting concept! You may be correct. However, there is a category of
incidents which are *panic* responses. Oh-god-trees-Turn-whap! , for example.
Also, again, if you have less time (i.e. a faster canopy) when you get in a
tight spot, you will have to react faster, thus lessening your chance for a
correct response.
I don't _know_ what's correct here, but there are a *lot* of factors which
need to be weighed. And I'll agree with *everyone* that the first thing we
need is better system for educating canopy pilots.
Barry
ps. And I use the turn "pilot" intentionally. Anything going 20+ mph forward
ceases to be a passive activity. You *are* the pilot in command! Let's not the
the FAA get involved though... we'll all need Mode S transponders :)
Chris Hunter
which
>need to be weighed. And I'll agree with *everyone* that the first thing
we
>need is better system for educating canopy pilots.
>could it be that some of the people hammering on sabres are doing
> > it because they're reverting to their manta training? you _need_ to
> > bury that toggle to get a manta to turn. they get in a tight spot,
they
> > have to turn low, and they revert to their old habits - and hammer
under
> > their new smaller canopy. it would explain the high number of
landing-
> > related injuries by mid-experienced jumpers transitioning to sabres.
A better system?......how about ANY system? Except for Skydive Chicago,
There is NO system for training jumpers on Zero-p's, at least here in
Southern California.....And I don't see canopy manufacturers supporting
this kind of school either.....maybe because of potential lawsuits, but
I for one am giving my (and my girlfriends) TOTAL business to the first
DZ that starts this kind of program. And I'll sign the waivers and even
sit through the video....
And I bet I'm not
alone...
so there
Chris Hunter A-20428
Laura 'Mac' Mackenzie, A-20809
Sabre190
Just read this string....
So what's the solution, Sky Gods? Should we put low-timers under
static-line rounds until they get their D license? Make them do a doctoral
dissertation on the aerodynamic properties of zero-p?
Maybe we should put them back in diapers until they prove that they are
"worthy".
What a bunch of pricks you guys are. I'm sure the old-timers were just as
disapproving of putting students under square canopies when they first
came out.
Just use some common sense, for crying out loud.
Tom Steele
Stephen Creagh t2526
>In article <BELBOZ.95J...@hoe.frc.ri.cmu.edu>
>
>There's also the category of accidents which result from a failure of
>execution or equipment. I nearly became a statistic in this category
>myself, yesterday.
>
Does anyone else worry about brakelines failing just as you flare? Or
the little piece if cord at the business end if the 3ring release
giving out at 500 ft --- call me paranoid but I always look at that
just after opening.
Stephen
Glen Baker
> the little piece if cord at the business end if the 3ring release
> giving out at 500 ft
After scaring the hell out of myself one day I look at that little piece
of cord as part of my gear check *before* I get out of the airplane!
OK, so the cord wasn't really the problem. I had re-attached my main after a
reserve re-pack and had failed to route the cord through the grommet in
the cable housing. This meant that the cable was free to flex away from the
risers which would have the same effect as pulling the cutaway handle.
I didn't notice this until I was on the ground. While collapsing my canopy
the risers fell forward, away from the cable housing, and nearly released the
3 ring on one side. Scary stuff.
Now I look at that particular part of the rig *very* carefully!
..glen
Jonofun
watch who you call a prick. I dont know who you are or how many jumps you
have or how much you load your fucking sabre but I do know that anybody
that writes a message with that type of sentiment probally does know his
dick from a closing pin(they are probally the same size) I love how people
refer to skygods. I guess we are the pricks you are refering to. YOu know
I hear more on this board from beginners and people with a low number of
jumps acting like they know what the hell they are talking about. They
dont.
Robert Mahaffey TEAM XTZ
Barry Brumitt
Of all the posts in this thread, some of which I've agreed with, some of
which I think are dead wrong, only this post has actually annoyed me. This
forum is an excellent place for people with extremely divergent experiences in
skydiving to talk regularly about the training, safety, and equipment
practices they observe being used.
This is an excellent forum for learning, spotting trends, and generally
improving the safety of our sport. There *is* something to be dicussed here,
and common sense just don't cut it. You can't convince someone with common
sense, you *can* with numbers, statistics, and well thought out arguements.
Example: We agree on 'common sense' that a 170lb student shouldn't jump a
stilleto 97. What about a stilleto 170? A Sabre 190? A Cruiselight? A goliath?
By loking at many experiences at many DZ's, it's possbile to get a good
feeling for what a reasonable progression is.
I think it has *nothing* to do with sky-god-ism (which, btw,I've noticed is
dying in this sport over the last few years, or am I wrong?), but everything
to do with people trying to understand how to keep their students safe..
And *this* is being a prick?
Remind me not to send anyone to *you* for instruction.
Barry
Sabre190
Should drop-zone owners be held accountable for low-timers who hammer in
under a hot canopy at their DZ? I can hear it now - "HELL NO!!!"
Should manufacturers be held accountable for selling hot canopies to
low-timers?
Again, people say "HELL NO!!"
Should the USPA certify jumpers for zero-p canopies through some kind of
course offering? Example: require z-p training for B-license and above.
Maybe, but from what I've seen here, the LAST thing anyone wants to do is
get the USPA involved.
Ultimately, as we learn from Day One, we are each resonsible for our own
skydives, from the plane to the ground. This includes our choice of gear.
There are hot-dogs out there, to be sure, and they will get Jonathans and
Stillettos (sp?) and they will hammer in and injure other people in the
process. But short of regulation by the USPA, in cooperation with the DZOs
and manufacturers, this will continue to happen. What we say here amounts
to nothing more than an academic discussion if we're not willing to follow
up our convictions.
What irked me about this string was the attitude displayed by certain
people that low-timers have absolutely nothing to say, and if they do say
anything it carries no weight. This is complete bullshit, and a prime
example of Sky God-ism. This is a dynamic sport, and anyone who has gone
through the necessary training (and financial committment, for that
matter) has something to bring to the table.
Bradley C. Spatz
>what kills me is that most of the big canopy manufacturers who
>sell these rocket ships seem to have no interest in helping DZ's train
>the transitioning jumper from F-111 to ZP......this , to me, IMHO, is
>irresponsible....especially in the tightly-knit community of skydiving....
>please, if I'm wrong, tell me, prove it to me....anything....
John LeBlanc works for Performance Designs, a popular ZP canopy
manufacturer, and he gives seminars on various canopy skills (packing,
piloting, etc.).
Notes from his seminars (from '95 PIA Symposium) are on the WWW site:
http://www.cis.ufl.edu/skydive/
along with other good information about high performance canopies.
As many people have pointed out here, Jerry Sobieksi's paper
"Aerodynamics and Piloting of High Performance Ram-Air Parachutes"
is a must read. Check it out.
But in the end, it's up to you to seek out information and instruction
and to apply it constructively. Consult with your S&TA, talk with
experienced jumpers, correlate the information, and then apply it.
Blue skies!
--
Bradley
SkydiveNJ
Sorry to nit-pick...but I think it would be more accurate to say that
there should be education for "highly wing-loaded" canopies, as opposed to
"zero-p". There is nothing inherently aggressive about zero-p. It just
so happens that all high performance canopies happen to be
zero-p...primarily because they KEEP their performance longer than F-111
(remember, F-111 IS basically zero-p on it's first jump). Their is little
handling difference between a student jumping a huge F-111 canopy vs. a
huge Sabre (except that after 800 jumps on the canopy it doesn't snivel
for 1000 feet!). And an experienced 200 lb. jumper on a PD 120 has the
same need for high performance canopy skill as he would if he jumped a
Sabre 120.
Secondly, speaking of PD...I think John Leblanc of Performance Designs is
doing an excellent job in providing educational information regarding high
performance canopy landing techniques. Although I agree that drop zones
should implement a more formal training program. I believe that the
jumpers who seek out the available information are not the ones we need to
worry about. It's the complacent jumpers who don't know any better to
activley seek out info who are probably at the greatest risk.
Dave Briegs
C-24405
Dave Briegs
C-24405
--|--
Chris Hunter
I wish we could all just chill......and I hate to beat this issue to
death, but...indeed, there has to be EDUCATION AT DROP ZONES FOR FLYING
ZERO-P CANOPY'S!!!! I'm sorry, but I feel I'm banging my head against a
wall....what kills me is that most of the big canopy manufacturers who
sell these rocket ships seem to have no interest in helping DZ's train
the transitioning jumper from F-111 to ZP......this , to me, IMHO, is
irresponsible....especially in the tightly-knit community of skydiving....
please, if I'm wrong, tell me, prove it to me....anything....but I won't
let this issue rest until ZP-Canopy training becomes the norm (just like
AFF or RW).......is Skydive Chicago the only DZ in the US that sees the
future???? How many jumpers have to auger in before DZ's and the
manufacturers take notice....as Skydiving Magazine has said, the weak
link now is the jumper.. him or herself.....the technology has progressed
so quickly....but if there was TRAINING on how to handle these things,
there would be less accidents, more canopy sales, probably more money for
DZ's for these classes, and a lot more jumpers having fun.......safely....
Chris(who still fly's his PD-210) Hunter,
A-20428
PS: Maybe Skydive U could incorporate this into their curriculum?...just
a thought.....
Stephen Creagh t2526
>Stephen Creagh t2526 (stephen...@rphs1.physik.uni-regensburg.de) wrote:
>
>> the little piece if cord at the business end if the 3ring release
>> giving out at 500 ft
>
> After scaring the hell out of myself one day I look at that little piece
> of cord as part of my gear check *before* I get out of the airplane!
>
stress builds up with opening shock to do something. I worry about this
because my one and only cutaway so far was from a spinning mal, and I
had a HARD time with the cutaway part. I was surprised at this in a big
way. And later it occurred to me that there must have been a lot of stress
on that little piece of cord. If such stress can build up in a spin,
why not on opening? That little piece of cord doesn't look like much.
I also jumped at a DZ where they kept a couple of samples of french connectors
(or what ever they're called) pinned to the wall as an example to all of us.
They had been damaged at opening and one in particular looked really scary.
It was completely opened up and the lines must have been hanging almost
by friction alone. The jumper landed before he noticed. (!)
I call this fear paranoid because I realise that if they fail they will
almost certainly fail at opening and it won't be worse than any other
malfunction. On the other hand, what if .... there was barely enough
thread left to hold on until you decide to make a hard turn at 500ft.
One word ..... Yeuch!
No matter how unlikely, this little phobia always gives me the willies
when I think about it (especially at 500ft). It's not even as bad as
the other favorite --- the one where the little ball at the end of the
reserve cable comes off. At least there you can do something like grab
at the cable itself.
But the accidental cutaway.....brrrrrr.
Stephen A11379
Stephen Creagh t2526
mARK bLOORE
<stephen...@rphs1.physik.uni-regensburg.de> wrote:
>Does anyone else worry about brakelines failing just as you flare? Or
>just after opening.
a friend of mine broke his leg when the knot on his toggle caught in
the guide ring at flare time, and he responed inappropriately.
another friend had a similar hang-up on his saber, at a para-ski meet.
he did an over-enthusiastic rear-riser flare; the canopy drove itself
downward (backwards) and landed before he did! i saw and heard
this -- very spectacular. he landed flat on his back, but the snow
was soft and he was unhurt.
around here, looking at your 3-rings after opening is called a "Ken check",
after a guy who assembled his wrong and had a surprise one-sided cutaway
at 800 feet. he landed uneventfully under his reserve.
--
mARK bLOORE (ma...@arachnae.com)
DDSkydives
Chill out and clean up the language! If you've got something informative
to say, share it with the less knowledgable. Everyone is entitled to an
opinion, right or wrong.
D.D. Bartley
DZvagaBON
>I call this fear paranoid because I realise that if they fail they will
>almost certainly fail at opening and it won't be worse than any other
>malfunction. On the other hand, what if .... there was barely enough
>thread left to hold on until you decide to make a hard turn at 500ft.
>One word ..... Yeuch!
In AFF I was taught to do a control check after opening....while I was
still up high enough to do something about it. By control check I mean:
right turn, left turn, stall. Seems like if something were gonna happen
it would be then, and you could get your reserve out in ample time.
Blue Skies
Bonnie
Roger Millington
>Does anyone else worry about brakelines failing just as you flare? Or
>the little piece if cord at the business end if the 3ring release
>giving out at 500 ft --- call me paranoid but I always look at that
>just after opening.
>
>Stephen
>
Friend of mine, Bryan Davies, looked at his 3 Ring just after landing and
noted that the metal gromet/lug that goes over the bit of string and attaches
to the cable housing had become detached from the housing. One small movement
would have cut him away!
I _ALWAYS_ check mine now before I get in the pane and as soon as safely
possible after opening.
Roger Millington D8806(UK)
qx0...@inet.d48.lilly.com
> In article <3v2rjh$3...@rrzs3.uni-regensburg.de>, Stephen Creagh t2526
> <stephen...@rphs1.physik.uni-regensburg.de> wrote:
>>Does anyone else worry about brakelines failing just as you flare? Or
>>the little piece if cord at the business end if the 3ring release
>>giving out at 500 ft --- call me paranoid but I always look at that
>>just after opening.
>
Perris circa '83 Valentines day meet, doing 6 way with the core of what
eventually became the Gumbies.
6 Way RW followed by team acuracy. The "boys" landed at one target, the "girls"
at another. Once everyone landed we ran to a community target & hugged & kissed
&.................. The clock started when the 1st canopy opened, and stopped
when everyone had gathered in the community target.
I was jumping borrowed gear ( mine was under arrest by LA's finest at Parker
Center), the main was a Comet 228.
sinking it in on approach....................... 30 ft above the target........
..........SNAP!!!!!!!!! one of the lower control lines break.
followed by ~ 270 degree rotation, followed by IMPACT ( thaks Keith J. ).
Dumb luck, big legs from 14 years of bicycle racing, and the good old
resort to my instinctively trained PLF ( started jumping with s/l T-10's)
allowed me to escape any real injury.
Of course the DZ was watching this accuracy silliness, and a call had been made
to the EMT's as soon as they saw me slam in.
People were AMAZED to see me get up.
Hopefully that will be the only time I make a crater.
[OWSM off]
The point?????????
Yes, gear can fail, but borrowed gear "certainly" will
if you don't ckeck it out.
kleggo
Trying2Fly
(Chris Hunter) writes:
>what kills me is that most of the big canopy manufacturers who
>sell these rocket ships seem to have no interest in helping DZ's train
>the transitioning jumper from F-111 to ZP......this , to me, IMHO, is
>irresponsible..
Whoah, hold on. wait a minute. Do you think that General Motors should
teach you how to drive too. And maybe Crest should teach you how to brush
your teeth. And maybe Charmin should teach you how to, uh well you got
the picture. You also said somrthing about a class on ZPs, That part I
agree with. But you can't make the manufactures responsible. Oh, and I
here one of them is. So there ya go.
R7alph
of the 3-ring circus" right after opening. That just seems like good
common sense.
Anyway, there's a lot to be said for paranoia.
--Ralph
Jmklswoop
Please remember that this is only my (most humble) opinion:
I do believe you are just a tad harsh, and a bit hasty in your reply.
There are some critically important observations being made here.Before
you respond you should open your mind and think about all that is going on
out there.
In the past few years we have seen a remarkable increase in the number of
skydivers dying under perfectly good canopies. This is most likely
attributable to a combination of ego overloading capability, lack of
sufficient experience/training under the new skyrocket canopy, and a
simple lack of common sense.
We are not pricks. We ARE tired of picking up the pieces. If there is
ANY question about a novice jumper's ability to deal with a new high-speed
z-po, then that student should not jump that canopy. If it pisses someone
off, too bad... at least that person will be here to be pissed off.
We lost another jumper this weekend, under a canopy far too small for her
experience level. And Glorioski, it wasn't a Z-Po (thank God,,,a z-po
would have killed her under similar circumstances.). Those nice little
rigs that those nice little z-po canopies look good in only hold tiny
little reserve canopies. In this case, the micro-cricket overloaded the
novice's (about 140 jumps) capabilities. The result: one broken femur, a
crushed pelvis, a broken vertebrate, a long, long time away from the
sport, and some very expensive hospital, surgical and physical therapy
time.
Her first comments: When I start skydiving again, I'm going to get a
BIGGER CANOPY...
Bigger = less heavily loaded, which without doublt expands your range of
options in canopy control.
Look, I weigh 240 geared up. I jump a Sabre 170, a Nova 170, an Esprit
170, a Nova 150 and a Jonathon 150. They are all terrific canopies, as
long as I have room to use them. I count on landing at the DZ. I believe
that I have the experience to deal with an off-airport landing under a
quick canopy. But, when I go on a demo, I break out the trusty old
Raider, which is probably one of the finest all-around canopies made. My
point? I guess we should just recognize our limitations, and gear up
accordingly.
As for novices, When my son began driving, believe me I didn't run out
and buy him a Porsche. When he began jumping I didn't rush him into a
zmall Z-po. The car he ls learning to drive in is conservative, as is the
canopy he jumps. That only makes sense.
As far as limitations, you bet I'm for them. I had to have 25 jumps on a
T-10 before I got to jump a PC. Then a 100 jumps before jumping a square.
So what's wrong with that? A conservative approach will generally result
in a live, unbroken skydiver.
You are entirely too hard on those of us who wish to proceed with some
degree of caution. Our concern is genuine, and don't for a minute believe
the comments are merely gum-flapping for no cause. We want to stop
hurting skydivers by not letting their alligator desires overload their
hummingbird capabilities.
Of courst, that's only my couple of cents worth.
Jerry H.
D-9434 / I95
Jmklswoop
displaying an immaturity that I feel should keep you from the
high-performance canopy you wish to use.
You have to LISTEN. We "Old-Timers" do have something to offer...
Experience. We've been there, we've done that. What you are seeing for
the first time has been witnessed by us many times.
I am becoming completely turned off by you novices implying that this is
SkyGoditis.... Don't you realize that if we can't take care of ourselves,
someone out there will be happy to take care of us???
There is a great deal of constructive input within this thread. But I
note an apparent trend from the novices: you don't appear to care to
listen to those of us who know what we're talking about. I would not
normally presume to be overly knowledgable...I can only speak from what I
have seen. But I do believe I know a little more than you do.... unless
you're pulling my chain. If you are, it worked.
Jerry H.
D9434 / I95
Richard Hutchinson
writes:
{major snippity-snip}
>You are entirely too hard on those of us who wish to proceed with some
>degree of caution. Our concern is genuine, and don't for a minute
believe
>the comments are merely gum-flapping for no cause. We want to stop
>hurting skydivers by not letting their alligator desires overload
their
>hummingbird capabilities.
>
>Of courst, that's only my couple of cents worth.
>
>Jerry H.
>D-9434 / I95
Jerry,
A darned good and sensible reply...I'm with you!
Hutch