Crete, Nebraska - Fatality - Lincoln Journal Star Story
Mike Manuel
thrill, more danger--to keep it competitive with other sports. We now have
canopies that can pass freefallers in a vertical descent and have approach
speeds for landing well over 100 MPH.
We have many 'experts' and DZ's advising students that a fairly
responsive ZP is the logical choice as a "first" canopy.
We have skygods advising 50 jump students on the "proper" way to make a
hook turn so they don't get hurt. As all of them say "if you do it properly
and pay attention so you don't get in the corner, you'll be fine".
Obviously many don't do it right or they get in the corner, because a
lot of them die, and untold hundreds suffer broken bones, sprains, strains
and injuries that we never hear about.
It is about time we began to petition the USPA to NOT INCLUDE any hook
turn landing deaths in the incident reports. As a whole, the sport, the
aircraft, the instruction and the equipment is better than ever--yet they
still die. Take the (low) hook deaths out and skydiving is getting safer.
A hook turn is not an incident, it is not an accident--it is pilot
error. It is a skydiver that knowingly exceeded not only common sense, but
the design characteristics of his parachute and the possibility of burbles,
dead air, traffic etc. and killed themselves. This is not an accident. It
is an intentional act--outside of all suggested and predicted boundaries of
safety that results in death or injury--which is why it is outside of all
suggested and predicted boundaries of safety and absolutely banned at many
drop zones.
Skydiving is a sport of freedom and I would never wish to diminish that
nor try to regulate it away in any form. I would, however, if for no other
reason than to reduce the amount of scrutiny directed at the sport because
of death numbers, like to see these listed as MISC. DEATHS unrelated to the
sport, or not listed at all.
I do not know if this specific case was an attempt at a hook turn or
some other failure at low altitude, but MOST are obvious--and they should be
treated differently from the true accidents.
----------
In article <g7k1ps00b8hef5er8...@4ax.com>, "@nne"
<an...@skydiveworld.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Aug 2000 02:57:02 GMT, Paul Quade <qu...@usa.net> wrote:
>
>>Omaha man dies skydiving after making turn too late.
>
> Holy cow! What is going on out there....all those fatalities under a
> perfectly flying canopy make me sick. :(
>
> My condolences to family and friends.
>
> blues @nne
>
> --
> *** The new issue of "skyXtreme" is online! ***
> skyXtreme - The Online Magazine - http://www.skyxtreme.com/
> Subscribe to the skyXtreme Newsletter!
>
>
John
John
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
Bonnie
> No shit? 100 MPH! I'd like to see data on this. I can believe 60..
> but I'd have to see a radar gun on 100 MPH
lake Elsinore SoCal Look out for the 46sq.ft
Paul Quade
Full story at;
http://www.journalstar.com/local?story_id=968&date=20000808&past
Paul
@nne
>Omaha man dies skydiving after making turn too late.
Holy cow! What is going on out there....all those fatalities under a
Paul W. Gibbs
from bad decisions. More often than not, the biggest killer in this sport is
the skydiver him/herself and it just tears me up when I see people, who are for
the most part GOOD people, make bad decisions or exercise just one split-second
of bad judgement. Thats all it takes in this sport...a blink of an eye and
your canopy is landing before you. One thing we should never EVER forget is
that the skydive isnt over until both feet are planted firmly on the ground. I
take great pride in my ability to think clearly and calmly, keep a cool head
and be "air-aware" until EVERYONE has landed. I hope all of us exercise these
traits and that all of us feel a sense of DUTY to pass these traits along to
others. My deepest, most sincere condolences to the family and friends.
Blue Skies always.
-Paul
Jazzjumper
On Tue, 08 Aug 2000 23:43:33 -0600, "Mike Manuel" <mma...@ll.net>
wrote:
> What's going on "out there" is the direction of the sport is more
>thrill, more danger--to keep it competitive with other sports. We now have
>canopies that can pass freefallers in a vertical descent and have approach
>speeds for landing well over 100 MPH.
No shit? 100 MPH! I'd like to see data on this. I can believe 60..
but I'd have to see a radar gun on 100 MPH swoop.
> It is about time we began to petition the USPA to NOT INCLUDE any hook
>turn landing deaths in the incident reports. As a whole, the sport, the
>aircraft, the instruction and the equipment is better than ever--yet they
>still die. Take the (low) hook deaths out and skydiving is getting safer.
Go for it, but I completely disagree... should we not report alcohol
related incidents in traffic accidents? Skydiving is getting safer
even with the hook turn deaths. More people do it, equipment is much
more advanced, training is good at places, yet people still make
mistakes.
> A hook turn is not an incident, it is not an accident--it is pilot
>error. It is a skydiver that knowingly exceeded not only common sense, but
>the design characteristics of his parachute and the possibility of burbles,
>dead air, traffic etc. and killed themselves. This is not an accident. It
>is an intentional act--outside of all suggested and predicted boundaries of
>safety that results in death or injury--which is why it is outside of all
>suggested and predicted boundaries of safety and absolutely banned at many
>drop zones.
Really? Webster Says:
Incident - an action likely to lead to grave consequences
Accident - 1 a : an unforeseen and unplanned event or
circumstance b : lack of intention or necessity
Hmmmm, seems like they both apply.
Hook turn... an intentional act... usually, but the canopy pilot never
intends to kill himself doing it (I've yet to hear of a female
initiating a low turn and killing herself... babes got more sense and
less ego).
> Skydiving is a sport of freedom and I would never wish to diminish that
>nor try to regulate it away in any form. I would, however, if for no other
>reason than to reduce the amount of scrutiny directed at the sport because
>of death numbers, like to see these listed as MISC. DEATHS unrelated to the
>sport, or not listed at all.
So, what you're saying is you do want to regulate the infomation about
deaths. I frankly don't care about the scrutiny... it's kind of why
many of us skydive. Why don't we take out the deaths where some idiot
packed a malfunction... or maybe those where a student pulls unstable,
low, or no pull at all. Frankly, I want to read it all. When a
brother or sister burns in, I want to learn all I can and try to
ensure I never repeat their scenario (notice I didn't say mistake).
It's always hard to read about a death, but we should all attempt to
learn from it. Low hook turns are still killing people.
> I do not know if this specific case was an attempt at a hook turn or
>some other failure at low altitude, but MOST are obvious--and they should be
>treated differently from the true accidents.
Okay, but don't forget to include the lousy pack jobs, unstable pulls,
high-speed deployments, canopy colisions... aw hell, lets just jump
and forget about all the mishaps!
Jamie
B-23350, A-33665
Paul W. Gibbs
> It is about time we began to petition the USPA to NOT INCLUDE any hook
>turn landing deaths in the incident reports.
Sorry, Mike, but I couldn't disagree more. Removing it from the STATISTICS,
maybe. Removal from the incident reports? No way. I think the best way to
learn from the mistakes of others is by giving their misjudgement the widest
possible dissemination. How can we teach new jumpers <and old-timers alike> if
we don't pass on the lessons written in the blood of those less fortunate? That
has been a tried and true teaching/learning tool for thousands of years and,
in my opinion, is the best <and safest> way to hammer the point home. People
have been digging divots from hook turns for years and, sad to say, will
continue to do so for years to come. In my opinion, the only thing to be
gained by NOT including low-turns in the incident reports is avoiding bad
press.
Just my $.02 worth.
Blue skies always.
-Paul
CRWMike
make the rounds again).
Michael
D-6139
Jim Bozarth
>From: pwg...@aol.comNoCrap (Paul W. Gibbs)
>Date: 8/8/2000 10:19 PM Pacific
> I take great pride in my ability to think clearly and calmly, keep a cool
head
>and be "air-aware" until EVERYONE has landed.
I'm sure this latest fatality felt exactly the same way.
..
jim
2000 jump wonder
wondering where all that money (and the years) went.
Brian Bo
When Tom Minturn and Joe Bales jumped out of the Cessna 182 high
above the Crete Airport Sunday afternoon, everything felt right.
Skies were clear with a slight breeze, and the two men had
almost 7,500 feet of air below them to practice skydiving
maneuvers. They also were celebrating something special: Each
was making his 100th jump - a significant milestone for anyone
in love with the sport of skydiving.
Their free fall was normal, and the two colorful square sport
parachutes opened without a hitch. Bales, a 40-year-old skydiver
from Grand Island, was the first to reach the ground.
"I collapsed my canopy and was watching Tom come in. He made a
left turn onto his final approach and then made a hard right-
hand turn immediately, which put him into a fast downward
spiral," said Bales, the only witness to the accident.
The 43-year-old respiratory therapist from Omaha slammed into
the ground.
His 360-degree turn was a fatal mistake. Bales said such a
skydiving maneuver should never be done below 500 feet and a
safer altitude would be about 1,000 feet.
"It's not an unusual maneuver up higher," Bales said. "He just
lost altitude too fast . . . before he could recover."
Early reports of the accident said Minturn's parachute initially
opened and then collapsed about 75 feet above the ground. The
accident happened about 5:30 p.m. at a small airport just
outside Crete.
The Saline County Sheriff's Office was investigating but was not
able to release further details of the accident Monday.
"It (the parachute) never failed," said Sharon Cochrane of
Lincoln, drop zone manager and board president of the Crete
Skydiving Center. "He was a responsible jumper and he was a
conservative jumper, and he just made an error."
Cochrane said Minturn's death was the first in the skydiving
center's 17-year history.
"We've has some accidents that caused injuries, but we never
lost anybody," she said. "This was a procedure that he shouldn't
have done. In fact, most skydiving fatalities today are caused
by low turns."
Bales, who said he'd jumped with Minturn for the past six
months, called 911. Meanwhile, Claude Wilson of Lincoln, a
skydiving instructor and jump master at the Crete center, ran
out to the drop zone and tried to resuscitate Minturn.
Emergency workers rushed him to Crete Municipal Hospital and
then to BryanLGH Medical Center West in Lincoln, where he was
pronounced dead.
Minturn left behind his wife, Mary Ann, an 11-year-old son,
Drew, who wants to be a gymnast someday, and a 15-year-old
daughter, Megan, who dreams of becoming a ballerina. One of 16
children, he also left many family and friends.
"I'm not bitter about this," his widow said Monday, a day after
the accident. "There's injuries in most things you do in life
and for sure all sports, and some of those are fatal. However,
if you are someone like Tom, who loves life and grabs it with
both hands . . . it wouldn't be Tom if he didn't skydive.
"People ask me, 'How could you let him do that?' He wouldn't be
Tom if he didn't do that."
Fellow skydivers planned to gather Monday night in Lincoln to
remember Minturn, who was a regular at the Crete Skydiving
Center. He had his Class A license - the first of four license
levels for skydivers - and was working on his Class B license,
his wife said. He had already completed water jump training.
"He loved it. He loved the sport," said Mary Ann Minturn. "Many
skydivers eat, sleep and drink the sport. He was a family guy
and he had a lot of commitments."
She said her husband served on the Pius X Church Council in
Omaha and was an active volunteer. He worked as a respiratory
therapist in home heath care. He also was an avid downhill
skier, inline skater and mountain biker.
"He always said, 'I'm not going to work. I'm not going to see a
patient. I'm going to save lives,' " Mary Ann Minturn said.
Cochrane said skydivers who knew Minturn are numbed by his death
and won't quickly forget the experience.
"The next time each one of us gets into an airplane, we will
think about Tom and what we need to do to keep ourselves safe,"
she said.
Bales, who works at a detox center, said the loss of a fellow
skydiver will keep him out of the skies for awhile, but he won't
give up jumping. Even after 100 jumps, he said, he still likes
the thrill, the adrenaline rush and the feeling of
accomplishment in the sport.
"It's not just jumping out of a plane," he said. "It's the
thrill of human flight."
Livendive
> What's going on "out there" is the direction of the sport
is more
>thrill, more danger--to keep it competitive with other sports.
You think the manufacturers of high performance canopies are
building them to stay competitive with the risk factors of other
sports? Do the jumpers buying them have the same goal in mind?
We now have
>canopies that can pass freefallers in a vertical descent and
have approach
>speeds for landing well over 100 MPH.
There was a post here a couple weeks ago about an upcoming
attempt to pass a freefaller, but I haven't heard the results
and I'm fairly confident there's not a plethora of
canopies/pilots capable of achieving it. I'm equally confident
that not many (if ANY) are surfing at 100+ mph. There might be
a select few capable of getting close to 3/4 of that, but
they're not many.
> We have many 'experts' and DZ's advising students that a
fairly
>responsive ZP is the logical choice as a "first" canopy.
Depending on the student, I think this is a good thing. Of
course my idea of a fairly responsive ZP is a Triathlon loaded
fairly lightly. Anything that does to hurt you can be
accomplished just as easily under a 0.8-0.9 Falcon (e.g.)
> We have skygods advising 50 jump students on the "proper"
way to make a
>hook turn so they don't get hurt.
I don't know of anyone advising people with 50 jumps
(not "students") on how to do hook turns.
As all of them say "if you do it properly
>and pay attention so you don't get in the corner, you'll be
fine".
I think the skygods you're referring to who would say this to
someone with 50 jumps are their buddies with 60 jumps.
> Obviously many don't do it right or they get in the corner,
because a
>lot of them die, and untold hundreds suffer broken bones,
sprains, strains
>and injuries that we never hear about.
> It is about time we began to petition the USPA to NOT
INCLUDE any hook
>turn landing deaths in the incident reports.
Why? I can understand not including airplane crash fatalities,
because technically the jumpers weren't skydiving at the time of
their death. I still disagree with it, as the ride to altitude
is a necessary component of skydiving, but at least there's some
rationale. What you're proposing makes no sense. Should we
also skip no-pulls (a judgement error, just like making a turn
too low)?
As a whole, the sport, the
>aircraft, the instruction and the equipment is better than ever-
-yet they
>still die.
Apparently the instruction isn't better, or people wouldn't be
turning themselves into the ground.
>Take the (low) hook deaths out and skydiving is getting safer.
Take the no-pulls, improper gear maintenance, overloaded
reserves, out of sequence emergency procedures, airplane
crashes, and water landings out and skydiving is getting safer
yet.
> A hook turn is not an incident, it is not an accident--it
is pilot
>error.
You don't think pilot error is accidental? These guys mean to
turn into the ground?
>It is a skydiver that knowingly exceeded not only common sense,
Jumping out of an airplane exceeds common sense.
>but
>the design characteristics of his parachute
How so?
>and the possibility of burbles,
>dead air, traffic etc. and killed themselves. This is not an
accident.
Then it's a suicide?
It
>is an intentional act--outside of all suggested and predicted
boundaries of
>safety that results in death or injury--
Are we talking about low turns here or skydiving in general?
which is why it is outside of all
>suggested and predicted boundaries of safety and absolutely
banned at many
>drop zones.
I know of no drop zones that ban turns to get into the wind,
avoid trees, or avoid other canopies. These make up a
significant percentage of landing fatalities.
> Skydiving is a sport of freedom and I would never wish to
diminish that
>nor try to regulate it away in any form. I would, however, if
for no other
>reason than to reduce the amount of scrutiny directed at the
sport because
>of death numbers, like to see these listed as MISC. DEATHS
unrelated to the
>sport, or not listed at all.
How is a landing fatality unrelated to the sport? If a guy
lands under a line-overed reserve and dies, is that sport
related?
> I do not know if this specific case was an attempt at a
hook turn or
>some other failure at low altitude,
It's improbable that someone with 100 jumps was intentionally
trying a 360 hook for landing speed. More likely is he was
going long and wanted to bleed some altitude so he could make
the peas or something similar. Mind you I have no more
information on this fatality than you do, I'm just guessing, but
I imagine I'm closer to the truth. Especially since the article
characterizes the deceased jumper as a conservative canopy pilot.
>but MOST are obvious--and they should be
>treated differently from the true accidents.
Most 'what'? Hook turns? I still maintain that a majority of
our landing fatalities due to low turns can be blamed on simple
poor judgement, not intentional hookturns done too low. Ever
heard the phrase "the deceased was not a known hookturner" or
anything like that? Sounds relevant to this incident as well as
many others.
Sorry if this is an inappropriate thread in which to post this.
My condolences to the wife, children, and other family and
friends.
Blue skies,
Dave
Paul W. Gibbs
keep a cool
>head
>>and be "air-aware" until EVERYONE has landed.
>
>I'm sure this latest fatality felt exactly the same way.
>
I'm sure he did too, and the LAST thing I want to do is tell myself that I'm
immune from making such errors in judgement: certainly I'm not. None of us
are. I'm simply saying that incidents like these SHOULD heighten our
awareness, yet, sadly, this is not often the case.
Blues
-Paul
I'll quit jumping out of airplanes as soon as somebody decides to make a
perfectly good one.
Mike Manuel
about hook turn landings. IMHO it is the proliferation of your general
attitude of hook turns, and finding every possible argument as to why they
ARE NOT TO BLAME that is the main reason so many are being killed by them.
You can argue until you are blue in the face and you'll never convince
an objective observer that doing hook turns does not increase the likelihood
of an injury or death--regardless of experience.
S.D. Mike
----------
In article <1ef64b28...@usw-ex0106-047.remarq.com>, Livendive
Marc
>Dave--I'll not waste the space to counter all of your counters to my post
>about hook turn landings.
What Dave said made a lot of sense to me. I'm not sure how most of it could be
convincingly "countered."
IMHO it is the proliferation of your general
>attitude of hook turns, and finding every possible argument as to why they
>ARE NOT TO BLAME that is the main reason so many are being killed by them.
First of all, we need to define "hook turn." Does your definition of "hook
turn" include unintentional panic turns? Or do you differentiate between a
hook turn and a panic turn? Both involve low turns that the uninitiated might
consider to be identical. Both result in injuries and fatalities. But the
causes and (most importantly) the *solutions* differ.
> You can argue until you are blue in the face and you'll never convince
>an objective observer that doing hook turns does not increase the likelihood
>of an injury or death--regardless of experience.
I don't think Dave is trying to convince anyone that "doing hook turns does not
increase the likelihood of an injury or death." That wasn't his point at all,
in fact, at least not from my reading.
Blue Skies,
Marc
Basebabe
> turn" include unintentional panic turns? Or do you differentiate between a
> hook turn and a panic turn? Both involve low turns that the uninitiated might
> consider to be identical. Both result in injuries and fatalities. But the
> causes and (most importantly) the *solutions* differ.
Oh, no. Here we go again... Now we can add "panic turn" to the different terms
used to describe a low-turn...
Marc
>>I said:
What do you mean "add?" The term "panic turn" has_been_part of many peoples'
vocabulary for quite a number of years....
Basebabe
> >terms
> >used to describe a low-turn...
>
> What do you mean "add?" The term "panic turn" has_been_part of many peoples'
> vocabulary for quite a number of years....
I was referring to the recent discussions on the definition of a hook turn. "Hook
turn" and "low turn" were used quite a bit, but not "panic turn."
Groovicool
Mike wrote:
IMHO it is the proliferation of your general
>attitude of hook turns, and finding every possible argument as to why they
>ARE NOT TO BLAME that is the main reason so many are being killed by them.
~~~
It is not the "hook-turn" that kills/maims the individual so much as it is the
poor judgment by the skydiver. This is like the old argument "Guns kill
people...No, PEOPLE kill people." Not everyone that does a hook turn kills
himself/herself. If executed_in the proper manner_, a hook turn CAN be safe.
Check out the stats on hook-turn fatalities. What are the average jump numbers
of the folks that die _trying_ to hook but don't know how to do them correctly?
Are they hooking or are they doing a panic-stricken low turn? Unfortunately,
you're always going to have that poor soul that tries to emulate the 'cool'
hooks they see the EXPERIENCED canopy pilots perform. You can tell the
skydiver that he's being unsafe until you're blue in the face, but if he has
his head up his ass and is damn bound and determined to impress people and try
to look cool, then it's his own shitty decision that causes the accident.
~~~~~~~~
> You can argue until you are blue in the face and you'll never convince
>an objective observer that doing hook turns does not increase the likelihood
>of an injury or death--regardless of experience.
>S.D. Mike
~~~
Yeah, and you'd have a hard time convincing the "objective observer" that
skydiving is fun, too. It totally depends on your audience. You could use
your argument to justify NOT jumping from Cessnas, NOT doing big ways, NOT
doing video, NOT doing CRW, or NOT going to Quincy. It just boils down to the
individual taking responsibility for his/her own actions and not shucking the
blame off on a "category."
blue ones,
arlo :)
p.s. FWIW, I don't do hook turns.
Mike Manuel
know the difference between a "hook turn" an intentional maneuver, and a
fuck up--turning too low due to obstacle, traffic, or not paying attention.
Don't try to clutter up what we ALL know to be. A HOOK TURN is a HOOK TURN.
Was, is and always will be, and you can put as much sugar on it as you want
and it ain't gonna change it.
The biggest problem with my argument is most of those with the real
first hand knowledge and truth that could support the view are DEAD. The
problem with your argument and Dave's line of reasoning is that many of them
that subsribe to it WILL BE DEAD. Hate to see that shit happen.
SD Mike
----------
In article <20000809143746...@ng-cp1.aol.com>,
frefa...@aol.com (Marc) wrote:
> Mike Manuel wrote:
>
>>Dave--I'll not waste the space to counter all of your counters to my post
>>about hook turn landings.
>
> What Dave said made a lot of sense to me. I'm not sure how most of it could
be
> convincingly "countered."
>
> IMHO it is the proliferation of your general
>>attitude of hook turns, and finding every possible argument as to why they
>>ARE NOT TO BLAME that is the main reason so many are being killed by them.
>
> First of all, we need to define "hook turn." Does your definition of "hook
> turn" include unintentional panic turns? Or do you differentiate between a
> hook turn and a panic turn? Both involve low turns that the uninitiated might
> consider to be identical. Both result in injuries and fatalities. But the
> causes and (most importantly) the *solutions* differ.
>
>> You can argue until you are blue in the face and you'll never convince
>>an objective observer that doing hook turns does not increase the likelihood
>>of an injury or death--regardless of experience.
>
> I don't think Dave is trying to convince anyone that "doing hook turns does
not
mar
I agree with your reply to Mike's post - I was actually going to
respond to him the same way - there is a HUGE difference between a hook
turn and a "panic turn" (which is the BEST definition for this recent
group of fatalities where low-number jumpers perform a "low turn")
Hook turn definition: A purposeful, high speed, front riser turn, whose
sole purpose is to provide the jumper with high landing speed in order
to get "surf" and a long landing swoop. The "hook turn" is set up
HUNDREDS of feet above the initial point of making the hook turn, and
it is not a last minute decision.
When a jumper lines up on final, and then, as numerous recent incident
reports state, he suddenly makes a 90 or 180 degree turn (usually off
the wind line), causing the canpoy to impact the ground diving, this,
to me, is nothing even close to resembling a hook turn. To blame the
"hook turn" for these deaths is only finding a scapegoat (the hook
turn) instead of focusing on the real problem, which is inadequate
canopy control training. Being under a lightly loaded, docile canopy
helps, but only because it gives you more time to make decisions. I'm
sure everyone can recall at least one person who broke themselves or
killed themselves turning a huge F-111 into the ground.
The answer is not to put everyone under a big boat until some magic
number of jumps, and it's DEFINATELY not banning hook turns. It's more
comprehensive canopy control education, and it HAS to start at the AFF
level, since many of those injuring themselves are right off student
status.
Blue skies,
Mariann
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Jazzjumper
The last thing I would want to do is offend the family of this poor
soul, but discussing these issues openly and at least raises the
issues with the participants and hopefully, heightens our awareness.
I'm a low-jump B myself... and have had two minor low turn (very slow
but still low) incidents myself. After seeing all the low turn injury
and fatality information, I'm very careful to set up high and give
myself good outs. I was also lucky never to be injured.
M seems to be more concerned with the wuffos' opinions of our sport
rather than the safety of our participants. I, for one, want to learn
all I can about situations resulting in injuries and fatalities.
Those who learn from history are destined not to repeat the bad parts.
God bless his family... may he truly be singing with the birds....
Jamie
B-23350, A-33665
John
explains all the screaming about hooks.
Low turns do hurt and kill many people every year. To most of us
the difference between an intentional turn and 'panic turn' is
very obvious however. If you choose not to make that
distinction, then most of your statements are correct.
All of us take risks, not just in skydiving but in everything we
do. The decision as to what reward is worth what risk is a
personal one. There is no 'shame' in risking it all for
something that most people would consider a trivial joy. It is a
personal decision. Like most personal decisions, some will agree
and some won't. That's life.
I recently had to catalog my own priorities and my conclusions
left me shocked at my own actions and poor judgement. But my own
decisions are for me to ponder and maybe second guess,not for
others to manipulate or use as a soap box to preach from.
All who have posted here have made good and bad decisions at one
time or another, look at my posts and you will see some of my
less brilliant utterings I'm sure. But please leave ALL the
information in the reports, some of us want to keep on learning.
And learning from someone elses mistakes is much easier than
learning things the hard way. Tust me on this one, I know.
Bloo Ones y'all.
John
joel
I guess it is about time to come out and let you all know what we can
surmise. Tom was a conservative jumper in all aspects. There were two
factors that contributed to his accident, but we will never know the full
truth. First, Tom was jumping a farily new-to-him Falcon that he may not
have been fully aware of its capabilities, even lightly loaded. Yet he had
no problems with it before sunday. again, he was conservative. Two, it was
his 100th jump and he may have wanted to make it a special achievement by
landing on the peas, but we will never know for sure. It was not a hook
turn as his right hand toggle was buried on impact according to joe.
we all know people who are safe drivers but just that once lost control of
their car and barely survived or perhaps not. This is much akin to. a safe
jumper who made one fatal mistake.
Tom's father died of a heart attack a year older than Tom was. His wife
said TOm led a better life than his father. From what I know of Tom he
passed doing what he loved.
joel
D15159
>turn" include unintentional panic turns? Or do you differentiate between a
>hook turn and a panic turn? Both involve low turns that the uninitiated
>might
>consider to be identical.
>>
You started off good but then didn't answer the question. For purposes of
discussion I would offer a "hook turn" is any over 90 degrees. These can be
performed in many ways; high performance, panic, botched, riser, toggle, high,
low, etc. but to me they are all hooks. They can also be done beautifully,
obscenely, or unfortunately, and it seems the scores are not consistant.
Semantics do not change nor soften the impact of these losses. They all involve
a radical turn, too close to the ground for what ever reason. I'll leave it to
the "hookers" to debate style but a hook is a hook. Blues, JG
KeithV7712
IMHO
Paul W. Gibbs
>turn as his right hand toggle was buried on impact according to joe.
???
Alan Binnebose
EXTreme VX. He was working on staying with a jumper wearing a Birdman suit
in freefall. He said they were going to get it, they just had to "work out
some angles." I have done 60 on my 89 loaded at 2.36 and it was on a radar
gun. I wasn't even trying for speed, just doing a "normal" approach. You
can believe 100 mph on a 46 loaded at 3.5.
--
Blue Skies,
Alan Binnebose D17868
Bonnie <bon...@gravitygear.com> wrote in message
news:607k5.105$qz5.2...@news.pacbell.net...
> .
> > No shit? 100 MPH! I'd like to see data on this. I can believe 60..
> > but I'd have to see a radar gun on 100 MPH
>
Alan Binnebose
to me that they haven't gotten any very accurate speed readings yet, but
what they have gotten so far has been about 100 mph.
--
Blue Skies,
Alan Binnebose D17868
Livendive <livendiv...@aol.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:1ef64b28...@usw-ex0106-047.remarq.com...
kr...@philly.infi.net
a tragic error on final approach ... and paid the price. :(
This just doesn't sound like your typical "hot dogging" it-type
incident.
Blue skies!
--rita
In article <00a9df70...@usw-ex0106-046.remarq.com>,
John <stiletto1...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
> Doesn't sound like a hookturn to me........
>
> John
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
> Up to 100 minutes free!
> http://www.keen.com
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
D15159
>explains all the screaming about hooks.
I was not screaming, condemning, or even discussing the merits. I deferred that
to the "hookers".
>To most of us
>the difference between an intentional turn and 'panic turn' is
>very obvious however. If you choose not to make that
>distinction,
Both can have the exact same results. The point of the post was just to try
simplify the subject by starting with a premise that ALL of these are hook
turns. From there you can debate the "technique".
>All of us take risks, not just in skydiving (snip the rest of the
proclamation....)
Your preaching to the choir ;-) Blues, JG
Wils Rob
>turn and a "panic turn" (which is the BEST definition for this recent
>group of fatalities where low-number jumpers perform a "low turn")
>
The suggestion here seems to be that any HOOK turn that is successful is just
that...a Hook Turn. However, if it results in an accident or a fatality then
it's a bad turn or a panic turn....made by someone who really didn't know how
to fly a canopy.
there have been plenty of HOOK TURN fatalities by experienced skydivers whose
canopy control skills were never questioned. Some of these jumpers were also
described as "conservative" and sensible. There are also other contributing
factors. Demoing unfamiliar canopies...or jumping at a DZ at a totally
different altitude on an extremely hot day....etc...etc.
In my mind a hook turn is a hook turn...bad or good.
And no...I can't recall anyone killing themselves by turning a HUGE F-111
canopy into the ground.
wilson
skydiving
Marc
> Not to drag this out, but all intelligent people in the skydiving world
>know the difference between a "hook turn" an intentional maneuver, and a
>fuck up--turning too low due to obstacle, traffic, or not paying attention.
If you were around for the discussion which took place here about a month ago
you would know that your statement here is false. Not ALL "intelligent people
in the skydiving world" agree on the definition of precisely what a hook turn
is. That's why I asked you what your definition was. You have now provided at
least a partial definition by saying that hook turns are "intentional" landing
maneuvers (intended to build speed, I'll add) and can be distinguished from
other low turns. Thank you. I agree.
>Don't try to clutter up what we ALL know to be.
But we DON'T all agree on the precisce definition. I'm not trying to "clutter
up" anything, I was simply trying to find out what your definition is. Thank
you.
> A HOOK TURN is a HOOK TURN.
Are you aware that there are people who believe that ALL low turns which have
the general shape of a "hook" constitute a "hook turn?" Those people use this
same exact statement ("a hook turn is a hook turn") to support THEIR definition
-- and their definition CONTRADICTS yours.
>Was, is and always will be, and you can put as much sugar on it as you want
>and it ain't gonna change it.
Since you and I seem to agree that "hook turns" are intentional in nature, I'm
left to wonder why you're railing against "hook turns" on this thread? From
all reports it DOES NOT sound as if the deceased was intending to perform a
hook turn. It does not sound as though he was the "hook turn" type.
> The biggest problem with my argument is most of those with the real
>first hand knowledge and truth that could support the view are DEAD.
Another false statement. Review the incident reports for the past decade.
You'll find somewhere in the ballpark of 100-150 people who have died with good
canopies. Roughly half were relatively low experience and/or known as
"conservative jumpers" who were not known for doing "hook turns." A few died
for medical reasons (ie. heart attack). One shot himself under canopy. At
least one (and probably 2 or 3) drowned. At least two did face plants on
landing which were severe enough to break their necks. A few more flew into
obstacles, etc. When you subtract all of these out, you're left with roughly
40-65 people who were killed as the result of "hook turns." This is a very
crude estimate, but it's good enough for our purposes. Just to be conservative
and give you the benefit of the doubt I'll add a few back -- so let's say that
50-75 died performing hook turns. Now let's examine your statement again:
You claim that "most of those with the real first hand knowledge and truth . .
. are DEAD." Hmmmm. So if 75 equals "most" then the TOTAL NUMBER of people
who have "first hand knowledge and truth" about hook turns is 149 people or
less. 149 out of 30,000+ skydivers in this country? That's less than 0.5
skydivers per DZ who have "first hand knowledge and truth." Sorry, but that's
utter nonsense.
The
>problem with your argument and Dave's line of reasoning is that many of them
>that subsribe to it WILL BE DEAD. Hate to see that shit happen.
We'll all be dead, of course.
Blue Skies,
Marc
Marc
>>John said:
>>It would seem to me that 'your' definition of a 'hookturn'
>>explains all the screaming about hooks.
>
>I was not screaming, condemning, or even discussing the merits. I deferred
>that
>to the "hookers".
He didn't say_you_were screaming. He said your definition_explains_the
screaming. Big difference.
>>To most of us
>>the difference between an intentional turn and 'panic turn' is
>>very obvious however. If you choose not to make that
>>distinction,
>
>Both can have the exact same results.
Why is it that the people who want to classify ALL 90+ degree turns as "hook
turns" keep harping on "results?" A bullet in the brain has the same "result"
whether the bullet got there by way of suicide, murder, or accident, but the
lesson to be learned is DIFFERENT! The prevention required is DIFFERENT!
The point of the post was just to try
>simplify the subject by starting with a premise that ALL of these are hook
>turns.
But they're NOT. Not if we define "hook turn" as an intentional maneuver to
build speed for landing.
According to Mike Manuel, "all intelligent skydivers" recognize the difference
between a hook turn (an intentional maneuver to build speed) and other low
turns which, although they may be "intended," they are really just errors in
judgment *unrelated* to any intention to build speed. Based upon what Mike
said about "intelligent skydivers," I think he's callin' you stoopid JG. ;-)
Some closing comments:
All hook turns are low turns (*relatively* low, many hook turns are initiated
at 500+ feet), but not all low turns are hook turns! (even if they exceed 90
degrees!)
All botched hook turns are botched low turns, but not all botched low turns are
botched hook turns! (even if they exceed 90 degrees!)
The crux of the issue is this:
Is "intent to build speed" a necessary requirement for a turn to fit the
definition of a "hook turn?" In my opinion, the answer is "yes." Without the
requisite intent to build speed, it's a_low_turn, but not a "hook turn."
Blue Skies,
Marc
posted & mailed
Marc
>>there is a HUGE difference between a hook
>>turn and a "panic turn" (which is the BEST definition for this recent
>>group of fatalities where low-number jumpers perform a "low turn")
>>
>
>The suggestion here seems to be that any HOOK turn that is successful is just
>that...a Hook Turn. However, if it results in an accident or a fatality then
>it's a bad turn or a panic turn....made by someone who really didn't know how
>to fly a canopy.
Nope, that's not the suggestion. The suggestion is that a "hook turn" is a
maneuver intended to build speed for landing. Low turns which are *not*
intended to build speed for landing fit into other categories (ie. panic turn).
>there have been plenty of HOOK TURN fatalities by experienced skydivers
>whose
>canopy control skills were never questioned.
Yep. These people truly did "hook it in." Other people who frap just botched
a low turn of some other variety (ie. panic turn), but they didn't botch a
"hook turn."
There are also other contributing
>factors. Demoing unfamiliar canopies...or jumping at a DZ at a totally
>different altitude on an extremely hot day....etc...etc.
Yep. But when they turned were they intending to build speed for landing? If
so, it was a "hook." If not, it was another variety of botched low turn.
>In my mind a hook turn is a hook turn...bad or good.
In my mind, intent is a requisite element (but reasonable minds can disagree).
>And no...I can't recall anyone killing themselves by turning a HUGE F-111
>canopy into the ground.
I can. WFFC '94 (or '95?).
Blue Skies,
Marc
Livendive
>>there is a HUGE difference between a hook
>>turn and a "panic turn" (which is the BEST definition for this
recent
>>group of fatalities where low-number jumpers perform a "low
turn")
>>
>
>The suggestion here seems to be that any HOOK turn that is
successful is just
>that...a Hook Turn. However, if it results in an accident or a
fatality then
>it's a bad turn or a panic turn....made by someone who really
didn't know how
>to fly a canopy.
It appears you're missing the point Wilson. For purposes of
this discussion, a hook turn is an intentional maneuver to build
up landing speed, regardless of outcome. A panic turn is pilot
error for some reason other than intentionally building up speed
(e.g. canopy avoidance, turn into the wind too low, etc), again
regardless of outcome.
>
>there have been plenty of HOOK TURN fatalities by experienced
skydivers whose
>canopy control skills were never questioned. Some of these
jumpers were also
>described as "conservative" and sensible. There are also other
contributing
>factors. Demoing unfamiliar canopies...or jumping at a DZ at a
totally
>different altitude on an extremely hot day....etc...etc.
>
>In my mind a hook turn is a hook turn...bad or good.
>
>And no...I can't recall anyone killing themselves by turning a
HUGE F-111
>canopy into the ground.
Have you read what the canopy involved in this latest fatality
was? It was a Falcon. He's not the only one to make a fatal
error close to the ground while under a low porosity canopy.
Blues,
Dave
>
>wilson
>skydiving
Livendive
SNIP
>For purposes of
>discussion I would offer a "hook turn" is any over 90 degrees.
The fatality a couple weeks ago was a 45 degree front riser turn.
Blues,
Dave
D15159
.>Big difference.
To a Lawyer ;-)
>But they're NOT. Not if we define "hook turn" as an intentional maneuver to
>build speed for landing.
>
I think the nomenclature "high performance landing" describes that pretty well.
You are right, the learning curve is much different but to ignore results does
a real disservice to the newbies. They were not intentionally trying to build
up speed, they wanted to get back into the wind by doing a 180 lower than they
should. They unintentionally built up speed and increased angle of attack. If
they pull it off does it become a "hook turn" and if they don't it is just a
low botched turn? For those us us that have been around awhile, you can call
'em "ring around the rosies"if it turns you on and we will know what your
talking about but I still feel for purposes of discussion you need a starting
point. We have a poster on this NG that almost killed herself on a straight in
and others on 720s but 90 degrees just seems like a good reference point.
>Based upon what Mike
>said about "intelligent skydivers," I think he's callin' you stoopid JG.
>;-)
I know the difference but am still stoopid ;-)
>Without the
>requisite intent to build speed, it's a_low_turn, but not a "hook turn."
>
>Blue Skies,
>
>Marc
And I respectfully disagree. Blues,JG
Marc
>I only wish it was the final word.....
Yeah, I knew it wasn't *really* the final word, but I was kinda hoping...
>.>Big difference.
>To a Lawyer ;-)
In reality, I'm actually aspiring to be a drug peddler, if that changes
anything.
>>But they're NOT. Not if we define "hook turn" as an intentional maneuver to
>>build speed for landing.
>>
>I think the nomenclature "high performance landing" describes that pretty
>well.
Too many syllables. It also conflicts with reality. A crowd of skydivers
watching a pond swooping competition don't stand around saying "Gosh, look at
that well-executed high performance landing. How impressive." They stand
around saying "Hey! Did you see that dude hook the shit out of it?!?! That
rocked!"
I concede that "high performance landing" may be more technically accurate, but
"hook turn" is far more in line with common usage. If the goal is to forge a
common definition which is both readily understood and in conformity with
common usage, then I think my definition better fits the bill.
>You are right, the learning curve is much different but to ignore results
>does
>a real disservice to the newbies.
Who ever suggested ignoring the results? Of COURSE we shouldn't "ignore the
results," but neither should we fail to point out the differences in causation
and *prevention* between a botched hook turn other types of botched low turns.
They were not intentionally trying to build
>up speed, they wanted to get back into the wind by doing a 180 lower than
>they
>should. They unintentionally built up speed and increased angle of attack.
They botched a low turn. Call it a panic turn, if you like.
>If they pull it off does it become a "hook turn"
Nope. If they pull it off it does not become a "hook turn" because they lacked
the requisite intent to build speed for landing. It is simply a (too) low turn
that they managed to get away with.
>and if they don't it is just a low botched turn?
Yes, it is a low botched turn. Call it a panic turn, if you like.
>For those us us that have been around awhile, you can call
>'em "ring around the rosies"if it turns you on and we will know what your
>talking about but I still feel for purposes of discussion you need a starting
>point.
And I'm offering a "starting point." A hook turn, imo, requires an intent to
build speed.
>We have a poster on this NG that almost killed herself on a straight in and
others on 720s but 90 degrees just seems like a good reference point.
90 degrees works for me, but there's more to it than that. For example, a 90
degree flat turn, or even a 180 flat turn, is not a hook turn. For
qualification as a true "hook turn" I believe there are three requirements:
1) A turn which will *generally* be 90 degrees or greater (usually greater).
2) A turn which causes the body of the jumper to pendulum out from under the
canopy to a significant degree. I'd think about 45 degrees would be the
starting point, but it's a gray area.
3) INTENT - The jumper must have the intent to induce speed for landing -- not
to avoid an obstacle or turn back into the wind.
Unless all three components are present, it ain't a hook turn. (imo)
>And I respectfully disagree. Blues,JG
And I respectfully point out that I think your opinion is the minority view.
Blue Skies,
Marc
D15159
>In reality, I'm actually aspiring to be a drug peddler, if that changes
>anything.
Maybe there is hope for you yet ;-)
>"Hey! Did you see that dude hook the shit out of it?!?! That
>rocked!"
>
Yeah, but it works the other way too. When asking what the blue lights were
for, "ah nothing, a newbie just hooked one in".
>"hook turn" is far more in line with common usage. If the goal is to forge a
>common definition which is both readily understood and in conformity with
>common usage, then I think my definition better fits the bill.
Thats sorta where I was going. As others want to vigorously point out the
"Hook" and "Low" turns are different breeds yet with the exception of the
"intent" share more similarities than differences. That is a real moving
target, "I didn't intend to turn that low, get so deep in the corner, someone
cut me off, etc." sounds pretty similar to "botched low turn" excuses to me.
>
>And I respectfully point out that I think your opinion is the minority view.
>
Maybe, but it is just easier for me to explain the similarities rather than the
differences. Over and Out. JG
Marc
>>I said:
>>"Hey! Did you see that dude hook the shit out of it?!?! That
>>rocked!"
>>
>
>Yeah, but it works the other way too. When asking what the blue lights were
>for, "ah nothing, a newbie just hooked one in".
Your point is a pretty good, but speaking for myself I'd be more likely to say
that the newbie "biffed in hard" or made a "panic turn" rather than "hooked one
in" (assuming they weren't *trying* to build speed, that is). Maybe that's
just me, but I don't think so.
>>"hook turn" is far more in line with common usage. If the goal is to forge
>a
>>common definition which is both readily understood and in conformity with
>>common usage, then I think my definition better fits the bill.
>
>Thats sorta where I was going. As others want to vigorously point out the
>"Hook" and "Low" turns are different breeds yet with the exception of the
>"intent" share more similarities than differences.
How so? The results are the SAME, but the causation is DIFFERENT and the
preventative (and remedial) measures are DIFFERENT. Looks to me like there's
more that is DIFFERENT....
That is a real moving
>target, "I didn't intend to turn that low, get so deep in the corner, someone
>cut me off, etc." sounds pretty similar to "botched low turn" excuses to me.
The deciding factor is the presence or absence of intent to build speed. "I
didn't intend to turn that low, but I did intend to build speed" = botched hook
turn. "I didn't intend to turn that low, NOR did I intend to build speed" =
botched low turn. Two different animals, with two different sources, requiring
two different preventive/remedial measures.
>>And I respectfully point out that I think your opinion is the minority view.
>>
>
>Maybe, but it is just easier for me to explain the similarities rather than
>the
>differences. Over and Out. JG
But the only similarity is the result. You're doing newbies a disservice if
you don't inform them of the differences in causation and prevention. IMO.
Blue Skies,
Marc
Will Packard
<snip>
> Your point is a pretty good, but speaking for myself I'd be more likely to say
> that the newbie "biffed in hard" or made a "panic turn" rather than "hooked one
> in" (assuming they weren't *trying* to build speed, that is). Maybe that's
> just me, but I don't think so.
True. There are lots of people who haven't been in the sport
long enough to know that the expression "hook turn" predates
high-performance landings by many years. The expression "hook
turn" refers to the canopy manoeuvre, not to the intent nor
the outcome.
A "low turn" could refer to a hook turn, a brake turn, etc.
Again, this says nothing about the intent, nor the outcome.
If you want to coin a new expression for "intentional hook
turn", feel free.
Will
CRWMike
mar
This fatality in question happened under a Falcon F-111.
At our DZ (SDD in TX), we had a jumper right off student status turn a
student rig (Falcon F-111) loaded at .9 to 1 into the ground and break
his back and mess up his leg (forget whether he broke it or just tore
ligaments). In fact, most of the recent bad landings I have personally
seen or heard official incident reports of have happened under lightly
loaded squares, both F-11 and ZP.
I feel that the "high performance" landing is an auxillary, yet
unnecessary, skill that a small percentage of jumpers choose to learn.
An even smaller percentage of those jumpers that choose to perform high
performance landings will go on and compete at pond swooping and blade
meets. It is a radically different situation when a "high performance"
canopy pilot misjudges a high speed approach, or breaks a brake line
during his/her swoop, or loses a toggle/riser on approach and injures
or kills him/herself. The HP canopy pilot CHOSE to initiate a certain
type of approach and turn onto final whereby the increase in risk was
calculated and deemed worth the risk. This recent group of low-#
jumpers who are hurting/killing themselves BELIEVED that they were
making a reasonable, conservative turn, when it was, in fact,
unrecoverable.
My soap box is basically this: 1.more canopy training/mentoring during
the "student" period (which is reasonably the first 200 jumps), 2.stop
blaming the "hook turn", when it means different things to different
people, and is basically undefinable, and 3. a lightly loaded, "docile"
square is NO SUBSTITUTE for proper canopy control, and you can still
frap in unless you truly understand the flight characteristics of the
canopy.
mar
Well said - I agree 100%! Thanks for taking words right out of my mouth
(saved me some typing!) Blue skies - Mariann
sitflyr
one last month) raises some questions.
I understand the difference between a maneuver intended to generate speed
and an unintentional (or unwise) low turn. What I'm wondering about is when
these definitions came to be. When I started skydiving 31/2 years ago,
"hook turn" was the term used by the old-timers (those with 10, 15 or 20+
years of experience) to describe both types of turns. We newbies would be
scolded for hook turns of the latter type, and the cool guys would show off
their swoops, which were initiated with hook turns of the former type.
Since then, I've jumped at other dzs (5 different states), and I've never
encountered the phrases being used here. I'm still hearing "he hooked it
too low," "he hooked himself in" etc. to describe intentional and
unintentional low turns which ended badly. I've yet to hear anyone state
that a person did a panic turn (except in this ng, of course). Somebody
stated previously that the term "hook turn" predated high performance
canopies and that the term describes the flight path instead of the intent
of the turn. That is also how my instructors explained the term to me back
in my days as a student.
My questions are: What is the *most widely used* term to describe an
unintentional or unwise low turn >90 degrees?
If the most widely used term is not "hook
turn", when did that happen---I musta been asleep!
Blues,
Julie
"Marc" <frefa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000810105607...@ng-cl1.aol.com...
> Wilson wrote:
>
> >>there is a HUGE difference between a hook
> >>turn and a "panic turn" (which is the BEST definition for this recent
> >>group of fatalities where low-number jumpers perform a "low turn")
> >>
> >
> >The suggestion here seems to be that any HOOK turn that is successful is
just
> >that...a Hook Turn. However, if it results in an accident or a fatality
then
> >it's a bad turn or a panic turn....made by someone who really didn't know
how
> >to fly a canopy.
>
>
> Nope, that's not the suggestion. The suggestion is that a "hook turn" is
a
> maneuver intended to build speed for landing. Low turns which are *not*
> intended to build speed for landing fit into other categories (ie. panic
turn).
>
>
> >there have been plenty of HOOK TURN fatalities by experienced skydivers
> >whose
> >canopy control skills were never questioned.
>
> Yep. These people truly did "hook it in." Other people who frap just
botched
> a low turn of some other variety (ie. panic turn), but they didn't botch a
> "hook turn."
>
> There are also other contributing
> >factors. Demoing unfamiliar canopies...or jumping at a DZ at a totally
> >different altitude on an extremely hot day....etc...etc.
>
> Yep. But when they turned were they intending to build speed for landing?
If
> so, it was a "hook." If not, it was another variety of botched low turn.
>
> >In my mind a hook turn is a hook turn...bad or good.
>
> In my mind, intent is a requisite element (but reasonable minds can
disagree).
>
> >And no...I can't recall anyone killing themselves by turning a HUGE
F-111
> >canopy into the ground.
>
ynot...@my-deja.com
Paul Quade <qu...@usa.net> wrote:
> Omaha man dies skydiving after making turn too late.
>
> Full story at;
> http://www.journalstar.com/local?story_id=968&date=20000808&past
...
A quote from the above artcle:
"People ask me, 'How could you let him do that?' He wouldn't be Tom if
he didn't do that."
Now *there* is an intelligent, understanding person!
- tony
__________________________________________________________________
God is really only another artist. He invented the giraffe, the
elephant and the cat. He has no real style, He just goes on trying
other things.
- -- Pablo Picasso
-
Marc
[snip]
>There are lots of people who haven't been in the sport
>long enough to know that the expression "hook turn" predates
>high-performance landings by many years.
That is true. Heck, for that matter "hook turns" predate square canopies --
I've heard more than one long-time jumper claim that they used to "hook turn"
Para-Commanders and the like.
The expression "hook
>turn" refers to the canopy manoeuvre, not to the intent nor
>the outcome.
There is certainly a strong argument to be made for what you say here. To
paraphrase, I believe your position is that the term "hook turn" is derived
from the shape of the canopy's flight path, and therefore ANY flight path in
that shape -- whether intentional or not -- constitutes a "hook turn."
Modern common usage, however, is a bit different. When MOST people use the
term "hook turn" they are referring to an intentional maneuver to build speed
for landing. If the goal is to forge a common definition which newbies will
understand, I think it is important to differentiate between intentional
maneuvers and unintentional maneuvers. Since MOST people nowadays are
referring to intentional maneuvers when they use the term "hook turn," I think
it makes sense to go with the flow, and to refer to unintentional turns as "low
turns," or "panic turns," even if they happen to take the shape of a "hook."
>If you want to coin a new expression for "intentional hook
>turn", feel free.
But I don't want to "coin a new expression." I think it'll be easier to keep
everyone on the same page (especially newbies) if we "go with the flow" and
adopt what seems to be the modern majority definition of "hook turn" -- a turn,
generally greater than 90 degrees, which causes the jumper's body to pendulum
out to a significant degree, which is performed with the intention of building
speed for landing.
I mean, I see your point, and I acknowledge the historical perspective of what
a "hook turn" is, but I just think it'd be easier to adopt the modern common
usage with regards to training of newbies.
Blue Skies,
Marc
Martin Evans
> news:20000810105607...@ng-cl1.aol.com...
> > Wilson wrote:
> >
> > >>there is a HUGE difference between a hook
> > >>turn and a "panic turn" (which is the BEST definition for this recent
> > >>group of fatalities where low-number jumpers perform a "low turn")
> > >>
> > >
> > >The suggestion here seems to be that any HOOK turn that is successful
is
> just
> > >that...a Hook Turn. However, if it results in an accident or a
fatality
> then
> > >it's a bad turn or a panic turn....made by someone who really didn't
know
> how
> > >to fly a canopy.
> >
> >
> > Nope, that's not the suggestion. The suggestion is that a "hook turn"
is
> a
> > maneuver intended to build speed for landing. Low turns which are *not*
> > intended to build speed for landing fit into other categories (ie. panic
> turn).
sitflyr <sit...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8mvlk...@enews3.newsguy.com...
> Sorry to butt in, you guys, but the debate in this thread (and the similar
> one last month) raises some questions.
> I understand the difference between a maneuver intended to generate speed
> and an unintentional (or unwise) low turn. What I'm wondering about is
when
> these definitions came to be. When I started skydiving 31/2 years ago,
> "hook turn" was the term used by the old-timers (those with 10, 15 or 20+
> years of experience) to describe both types of turns. We newbies would be
> scolded for hook turns of the latter type, and the cool guys would show
off
> their swoops, which were initiated with hook turns of the former type.
> Since then, I've jumped at other dzs (5 different states), and I've never
> encountered the phrases being used here. I'm still hearing "he hooked it
> too low," "he hooked himself in" etc. to describe intentional and
> unintentional low turns which ended badly.
> I've yet to hear anyone state
> that a person did a panic turn (except in this ng, of course).
That's because this newsgroup isn't populated by many with much real life
experience and the little they have (or of the incidents they hear of) they
like to sanitize for their own peace of mind, believing that by doing so
they can save themselves from the same fate of those unfortunate enough to
be written about here or in the skydiving publications! What they should be
doing is accepting that 'what is is' and learning from that and from those
who are not PC enough to be anything but straightforward to them!
> Somebody
> stated previously that the term "hook turn" predated high performance
> canopies and that the term describes the flight path instead of the intent
> of the turn. That is also how my instructors explained the term to me
back
> in my days as a student.
and they are absolutely correct!
>
> My questions are: What is the *most widely used* term to describe an
> unintentional or unwise low turn >90 degrees?
they 'hooked it in'!
> If the most widely used term is not "hook
> turn", when did that happen---I musta been asleep!
>
> Blues,
> Julie
Me too!
--
Blue ones,
Stay Safe.
Martin Evans.
--
For information about Sky-Eye Skydiving Services please visit our website
at:
http://www.skyeyeskydiving.com
after browsing please follow the links to Skydive Delmarva & Skydive
Sebastian.
"Never confuse movement with action". Ernest Hemingway
D15159
>usage with regards to training of newbies.
With hand shaking wildly in air......
oooooo, ooooooo, oooooooo, Mr. Kotter, Mr.Kotter ;-)
Will Packard
<snip>
> Modern common usage, however, is a bit different. When MOST people use the
> term "hook turn" they are referring to an intentional maneuver to build speed
> for landing. If the goal is to forge a common definition which newbies will
> understand, I think it is important to differentiate between intentional
> maneuvers and unintentional maneuvers. Since MOST people nowadays are
> referring to intentional maneuvers when they use the term "hook turn," I think
> it makes sense to go with the flow, and to refer to unintentional turns as "low
> turns," or "panic turns," even if they happen to take the shape of a "hook."
I think that the confusion comes from the fact that, these days, most
hook turns are intentional. This was not the case even ten years ago.
Low turns don't need to be "hook turns". They could be brake turns or
gentle toggle turns. The expression "panic turn" sounds like a reasonable
substitute for "unintentional hook turn", though.
> >If you want to coin a new expression for "intentional hook
> >turn", feel free.
>
> But I don't want to "coin a new expression." I think it'll be easier to keep
> everyone on the same page (especially newbies) if we "go with the flow" and
> adopt what seems to be the modern majority definition of "hook turn" -- a turn,
> generally greater than 90 degrees, which causes the jumper's body to pendulum
> out to a significant degree, which is performed with the intention of building
> speed for landing.
>
> I mean, I see your point, and I acknowledge the historical perspective of what
> a "hook turn" is, but I just think it'd be easier to adopt the modern common
> usage with regards to training of newbies.
I like the idea of a common definition for skydiving expressions. I honestly
don't care what the definition of "hook turn" is, as long as everyone can
agree.
My definition would be something like:
Hook Turn: a canopy turn, performed at low altitude and generally greater
than 90 degrees, which causes the jumper's body to pendulum
out to a significant degree.
Will
Jan Meyer
> Low turns don't need to be "hook turns". They could be brake turns or
> gentle toggle turns. The expression "panic turn" sounds like a reasonable
> substitute for "unintentional hook turn", though.
that are done by the folks that usually have a conservative approach as
an 'error in judgement turn' or it could be a 'get-home-itis' turn.
they were probaly not in a 'panic'-mind set.
--
Jan Meyer
mailto:Aeroso...@MakeItHappen.com
http://www.MakeItHappen.com
http://www.DiveMaker.com
Marc
>Will Packard wrote:
> > Low turns don't need to be "hook turns". They could be brake turns or
>> gentle toggle turns. The expression "panic turn" sounds like a reasonable
>> substitute for "unintentional hook turn", though.
>
>to steal a phrase from greg luganis, i see the fatal or near-fatal turns
>that are done by the folks that usually have a conservative approach as
>an 'error in judgement turn' or it could be a 'get-home-itis' turn.
>they were probaly not in a 'panic'-mind set.
But a lot of 'em ARE in a "panic" mind-set. How many times have you read
something like "the deceased apparently realized they were flying downwing and
initiated a toggle turn back into the wind at an altitude insufficient for
their canopy to recover..."
They realize something is "wrong," and take inappropriate action as the result
of fear or "panic" at the possibility of landing downwind. Yes, it's an "error
in judgement" as you state above, but the error in judgement is induced by a
sudden realization (downwind) which leads to an inappropriate response (panic).
Blue Skies,
Marc
Alan Binnebose
Horshack!?
--
Blue Skies,
Alan Binnebose D17868
D15159 <d15...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000811124149...@ng-fb1.aol.com...
> >I just think it'd be easier to adopt the modern common
> >usage with regards to training of newbies.
>
D15159
Sorry, thought a bunch of other hands would go up after that statement;-)
Blues, JG
Jan Meyer
> But a lot of 'em ARE in a "panic" mind-set. How many times have you read
> something like "the deceased apparently realized they were flying downwing and
> initiated a toggle turn back into the wind at an altitude insufficient for
> their canopy to recover..."
bad.
just cuz i read somethin' doesn't mean i believe it.
i've talked to enuf of the 'almost bounced' folks to know that they
don't go telling the S&TA what they were *really* thinking at the time.
This is bcz it WILL be put into some *offical* documentation. They don't
want that, so they are mum to the *officials*
The ones that escape with their life, learn their lesson and most often
it's an 'error in judgement'. Sometimes it is a panic mind set - but
that's not what most folks tell me.
in regards to low turns, the survivors have told me:
1. that they were looking at the wrong place, or
2. they *suddenly* saw traffic they had to avoid with no out left for
them or
3. they thought they wouldn't loose so much altitude
after discussing possible alternatives for each of these, the jumpers
conclude that they should:
1. look for the stationary point to know if you're in the corner etc.
This also adds in the peril of not seeing others under canopy. This
boils down to looking at the ground in order to do a low turn safely.
Yet they will admit that this is not 'keeping your head on a swival.'
Watch some of the POV videos of the super swoopers to how much they look
at the ground during the excecution of their low turn.
2. don't do low turns in traffic - keep more outs, even if it means
walking
3. pay attention to density altitude (something some jumpers didn't
realize was significant in the SW states)
the 'error in judgment' is disregarding one facet in order to
concentrate on another facet of a low turn.
in order to do a low turn safely you have to pay attention to others,
the ground and your altitude loss - all at the same time. if you loose
any one of these you could end up slamming yourself into the ground or
running into someone else.
Alan Binnebose
with his/her own gear and is truly on their own (including myself). Most of
the time we all get lucky and they just get the crap scared out of them. A
few have to get scared more than once. Most learn the lesson and move on.
Some get hurt. A few get dead. A few get by until they are "experienced"
and then get hurt or dead. Who among us can honestly look back and say they
have never made a "panic turn"? Damn few, if any. My "panic turn" came
under a Cruiselite 220 loaded at about .9 with less than 30 jumps. The
result was I got the crap scared out of me and I vowed to learn and become a
better pilot. My "hook turns" come under an EXTreme VX 89 loaded at 2.3+
with more than 1000 jumps. The result to date is that I have taken my
Cruiselite experience and become a knowledgeable pilot with enough skill to
safely fly the VX. I am still learning. The thing is, Rule #1 is: I am
human. Rule #2 is: Humans make mistakes. Rule #3 is: We can't change rule
#2. We can try and we can deal the aftermath, but we can't change it.
--
Blue Skies,
Alan Binnebose D17868
Marc <frefa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000811162432...@ng-cp1.aol.com...
> Jan Meyer wrote:
>
> >
> >to steal a phrase from greg luganis, i see the fatal or near-fatal turns
> >that are done by the folks that usually have a conservative approach as
> >an 'error in judgement turn' or it could be a 'get-home-itis' turn.
> >they were probaly not in a 'panic'-mind set.
>
> But a lot of 'em ARE in a "panic" mind-set. How many times have you read
> something like "the deceased apparently realized they were flying downwing
and
> initiated a toggle turn back into the wind at an altitude insufficient for
> their canopy to recover..."
>
> They realize something is "wrong," and take inappropriate action as the
result
> of fear or "panic" at the possibility of landing downwind. Yes, it's an
"error
Alan Binnebose
Alan, the Devil's Advocate decides to jump in here.
Jan Meyer <Aeroso...@MakeItHappen.com> wrote in message
news:39947C61...@MakeItHappen.com...
> Marc wrote:
> > But a lot of 'em ARE in a "panic" mind-set. How many times have you read
> > something like "the deceased apparently realized they were flying
downwing and
> > initiated a toggle turn back into the wind at an altitude insufficient
for
> > their canopy to recover..."
>
> stuff like "the deceased apparently ..." is a guess...maybe good, maybe
> bad.
Agreed
> just cuz i read somethin' doesn't mean i believe it.
OK
> i've talked to enuf of the 'almost bounced' folks to know that they
> don't go telling the S&TA what they were *really* thinking at the time.
> This is bcz it WILL be put into some *offical* documentation.
Really?
>They don't
> want that, so they are mum to the *officials*
And this is one of the secrets they have shared with you?
So, you don't necessarily believe what you read, but are more inclined to
believe what you hear. They won't tell the S&TA what they were really
thinking because it might end up in a report, but they choose to share the
real truth with you.
> The ones that escape with their life, learn their lesson and most often
> it's an 'error in judgement'. Sometimes it is a panic mind set - but
> that's not what most folks tell me.
And your assumption here is that even though they would not tell the real
truth to the S&TA, they will share it with you.
> in regards to low turns, the survivors have told me:
> 1. that they were looking at the wrong place,
Then panicked and made a bad decision.
>or
> 2. they *suddenly* saw traffic they had to avoid with no out left for
> them
Then panicked and made a bad decision.
>or
> 3. they thought they wouldn't loose so much altitude
No panic here, until they realize that they have made a bad decision. You
are only one for three here.
> after discussing possible alternatives for each of these, the jumpers
> conclude that they should:
> 1. look for the stationary point to know if you're in the corner etc.
> This also adds in the peril of not seeing others under canopy. This
> boils down to looking at the ground in order to do a low turn safely.
> Yet they will admit that this is not 'keeping your head on a swival.'
> Watch some of the POV videos of the super swoopers to how much they look
> at the ground during the excecution of their low turn.
> 2. don't do low turns in traffic - keep more outs, even if it means
> walking
> 3. pay attention to density altitude (something some jumpers didn't
> realize was significant in the SW states)
Very good points. I got lucky on # 3 myself last winter....even though I
was aware of it, it takes a few jumps to get a good feel for how it affects
your canopy flight. BTW, I panicked and made a bad decision.
> the 'error in judgment' is disregarding one facet in order to
> concentrate on another facet of a low turn.
This does not preclude panic. Do you mean to tell us that as you look back
at your own experience that you never suddenly found yourself in an
unfamiliar situation under canopy where your first response wasn't fright
and that you didn't then make a bad decision? Like you, I don't always
believe or trust what I read. Unlike you, I don't always trust or believe
what others tell me. ( I put that in as bait. ) I do however, trust and
believe in my own experiences. I have made a panic turn. I have observed
many others in near identicle situations and seen them react as I did. I do
not believe that I am any different than anyone else. If I did a panic
turn, I believe they did as well. I am not a mind reader. I am human.
They are human. I do not have to be a mind reader to understand what was
going on.
> in order to do a low turn safely you have to pay attention to others,
> the ground and your altitude loss - all at the same time. if you loose
> any one of these you could end up slamming yourself into the ground or
> running into someone else.
Very true. But, you can also not be intending to do a low turn and still
have to do all of the above. If you lose track of any one, you could do a
panic turn and end up slamming yourself into the ground or running into
someone else.
TY
Jan Meyer wrote:
>
> 1. look for the stationary point to know if you're in the corner etc.
> This also adds in the peril of not seeing others under canopy. This
> boils down to looking at the ground in order to do a low turn safely.
Can anyone explain to a newbie what is meant by "the corner"? I've seen it
mentioned a few times but am not sure what it means.
Thanx,
TY
Mike Manuel
jumpers at random (old, new, experienced etc.) at a busy drop zone some
weekend what they felt a hook turn refers to they would overwhelmingly
describe a high speed turn MADE INTENTIONALLY and with forethought, to
facilitate an enhanced landing or maneuver of some type, usually at a low
altitude. You can practice hook turns at 2000 feet to get a feel for the
swing of you canopy, or the responsiveness of front riser vs. rear/toggles.
You may use almost the same type of turn to initiate pilot/pin on a CRW
jump. But the broad and common understanding< I believe you will find, is
intentional for landing purposes.
Panic, I do not believe, needs to be used in low turn burn ins when it
was not intentional. There are many possible reasons for a low turn other
than panic. In the novice jumper it may be total 'unawareitis'-not
realizing how close they are and how many feet a canopy drops when
turned--they tried a 180 degree turn at 1500 ft and they didn't seem to lose
much altitude. Unawareness of surroundings which could be simply not paying
attention. A low timer, or anyone just not paying attention, sees two
canopies cross in front of them just as they have started a turn and rather
than focusing on the turn they watch the canopies fly by--can't recover.
Many people do have dramatic problems with depth perception. If that is
added to a smidgen of distraction they may not be able to recover in
time--even though they do not realize the trouble they are in and don't
panic per se.
You then of course have the panics, total miscalculations and errors
(forced or not) and those that don't pay attention until they are at a point
that they have time to act--but panic and error instead of landing a PLF or
slide in.
The death that started this thread does not, and did not appear to be a
'hook turn' by the above description. It was a "low turn that could not be
recovered from".
For me, those are the definitions. Hook is intentional for a purpose and
others are low turns that could not be recovered from. As many have stated,
it seems logical the term originally was to designate that a turn was held
long enough that the canopy flight looked like a 'J' or a hook--but we have
since then commonized it to mean something different.
I still contend that hook turn deaths are not true accidents as far as
statistics of the sport go. Someone mentioned that if they were not
accidents they were suicide. Not necessarily. Also, someone mentioned that
vertical speed of a canopy could not approach the speed of freefall and
exits from hook turns don't exceed 75 MPH. I believe the tests they are
doing with the new canopies show that is not true. Speed is increasing.
And although few, if hardly any are approaching those speeds this year--we
ALL know how quickly the band wagon fills up once something new, fancier or
faster is available.
I do not have a problem with those people injuring or killing themselves
(I am not morbid or without feelings, but they are doing what they 'must'
do)--they are experienced people that have weighed the risk and decided to
take it. But in doing so, it is not really an accident.
Virtually every step forward in this world is made by such people--so
that eventually it filters down to us at acceptable levels of risk (even the
first cars).
As a JM, Instructor and toadsucker CReW pup who has been lucky enough to
be in some 30 way+ dioamonds and seen nylon wrapped where it should not be,
my main concern is not those gifted and expert 'pioneers'. My concern is
that WE all to often treat such maneuvers as 'normal', and 'safe if done
properly' to jumpers that either do not have the jumps, the experience or
the coordination to ever move them into the class of those that have the
best odds at living through them.
S.D. Mike
----------
In article <20000811112444...@ng-me1.aol.com>,
frefa...@aol.com (Marc) wrote:
> The expression "hook
>>turn" refers to the canopy manoeuvre, not to the intent nor
>>the outcome.
> Modern common usage, however, is a bit different. When MOST people use the
> term "hook turn" they are referring to an intentional maneuver to build speed
> for landing. If the goal is to forge a common definition which newbies will
> understand, I think it is important to differentiate between intentional
> maneuvers and unintentional maneuvers. Since MOST people nowadays are
> referring to intentional maneuvers when they use the term "hook turn," I think
> it makes sense to go with the flow, and to refer to unintentional turns as
"low
> turns," or "panic turns," even if they happen to take the shape of a "hook."
> But I don't want to "coin a new expression." I think it'll be easier to keep
> everyone on the same page (especially newbies) if we "go with the flow" and
> adopt what seems to be the modern majority definition of "hook turn" -- a
turn,
> generally greater than 90 degrees, which causes the jumper's body to pendulum
> out to a significant degree, which is performed with the intention of building
> speed for landing.
>
> I mean, I see your point, and I acknowledge the historical perspective of what
> a "hook turn" is, but I just think it'd be easier to adopt the modern common
> usage with regards to training of newbies.
>
> Blue Skies,
>
> Marc
>
>
LORD OF THE SKY
Marc wrote in message <20000810132814...@ng-cq1.aol.com>...
>If they pull it off it does not become a "hook turn" because they lacked
>the requisite intent to build speed for landing.
There is a *legal* definition of a "hook turn" already established.
It has no requisite of "intent". No requisite of 90 degree turn.It is
supplied to me about 15 times per year courtesy of the local FSDO. If I am
caught in violation of their provision that I not initiate a "hook turn"
below 200 ft AGL, I am subject to a $1000 fine regardless of whether or not
the hook was intentional.
" A hook turn is a maneuver in any maneuver sequence that causes the
canopy to roll at an angle in excess of 45 degrees from vertical and / or to
pitch up or down at an angle in excess of 45 degrees from horizontal while
executing a turn in excess of 60 degrees. "
So here is the last word, A hook is a hook. Intent is irrelevant. They
can be performed intentionally or accidentally. They can be thrilling or
injurious. Either way it is still a hook.
"Treetop" a.k.a. LORD OF THE SKY
Alan Binnebose
(just pick one, I don't care about the semantics). Your line of flight is
down the wall. Your "recovery arc" curves you away from the wall so that
you "plane out" along the floor. If you initiate your turn too low, the
recovery arc moves down the wall towards "the corner" and you may not be
able to "plane out" before you hit the floor. This is one reason why it is
important to learn the performance parameters of your canopy. You need to
know what it's recovery arc is. You need to know at what point an aggressive
(panicked) application of the brakes will induce a dynamic stall. You need
to know about "flat turns". You need to know about "braked turns". There
is much you need to know. If yourJM/I is a good canopy pilot (preferably
one with some CRW experience), ask him/her a lot of questions, listen, then
go up and explore the performance of your canopy. Start out high and be
safe.
--
Blue Skies,
Alan Binnebose D17868
TY <ddoh...@net1plus.com> wrote in message
news:39948FA1...@net1plus.com...
Ronjumps
There is a big difference between accidentaly hooking it, and doing one to a
landing for speed.
Thats like saying a spin to a crash is a landing.
LORD OF THE SKY
Ronjumps wrote in message
<20000812133135...@ng-cn1.news.cs.com>...
>fuck off.
Before I address the merits of your post, Let me commend you. I hold no
doubt that your ability to command the english language will serve as a
reminder and awakening to parents world wide to ensure the vast resources
set aside for their childrens' education are not squandered.
>
>There is a big difference between accidentaly hooking it,
Are you meaning to say that "accidently hooking it" is not *hooking* it?
Oh, I see the difference now. Your persuasive and clear argument has
turned my opinion around 180 degrees. Surprising that I never thought to
come to you to seek assistance in straightening out the FAA as to their
misdefinition.
>Thats like saying a spin to a crash is a landing.
A "spin to a crash" *is* most definitely a landing. In fact it would
generally be described by adding the adjective *crash*. Thus a *crash"
landing"*.
Ronjumps
on High performace landings.
Still, if you want to stop "Hook Turns" stop people from skydiving. BONUS,
think of all the people you will save from not pulling, when they dont have a
Cypres.
I see 3 different "Hook Turns";
1. Someone turning to avoid an object/land into the wind.
2. Some Novice under a Hot canopy.
(We all are to blame for this. When we don't tell them they are an idiot).
3. Someone who knows what they are doing and screw it up.
All I have EVER asked is for people to look at WHY they hit the ground.
Lets look at the accidents:
1. Guy gets a line on his main caught on his gromet. Bummer.
2. A novice gets his shoe entagled with his main.....Don't jump with shoes?
Don't let novices do sit?
3. Another line gets caught....Bummer again...say thats 2 now.
4. Canopy wrap. Novice in a landing area....Don't let them jump at big DZ's?
5. 500 jumps, no pull....What the hell?!?!
500 jumps, you should at least bounce with SOMETHING pulled. But if he had a
Cypres.......Thats it, no Cypres...you cant jump at my DZ.
6. Novice pulled his cutaway after not finding his main.......Hell a guy with
100 at lest pulled SOMETHING out....what the hell was wrong with #5? Again. No
Cypres, no jump.
7. A guy crashed on an old 5 cell and his alti hit him in the neck.....Now at
my DZ if you dont have NEW gear you cant jump....But at least he didnt "Hook
It". Novice.
8. Novice turns low "Hooks It" to land into the wind. on a 1.2-1 sabre....That
a higher wing loading than a novice should have. According to PD, but what do
they know.
9. 8 way team collision...Thats it, No RW at my DZ. It will kill you.
10. Student gets his foot in his lines. Like the sit fly dude....No students
at my DZ either.
11. A guy with under 100 jumps "Hooks it"
under a 1.3-1 canopy.....Again PD says that at his weight/ Wingloading he is
between Advanced/Experianced......under 100 jumps he is not either. No Novices
at my DZ.
12. Reserve blew apart due to activation durring a speed dive......No VRW at
my DZ.
13. 300-400 jump person turns to land into the wind...He "Hooked It"...OK no
jumping at my DZ when there is wind.
14. High speed landing that got screwed up....Sigh...No Landing at my DZ.
15. Student entagled with main....Again No students at My DZ.
16. Heart attack. No one alowed to jump with out a current EKG.
17. RSL deployed resurve into main....No RSL's at my DZ.
18. Guy trying to look cool blows it.
19. under 100 jumps does a 360 to landing?!?!?
I dont know what he was thinking.....
So, We have a DZ with no students, Novices, RW,VRW, Must have Cypres, no old
gear, no gear...Lines getting caught remember (2), cant jump when there is
wind, and must have an EGK on file. Anyone want to jump there?
So we have:
Gear 5
Novices 6
Flat out dumb 4 (No pulls 2, turning to land into the wind 1. And some idiot
with -100 jumps doing a 360 to final.)
RW 1
VRW 1
Students 2
Total to "Hook Turns" 6
Novices account for 3. (1 to get into the wind. 1 trying to look cool. And one
idiot doing a 360 to final.)
Experianced guys 3. (1 to land into the wind. And 2 guys just screwed up.)
Take out the novices under HP canopies, and you take out 2 deaths....The 360
guy was just too stupid.
Take out low turns to get into the wind. You get rid of 2.
Take out stupid people 1
So, you have 2 people trying to look cool and blowing it.
Hell you had 5 die from gear.
So, 30% died in a turn.
15% were Novices.
15% Exp.
10% trying to get into the wind
15% trying to look cool
05% just stupid.
Exp just trying to look cool 10%
My thoughts......
Ron
D-17112
PRO rated
1800 jumps
Has had an 88 (2.1-1) Extreme and jumped the 69 (2.6-1).
12.6 avg. at the 98 Nationals in 4way.
15 jumps on a T-10 with combat equipment
Load organized at Quincy and Z-hills.
110 way Javelin jump.
S/L JM
...But not Lord of ANYTHING......
LORD OF THE SKY
Ronjumps wrote in message
<20000813012406...@ng-fv1.news.cs.com>...
>Sorry for getting pissed,
No problems!
>but I am tired of people placing all landing problems
>on High performace landings.
If you reread my post ,with an objective mindset, you'll realize
that I made no remark concerning my thoughts on hook turners or hook turns.
I simply provided a definition of hook turns which has been established for
some time.
>
>Still, if you want to stop "Hook Turns" stop people from skydiving.
Frankly, I couldn't care less if you or anybody want to play with hook
turns.
I also couldn't care less if you would like to play Russian roulette.
It's none of my buisiness what you do, until your actions infringe on my
rights.
BONUS,
>think of all the people you will save from not pulling, when they dont have
a
>Cypres.
I'm not sure what you mean to say here.Perhaps you could clarify
your point.
>
>I see 3 different "Hook Turns";
>
>1. Someone turning to avoid an object/land into the wind.
>
>2. Some Novice under a Hot canopy.
>(We all are to blame for this. When we don't tell them they are an idiot).
>
>3. Someone who knows what they are doing and screw it up.
A hook is a hook. There is an established definition of a "hook
turn". If any turn meets that criteria it is a "Hook turn"
Now back to your #2
>2. Some Novice under a Hot canopy.
>(We all are to blame for this. When we don't tell them they are an idiot).
>
Hypotheticaly, If I was to observe you performing a "high
performance landing" and told you that you were an idiot, what would be your
responce? Would it be "Fuck off"? Why would you expect a novices responce
to be any different? No , We are not "all" to blame for this .
>
>All I have EVER asked is for people to look at WHY they hit the ground.
That would be gravity.
Technique determines the speed at which they hit the ground.
Skratch Garrison
We used to do wind hooks on rounds. You go down wind
or maybe cross wind and at the magic moment you haul
a toggle down and turn in to the wind. At the next
magic moment you pull down on the rear risers and do
a graceful stand up.
The oscillation from the turn swinging into the wind
counters the wind speed, and pulling (yanking) rear
risers counters some of the downward speed.
I made over 1,800 jumps on rounds and most of them
were standups. I think landings on rounds have been
greatly exagerated by the jump story effect.
(Of course I've never been one to let the facts get in
the way of a good jump story so I see nothing wrong
with that :-)
----
There's never been a single word for panic turns,
low mistake turns, etc - maybe because there isn't
a single reason for them.
It's a bad idea to call them hook turns though, because
that's using one word for two entirely different kind
of turns, which leads to incorrect communication,
and confuses people.
Skratch
Kevin Keenan
Quincy the other day. I think it's something you have to be current
with.
Sorry, Winsor. I couldn't pass that up. Hope you're getting around ok
and the pain pills are the good kind.
kevin
DJ Mike
>'hook turn' by the above description. It was a "low turn that could not be
>recovered from".
> For me, those are the definitions.
It all depends on what the definition of "is", is.
Blue Skys and Godspeed,
DJ Mike
The only guarantee in Skydiving is...you WILL land !
DJ Mike
>
>There is a big difference between accidentaly hooking it, and doing one to a
>landing for speed.
Yes....there might be...but...it's still a hook.......You just said so
>Thats like saying a spin to a crash is a landing.
>
Yes.........it is a landing.....read below....
DJ Mike
>the
>poor judgment by the skydiver.
Yea.......but the final factor on what "kills/maims the individual",
is.......the landing. Anything else, is just a prelude to the end
result.....inentional or not.
Read below........
Marc
>18. Guy trying to look cool blows it.
If you're referring to the incident I think you're referring to, you've got
your facts mixed up.
Marc
>There's never been a single word for panic turns,
>low mistake turns, etc - maybe because there isn't
>a single reason for them.
True.
>It's a bad idea to call them hook turns though, because
>that's using one word for two entirely different kind
>of turns, which leads to incorrect communication,
>and confuses people.
Exactly. The flight path of a turn intended to build speed may resemble the
flight path of a "panic turn" or an "avoidance turn" (or whatever else we may
call a turn which was *not* intended to build speed). The results may be the
same too. The causation, however, and (perhaps even more importantly) the
preventative training which is indicated is entirely different!
Since MOST people seem to use the term "hook turn" to describe a maneuver
intentionally done to build speed for landing, use of the same term to describe
turns which are *not* intended to build speed can lead to miscommunication
which, in turn, can confuse the very people who are most in need of
preventative training to avoid unwittingly making unsafe low turns -- novices!
Blue Skies,
Marc
Martin Evans
Despite the debate continuing on this newsgroup for so long over 'what term
to use to describe the same manouvre performed with different intent in
mind,' we here at THE SKYDIVERS BRAINS TRUST have still been unable to
decide on a universal term for the manouvres. In a last ditch effort to
"stop the confusion" I suggest the terms adopted be 'INTENTIONAL hook turn'
and 'UNINTENTIONAL hook turn'! How'd I do? I don't understand how nobody
thought of this before!
I don't know about anyone else here but I have never had a problem
understanding the difference between the terms INTENTIONAL and
UNINTENTIONAL. If anyone would like a full explaination of the differences I
would be happy to provide one in order to stop the confusion amongst my
skydiving family!
;-)
Marc
>> I said:
>> Since MOST people seem to use the term "hook turn" to describe a maneuver
>> intentionally done to build speed for landing, use of the same term to
>describe
>> turns which are *not* intended to build speed can lead to miscommunication
>> which, in turn, can confuse the very people who are most in need of
>> preventative training to avoid unwittingly making unsafe low turns --
>novices!
>Despite the debate continuing on this newsgroup for so long over 'what term
>to use to describe the same manouvre performed with different intent in
>mind,' we here at THE SKYDIVERS BRAINS TRUST have still been unable to
>decide on a universal term for the manouvres. In a last ditch effort to
>"stop the confusion" I suggest the terms adopted be 'INTENTIONAL hook turn'
>and 'UNINTENTIONAL hook turn'! How'd I do? I don't understand how nobody
>thought of this before!
You're not the first to think of it Martin, sorry.....
>I don't know about anyone else here but I have never had a problem
>understanding the difference between the terms INTENTIONAL and
>UNINTENTIONAL.
What about jumpers who INTEND TO TURN low for reasons_other_than_to build speed
for landing? For example, a jumper suddenly realizes they are going downwind
and they INTENTIONALLY TURN to get back into the wind, causing their canopy's
flight path to resemble a hook, and to impact with terra firma before their
body. Did this person just do an "intentional hook turn" or an "unintentional
hook turn?" After all, they did INTEND TO TURN, right? Yet, despite the fact
that they INTENDED TO TURN, many people would not categorize their mistake as
being the result of an "intentional hook turn," now would they? Most people
(but not all) would classify it as an "unintentional hook turn" even though the
jumper INTENDED TO TURN! Ooooo, that clouds the issue somewhat, now doesn't
it!
As we can clearly see, "intent to turn" is not dispositive. INTENT TO BUILD
SPEED is the deciding factor here, just as I've stated all along. Absent the
intent to build speed, our hapless jumper's accident is
more_accurately_classified as resulting from a "panic turn" rather than a "hook
turn."
Blue Skies,
Marc
RHallifax
>>> intentionally done to build speed for landing, use of the same term to
>>describe
>>> turns which are *not* intended to build speed can lead to miscommunication
Interesting observation at Quincy. On a day when winds were too high for about
1/2 the jumpers, I saw a guy screw up and come downwind into the main landing
area. I was hoping he wouldn't panic. Sure, he screwed up the first part.
But, fortunately, he didn't panic. That was the fastest landing I believe that
I've seen. He "slide" in at a terrific speed..... Then he proceeded to get
up, gather his lines, and walk off the field.
Moral: you can survive a downwinder better than a "panic" low turn just for
the purpose of getting into the wind...
Blue Skies,
Bob
Marc
>Interesting observation at Quincy. On a day when winds were too high for
>about
>1/2 the jumpers, I saw a guy screw up and come downwind into the main landing
>area. I was hoping he wouldn't panic. Sure, he screwed up the first part.
>But, fortunately, he didn't panic. That was the fastest landing I believe
>that
>I've seen. He "slide" in at a terrific speed..... Then he proceeded to get
>up, gather his lines, and walk off the field.
I saw the same exact scenario unfold at Quincy in '95 or '96. 30mph
butt-slides are quite a sight to behold, and quite entertaining when the only
damage done is a severe grass stain.
Blue Skies,
Marc
Ronjumps
All it says is about an exp jumper hooking it.
What happened?
Ron
Martin Evans
> > Martin Evans wrote:
> >Despite the debate continuing on this newsgroup for so long over 'what
term
> >to use to describe the same manouvre performed with different intent in
> >mind,' we here at THE SKYDIVERS BRAINS TRUST have still been unable to
> >decide on a universal term for the manouvres. In a last ditch effort to
> >"stop the confusion" I suggest the terms adopted be 'INTENTIONAL hook
turn'
> >and 'UNINTENTIONAL hook turn'! How'd I do? I don't understand how nobody
> >thought of this before!
> You're not the first to think of it Martin, sorry.....
Damn! Always a day late and a dollar short! ;-)
Strange how others have thought of it before me though, seeing as how you
and a FEW others consider it such an inapropriate term!
> >I don't know about anyone else here but I have never had a problem
> >understanding the difference between the terms INTENTIONAL and
> >UNINTENTIONAL.
> What about jumpers who INTEND TO TURN low for reasons_other_than_to build
speed
> for landing?
Then it's an intentional hookturn , you just said it yourself in the above
line! ;-P
> For example, a jumper suddenly realizes they are going downwind
> and they INTENTIONALLY TURN
(there ya go again)
>to get back into the wind, causing their canopy's
> flight path to resemble a hook, and to impact with terra firma before
their
> body. Did this person just do an "intentional hook turn" or an
"unintentional
> hook turn?" After all, they did INTEND TO TURN, right?
Yes. They performed an intentional hookturn to get back into wind!
> Yet, despite the fact
> that they INTENDED TO TURN,
once again Marc you confirm the turn was intentional!
>many people would not categorize their mistake as
> being the result of an "intentional hook turn," now would they?
Yes. Many of us would!
BTW How would the turn be described if they didn't impact and pulled of a
sweet swoop. My guess is that they would be lauded for their daring do by
many and would readily accept the praise, while shrugging off the comments
of those of us that realize that they 'just pulled it out their ass'! By
your definition it's only a 'panic turn' when it's unsuccessful!
> Most people
> (but not all) would classify it as an "unintentional hook turn" even
though the
> jumper INTENDED TO TURN! Ooooo, that clouds the issue somewhat, now
doesn't
> it!
Not at all. The turn was by your own admission intentional, the impact
probably was unintentional (one would hope)!
> As we can clearly see, "intent to turn" is not dispositive. INTENT TO
BUILD
> SPEED is the deciding factor here, just as I've stated all along.
No way! The scenario described in your own words was as follows...........
> What about jumpers who *****INTEND TO TURN low***** for
reasons_other_than_to build speed
> for landing?
>Absent the
> intent to build speed, our hapless jumper's accident is
> more_accurately_classified as resulting from a "panic turn" rather than a
"hook
> turn."
>
> Blue Skies,
>
> Marc
Not if they INTENDED (as you have readily admitted to) to turn into wind at
too late a stage of the game, then despite the outcome of their action the
turn was intentional and can be described only as a botched or misjudged
turn!
Game, Set & Match! ;-P
Marc
>> I said:
>>>Martin wrote:
>> >I don't know about anyone else here but I have never had a problem
>> >understanding the difference between the terms INTENTIONAL and
>> >UNINTENTIONAL.
>
>> What about jumpers who INTEND TO TURN low for reasons_other_than_to build
>speed
>> for landing?
>
>Then it's an intentional hookturn , you just said it yourself in the above
>line! ;-P
and
>> For example, a jumper suddenly realizes they are going downwind
>> and they INTENTIONALLY TURN
>
>(there ya go again)
>
>>to get back into the wind, causing their canopy's
>> flight path to resemble a hook, and to impact with terra firma before
>their
>> body. Did this person just do an "intentional hook turn" or an
>"unintentional
>> hook turn?" After all, they did INTEND TO TURN, right?
>
>Yes. They performed an intentional hookturn to get back into wind!
But I can easily make a solid argument that it is NOT an "intentional hook
turn." Sure, it's an "intentional turn," but the "hook" aspect was inadvertent
-- the jumper's only *intent* was to turn back into the wind -- not to "hook
it."
Of course, you might reach a different conclusion (as your above statements
indicate), and with some more thought on your part you'll probably be able to
concoct a fairly convincing argument in support of your position.
See Martin? It can be argued either way! The categories you suggest aren't so
clear cut. Some low turns could be put into *either* of the categories you
propose, depending on who you were to ask. The classifications I propose do
not suffer from the same ambiguity. The intent to build speed either exists or
it does not!
Furthermore, the intent to build speed (or the absence of that intent) is the
factor which determines what preventative and/or remedial training is
appropriate! Since a determination of which training is appropriate hinges on
this factor, why not recognize it for what it is -- a natural dividing line
which can greatly reduce confusion when teaching newbies about low turns!
>BTW How would the turn be described if they didn't impact and pulled of a
>sweet swoop. My guess is that they would be lauded for their daring do by
>many and would readily accept the praise, while shrugging off the comments
>of those of us that realize that they 'just pulled it out their ass'!
Not at my DZ. We have pretty much the same crowd of regulars week after week,
so we tend to know who has the skill (and intent to build speed) for such
maneuvers, and who is just "pulling it out of their ass." The former category
is welcome to perform their turns so long as they're not endangering others.
The latter are spoken to, and do tend to heed the advice.
>By your definition it's only a 'panic turn' when it's unsuccessful!
That's not true, and I never suggested that it was. For the record, if the
motivation for the turn is panic, then it's a "panic turn" no matter what the
outcome.
Blue Skies,
Marc
1859 - Charles Darwin publishes "On the Origin of Species." Fundamentalists go
ape.