Fatality in Florida?
W. Scott Watson
somewhere in florida? anybody have any info,,you can e-mail me direct..
Scott Watson
D-19166 BJDS#5
SL and IAD JM and I
"It's now been proven that you don't actually live longer when you refrain from
Drinking, Smoking, and chasing women...It just seems that way"
----- Jaques Cousteau
Kevin Keenan
Cricket202
blue skies
Shadow
This death was due to a rapid 180 toggle turn back into the wind.
(according to reports coming to my DZO where Ben has recently been
jumping prior to the accident in Panama City)
Blue skies Ben.
Martin Evans
Shadow <ed.pa...@atg-tech.com> wrote in message
news:39536ee0...@nntp.cntfl.com>
On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 18:08:42 -0400, Kevin Keenan
> <kke...@atlantic.net> wrote:
>
> >http://www.newsherald.com/articles/2000/06/21/lo062100f.htm
> >
> >
> >"W. Scott Watson" wrote:
> >
> >> Heard an acquantance of mine may have had a hook turn accident Tuesday
> >> somewhere in florida?
> >
> And of course the information reported within the news is incorrect.
>
> This death was due to a rapid 180 toggle turn back into the wind.
> (according to reports coming to my DZO where Ben has recently been
> jumping prior to the accident in Panama City)
>
> Blue skies Ben.
>
>
and if this isn't a hookturn please describe what is..............!
It may not have been an intentional hookturn for posing purposes but what
you describe is a hookturn nevertheless in the view of many!
Sorry for our loss!
--
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
Livendive
>
>Shadow <ed.pa...@atg-tech.com> wrote in message
>news:39536ee0...@nntp.cntfl.com>
>
>On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 18:08:42 -0400, Kevin Keenan
>> <kke...@atlantic.net> wrote:
>>
>> >http://www.newsherald.com/articles/2000/06/21/lo062100f.htm
>> >
>> >
>> >"W. Scott Watson" wrote:
>> >
>> >> Heard an acquantance of mine may have had a hook turn
accident Tuesday
>> >> somewhere in florida?
>> >
>
>> And of course the information reported within the news is
incorrect.
>>
>> This death was due to a rapid 180 toggle turn back into the
wind.
>> (according to reports coming to my DZO where Ben has recently
been
>> jumping prior to the accident in Panama City)
>>
>> Blue skies Ben.
>>
>>
>
>
>and if this isn't a hookturn please describe what
is..............!
>
>It may not have been an intentional hookturn for posing purposes
but what
>you describe is a hookturn nevertheless in the view of many!
>
>Sorry for our loss!
Martin - if you'd read a little more closely and checked out the
link to the news story, you'd have understood that he was
referring to the inaccuracy of the article, not the applicability
of the title "hook turn". The newspaper did not characterize the
accident as a hook turn, but rather something more like a
spinning mal.
Regardless of cause, it's still a bummer.
BSBD,
Dave
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
Martin Evans
Livendive <livendiv...@aol.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:2124ba60...@usw-ex0103-019.remarq.com...
> >> Blue skies Ben.
Oh, excuse me for having a life outside of my computer! In the future I'll
make time to go to every link that is posted on this newsgroup, just so I
can decypher the writers intent and not jump to wrong conclusions by reading
what **they** write!
> you'd have understood that he was
> referring to the inaccuracy of the article, not the applicability
> of the title "hook turn".
I guess!
>The newspaper did not characterize the
> accident as a hook turn, but rather something more like a
> spinning mal.
> Regardless of cause, it's still a bummer.
<sarcasm mode off> Yes it is!
:-(
;-)
Blue ones,
Stay Safe.
Martin Evans.
--
For information about Sky-Eye Skydiving Services please visit our we
bsite at:
Jumpingboe
me to tell me what had happened. He was there, saw the whole thing,
unfortunately.
His email to me was titled "tough week" and read:
"We were having a cookout at the airstrip Tuesday night. One of our Pilots
(active duty Air Force too)is also a skydiver, and wanted to go up for a
short jump. He went out at 3000', opened OK, then rode his canopy back over
the airport. He did two sharp turns around, which left him low, and then he
did a hard right turn at about 60' to try to get into the wind. The canopy
dove down just as we expect it to, and he impacted the ground face down.
Dead at the scene."
Jay called 911 immediately... he knew what the outcome would be. He took it
real hard.
my condolences to Ben's family as well as everyone else there that witnessed
it.
Karen Boe
bil...@qualcomm.com
"Martin Evans" <skyeyes...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> and if this isn't a hookturn please describe what is..............!
>
> It may not have been an intentional hookturn for posing purposes but
> what you describe is a hookturn nevertheless in the view of many!
it is no more a hookturn than a funneled exit is a freefly.
a hookturn is an intentional turn at a low altitude to build up
speed for landing. many people make the mistake of turning too low to
face the wind for landing, and hurt (or kill) themselves. all too
often, this is described as a hook turn, along with something like "but
he never did hook turns!" they write it up to a foolish manuever,
rather than an attempt to turn into the wind, and this makes it harder
to fix the problem.
the fix is teaching people how to flat turn and how to flare turn.
at 50 feet, a flat turn into the wind is a piece of cake. a toggle turn
can kill you. the problem is, people don't practice flat turns, so when
they find themselves in that situation, they use the only manuever they
know - a toggle turn.
-bill von
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Sped
says...
> And of course the information reported within the news is incorrect.
>
> This death was due to a rapid 180 toggle turn back into the wind.
> (according to reports coming to my DZO where Ben has recently been
> jumping prior to the accident in Panama City)
>
> Blue skies Ben.
>
> <kke...@atlantic.net> wrote:
>
> >http://www.newsherald.com/articles/2000/06/21/lo062100f.htm
> >
> >
> >
> >> Heard an acquantance of mine may have had a hook turn accident Tuesday
> >> somewhere in florida?
> >
>
>
Over the last 12 years I have about 50+ Jumps on and around Panama City
Beach. I don't know where exactly in Panama City this happened, but the
winds there are nothing to play with! During the summer, 20-25 mph is
the norm, but generally they are steady throughout the day. All of the
tall buildings in and around the beach sit really close together and you
get really nasty rotors off of them. I have seen the wind change 180
degrees from the time we took off and I opened the door to spot. On a
sunset load, my buddy Rick L. broke his thigh bone because the winds
were at 20+ one way above 300' and almost 180 below that. I was on the
same load and almost biffed in with my Fury 220. In those high winds
even with a slow canopy you do a 180 and present the top of the canopy
to the wind it will drive you down fast! With a fast highly canopy, that
can be deadly :( On my last jump on PCB before moving to NJ, and got
caught in a rotor from a building 400' away pounded in straight down
from about 50 fifty feet with a 9 cell Raider. Glad it was soft sand,
even still, I saw lotsa stars and left a 6 foot long dent in the dirt.
If I had hit the hard, packed, sand at the high water line, I would not
have walked away. I hate to see something like this happen, but I can
understand how you can get caught napping.
My prayers go out to the family in this trying time.
--
Ed "Sped" Hauck
D-12662
mailto:ed...@nettally.com
http://www.edcomp.com/halo
It's not that I'm afraid to die. I just don't want to be there when it happens.
-- Woody Allen
Martin Evans
<bil...@qualcomm.com> wrote in message news:8j5ahr$mnp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <ej251uS3$GA.435@cpmsnbbsa08>,
> "Martin Evans" <skyeyes...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > and if this isn't a hookturn please describe what is..............!
> >
> > It may not have been an intentional hookturn for posing purposes but
> > what you describe is a hookturn nevertheless in the view of many!
Bill Von wrote:
> it is no more a hookturn than a funneled exit is a freefly.
Hey, most of the freefly I've seen lately starts exactly like that! ;-)
I guess we disagree, doesn't make your statement any more correct than you
think mine is! I think a car crash is a car crash whether it was
intentionally done or not it's still a car crash, don't you think?
an intentional
> hookturn is an intentional turn at a low altitude to build up
> speed for landing.
an unintentional`hookturn is what may have been/was implemented in this
instance, but a hookturn nonetheless!
However, all that aside, if the person involved makes a 180 degree hard turn
to get into wind, isn't that intentional, regardless of whether they intend
to hurt or kill themselves it's still intentional, and a hookturn that
results in an unsatisfactory result i.e. an accident, will have been caused
by an intentional although botched manouvre!
All depends on how you view things I guess!
Let's all hope we learn something from this unfortunate and very sad
incident.
Let's be careful out there folks, the reaper is never far away!
--
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
.
CRWMike
bil...@qualcomm.com wrote:
> In article <ej251uS3$GA.435@cpmsnbbsa08>,
> "Martin Evans" <skyeyes...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > and if this isn't a hookturn please describe what is..............!
> >
> > It may not have been an intentional hookturn for posing purposes but
> > what you describe is a hookturn nevertheless in the view of many!
>
> it is no more a hookturn than a funneled exit is a freefly.
>
> a hookturn is an intentional turn at a low altitude to build up
> speed for landing.
Nope, a hookturn is a turn that hooks you into the ground. Individual
motivation is certainly not a factor in the Trauma room ...or the Morgue.
> many people make the mistake of turning too low to
> face the wind for landing, and hurt (or kill) themselves. all too
> often, this is described as a hook turn, along with something like "but
> he never did hook turns!" they write it up to a foolish manuever,
> rather than an attempt to turn into the wind, and this makes it harder
> to fix the problem.
I agree with that.
>
>
> the fix is teaching people how to flat turn and how to flare turn.
> at 50 feet, a flat turn into the wind is a piece of cake. a toggle turn
> can kill you. the problem is, people don't practice flat turns, so when
> they find themselves in that situation, they use the only manuever they
> know - a toggle turn.
>
Regular practice of flat/brake/flare/stall turns and avoidance maneuvers
would prevent more serious injuries and save more lives than AAD's. I
wonder why more people aren't thoroughly proficient in them?
BSBD,
Michael
Jumpingboe
>winds there are nothing to play with!
The airstrip is actually about 1/8 to 1/4 mile from the water. It's pretty much
surrounded by nothing but trees. The landing area isn't what I would call
tight either. I jumped there myself (where Ben died), and had a fine ride and
landing, no problems at all. From what the owner of the airfield said, he
simply "did a hard right turn to get into the wind at about 60 ft", when his
canopy took a nosedive. He apparently was a conservative jumper, but misjudged
his altitude? Jay doesn't know why he did it so low, unless he didn't realize
until then that he was not headed into the wind. Wish he'd have taken a bumpy
downwind or crosswind landing instead of what he did.
Karen
Gary Fox
as part of the A licence req's?
I've watched both the Fly like a pro and Sky U tape, and flat turns really
aren't that hard.
I'm sure if more emphessis (sp>) was put on canopy skills for us low timers
it would filter through and there would be less low turn/ hook turn incident
reports?
Gary
USPA B-not sure of number
"CRWMike" <CRW...@Bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:39565FB...@Bellsouth.net...
TY
bil...@qualcomm.com wrote:
> In article <ej251uS3$GA.435@cpmsnbbsa08>,
> "Martin Evans" <skyeyes...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > and if this isn't a hookturn please describe what is..............!
> >
> > It may not have been an intentional hookturn for posing purposes but
> > what you describe is a hookturn nevertheless in the view of many!
>
> it is no more a hookturn than a funneled exit is a freefly.
>
> a hookturn is an intentional turn at a low altitude to build up
> speed for landing. many people make the mistake of turning too low to
> face the wind for landing, and hurt (or kill) themselves. all too
> often, this is described as a hook turn, along with something like "but
> he never did hook turns!" they write it up to a foolish manuever,
> rather than an attempt to turn into the wind, and this makes it harder
> to fix the problem.
>
> the fix is teaching people how to flat turn and how to flare turn.
> at 50 feet, a flat turn into the wind is a piece of cake. a toggle turn
> can kill you. the problem is, people don't practice flat turns, so when
> they find themselves in that situation, they use the only manuever they
> know - a toggle turn.
>
Sped
jumpi...@aol.com says...
I know where this strip is at. If I'm right its behind Beach Road. I
just talked to a friend of mine down in Tallahassee about it. I was just
posting the point of how funky the winds are right there on the coast
and how you can get caught real easy. My buddy said (and this is second
party information) he did 3 360 turns and pulled a low 180 coming out of
a spiral either to get back into the wind or avoid a hanger, building or
something. Jumping a Sabre 170 and 220? and something Lbs. He said his
canopy hit the ground before he did.
--
Ed "Sped" Hauck
D-12662
mailto:NOSPAM...@nettally.com
gypcees
to self jumpmastering.
I was lucky to take keen to a JM that only does CrW & learned a lot about
canopy flight that most do not.
Seems like the curriculum could easily be changed to include various canopy
maneuvers after the free fall is over & counts just as much to pass the
level than the up top test.
Blue Sky & condolences to the loved ones.
"CRWMike" <CRW...@Bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:39565FB...@Bellsouth.net...
>
>
> bil...@qualcomm.com wrote:
>
> > In article <ej251uS3$GA.435@cpmsnbbsa08>,
> > "Martin Evans" <skyeyes...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > and if this isn't a hookturn please describe what is..............!
> > >
> > > It may not have been an intentional hookturn for posing purposes but
> > > what you describe is a hookturn nevertheless in the view of many!
> >
> > it is no more a hookturn than a funneled exit is a freefly.
> >
> > a hookturn is an intentional turn at a low altitude to build up
> > speed for landing.
>
> Nope, a hookturn is a turn that hooks you into the ground. Individual
> motivation is certainly not a factor in the Trauma room ...or the Morgue.
>
> > many people make the mistake of turning too low to
> > face the wind for landing, and hurt (or kill) themselves. all too
> > often, this is described as a hook turn, along with something like "but
> > he never did hook turns!" they write it up to a foolish manuever,
> > rather than an attempt to turn into the wind, and this makes it harder
> > to fix the problem.
>
> I agree with that.
>
> >
> >
> > the fix is teaching people how to flat turn and how to flare turn.
> > at 50 feet, a flat turn into the wind is a piece of cake. a toggle turn
> > can kill you. the problem is, people don't practice flat turns, so when
> > they find themselves in that situation, they use the only manuever they
> > know - a toggle turn.
> >
>
Lindsey
look, TY. Need to know how to do a flat turn.....
Peace~
Lindsey
"If you're gonna run with the big dogs you're gonna have to get off the
porch."
TY <ddoh...@net1plus.com> wrote in message
news:3956AF3D...@net1plus.com...
> How do you do a flat turn?
>
> bil...@qualcomm.com wrote:
>
> > In article <ej251uS3$GA.435@cpmsnbbsa08>,
> > "Martin Evans" <skyeyes...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > and if this isn't a hookturn please describe what is..............!
> > >
> > > It may not have been an intentional hookturn for posing purposes but
> > > what you describe is a hookturn nevertheless in the view of many!
> >
> > it is no more a hookturn than a funneled exit is a freefly.
> >
> > a hookturn is an intentional turn at a low altitude to build up
> > speed for landing. many people make the mistake of turning too low to
> > face the wind for landing, and hurt (or kill) themselves. all too
> > often, this is described as a hook turn, along with something like "but
> > he never did hook turns!" they write it up to a foolish manuever,
> > rather than an attempt to turn into the wind, and this makes it harder
> > to fix the problem.
> >
> > the fix is teaching people how to flat turn and how to flare turn.
> > at 50 feet, a flat turn into the wind is a piece of cake. a toggle turn
> > can kill you. the problem is, people don't practice flat turns, so when
> > they find themselves in that situation, they use the only manuever they
> > know - a toggle turn.
> >
bil...@qualcomm.com
basically partially flare during the turn to prevent the canopy from
diving at the ground. if you end up with too much dive after the turn,
you didn't flare enough. if you end up with the canopy almost stopped,
you flared too much. you want to exit the turn as close to 'normal'
speed as possible. at that speed, an immediate flare is possible if
required.
bil...@qualcomm.com
"Martin Evans" <skyeyes...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> I guess we disagree, doesn't make your statement any more correct than
you
> think mine is! I think a car crash is a car crash whether it was
> intentionally done or not it's still a car crash, don't you think?
yes, a car crash is a car crash, and a fatality is a fatality. but
it would be erroneous to call the crash a drunk driving accident if the
passenger, but not the driver, was drunk - even though alcohol was
involved somehow in the accident.
why do i make a stink about it? because, if you called it a drunk
driving accident, someone else might decide "hey, just ban alcohol, and
the problem goes away." that wouldn't work. similarly, i worry that,
if you call it a hook turn fatality, the response will be "hey, just
don't do hook turns." often, the accidents are from people who do _not_
do hook turns, they just do a normal manuever (a turn into the wind) at
the wrong place.
sure, that looks just like a hook turn, and the initiation and
result are often the same. but calling it that may make it harder to
fix the problem.
-bill von
Shop4Skydiving
flat turns. I did a low toggle turn to get back in the wind. It was not a Hook
turn. I was jumping a Triathlon 190 at 190 lbs exit weight. I hit hard enough
to break left ankle and fibula and shattered my right tibia and fibula. My
injuries were over a year ago and because of a bone infection and five
surgeries on my right leg I am still not bearing weight on my right leg.
Hopefully will be back in the air in about 6 months. Tracy
DJ Mike
>result are often the same. but calling it that may make it harder to
>fix the problem.
>
>-bill von
Why is a hook turn called a "hook turn" ??
Because if you look at the flight path of it from above.....the flight path is
in the shape of a hook. Therefore...any turn beyond 90 degrees, starts to take
on the shape of a hook. It really makes no difference about intentions. A hook
turn is a hook turn is a hook turn.
As far as what to call it to fix the problem.....I say call it what it really
is and address the problem head-on with brutal honesty. Calling it something
than what it really is, and trying to treat the problem with sensitivity....is
attempting to be politically correct. Most of us around here understand what a
big lie, political correctness is.
A Sanitation Engineer still collects trash, just like the Garbagemen did.
A Flight Attendant still serves cocktails and food, just like the Stewardesses
did.
A turn beyond 90 degrees too close to the ground, still has the same results as
a "Low Hook Turn".
Changing the name of something, does nothing more than change the name of
something.
Blue Skys and Godspeed,
DJ Mike
The only guarantee in Skydiving is...you WILL land !
DJ Mike
>flat turns. I did a low toggle turn to get back in the wind. It was not a
>Hook
>turn.
If your turn was beyond 90 degrees....it was a hook turn.
Myron Sothcott
close to the ground)will never be a good excuse.rob
DJ Mike
>as part of the A licence req's?
Why????? Why is it that anytime there is a percieved problem, some people
believe mandates are needed to fix it??
Are you really that incapable of learning something unless it is a
requirement??
We got enough fucking rules. You want more rules??? Then go mandate them on
yourself, and leave me and the rest of us that are capable of fending for
ourselves, out of it !!
Marc
>> bill von said:
>> sure, that looks just like a hook turn, and the initiation and
>>result are often the same. but calling it that may make it harder to
>>fix the problem.
>>
>>-bill von
>
>Why is a hook turn called a "hook turn" ??
>Because if you look at the flight path of it from above.....the flight path
>is
>in the shape of a hook. Therefore...any turn beyond 90 degrees, starts to
>take
>on the shape of a hook. It really makes no difference about intentions. A
>hook
>turn is a hook turn is a hook turn.
(Almost) All high-performance landings are hook turns, but not all hook turns
are high-performance landings. It's the hook turns that *aren't*
high-performance landings which are the most troublesome, from a training
perspective.
Blue Skies,
Marc
Michael
> Probably has something to do with the requirements at most DZ's to
graduate
> to self jumpmastering.
Or, rather, lack of certain requirements...
> I was lucky to take keen to a JM that only does CrW & learned a lot about
> canopy flight that most do not.
You were lucky. There just aren't that many.
CRW isn't as popular as it used to be. People will tell you that it's
because today's canopies are not appropriate for recreational
CRW. The reality is different - the canopies have advanced far
faster than most people's skills, and the average recreational CRW
jumper is not really qualified to fly them. Oh, he can get them down
most of the time without hurting himself, but that really won't cut it.
I've organized many small CRW formations (up to an 8-stack, and
including some offsets) that icluded Stilettos, Vipers, and even a couple
of Novas. Only a couple minor wraps, no cutaways. It can be done.
It's not done because the average high performance canopy pilot
can't reliably fly relative to anything. Since landing is the art of flying
relative to the ground, it's only a matter of time before he hurts
himself.
> Seems like the curriculum could easily be changed to include various
canopy
> maneuvers after the free fall is over & counts just as much to pass the
> level than the up top test.
Wouldn't help, unless the level of canopy flying skill and knowledge among
akydiving coaches and instructors (I guess we aren't going to have
jumpmasters anymore?) improves significantly. On the whole, the
instructors are no more competent at canopy flying than other jumpers
at their experience level, and in general the canopy flying abilities of
most jumpers are pitiful.
It wasn't until I really got into rigid wing flying that I realized how
pitiful
our canopy training really is, how poorly most jumpers understand
their canopies, and how many deaths and injuries result every year
as a result.
You're right, of course - the curriculum could and should be changed to
include canopy maneuvers. At this point, the only canopy maneuver
required to get the A-license is the accuracy landing (and not much of
one with today's equipment). Every other air sport has long ago
determined that this is not adequate - look at the maneuvers a glider or
airplane pilot does as a guide.
Our canopies have evolved into flying wings. Our canopy training has
remained largely unchanged from the round days. Then we wonder
why we have so many landing fatalities.
You don't absolutely need to have more training to fly these more
complex wings. You can figure it out by trial and error. The guys we
cart off to the hospital (just how many of them are there? Nobody
really seems to know, but we all know several) and the morgue are
the errors.
Michael
bil...@qualcomm.com
mom...@aol.com (DJ Mike) wrote:
> Because if you look at the flight path of it from above.....the flight
> path is
> in the shape of a hook. Therefore...any turn beyond 90 degrees, starts
> to take
> on the shape of a hook. It really makes no difference about
> intentions. A hook
> turn is a hook turn is a hook turn.
we're using different definitions then. a hook turn, to me, is an
intentional >90 degree turn at a low altitude to build up speed for a
high performance landing. a low turn into the wind, too low to recover,
is a low turn.
> As far as what to call it to fix the problem.....I say call it what it
really
> is and address the problem head-on with brutal honesty. Calling it
something
> than what it really is, and trying to treat the problem with
sensitivity....is
> attempting to be politically correct.
what sensitivity? both will kill you. but if one of your students
asks you asks what killed that guy, and you tell him "it was a hook turn
- so don't do them!" they aren't learning much. a decision to not do a
hook turn is often not the issue - it is learning to turn your canopy at
a low altitude without causing it to dive into the ground. it can be
done. if we keep calling all low turns hook turn accidents, with a
simple solution ("just don't do them!") it will not be done.
i spend a lot of time teaching people how to fly their canopies and
survive. and when i talk to them, they are often suprised that many of
the "hook turn" fatalities were due to people trying to make the best of
a bad situation, not foolishly try a high performance landing from too
low an altitude. by calling a failed attempt at survival "a hook turn"
we are keeping people in the dark.
> A turn beyond 90 degrees too close to the ground, still has the same
> results as
> a "Low Hook Turn".
so if someone struggles with their reserve for the last 1000 feet,
and never gets it out due to a pebble in the housing, would you conclude
it was a no-pull? with the simple solution "remember to pull your
reserve?" that's misleading, even if technically correct.
Will Packard
>
<big snip>
I agree with everything you said, Michael. I'm not big-time into
CRW, but I've done 10 or 15 CRW jumps. These have generally been
very mismatched (downplane with a Westwind 240 on a 105, 4-stack
with a similar range of canopy sizes). I've never had a wrap
(so far) and intend to keep it that way.
I certainly agree that canopy training hasn't kept pace with canopy
performance. I also agree that many people tend to learn how to
fly a new canopy by trial and error, rather than paying attention
to how the canopy flies.
I'd certainly like to see better canopy control training, but
I'm not sure how to make it happen.
Will
Jan Meyer
>
> Any more detailed info on how to do a turn with a minimum of height loss:
>
> How should the turn be initiated (front riser? toggle?) ?
>
> How sharp should the turn be ?
>
> When, how much and for how long should you partially flare in the turn to
> prevent the dive ?
>
Braked turns: hold the toggles part-way down (to full flare point). Let
one up a few inches to do a flat, non-diving turn.
Please let me know if 'braked' or 'flat' turns is a new concept to you.
--
Jan Meyer
mailto:Aeroso...@MakeItHappen.com
http://www.MakeItHappen.com
http://www.DiveMaker.com
Martin Evans
<bil...@qualcomm.com> wrote in message news:8j6pdd$m29$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <OdPTTvs3$GA.435@cpmsnbbsa08>,
> "Martin Evans" <skyeyes...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I guess we disagree, doesn't make your statement any more correct than
> you
> > think mine is! I think a car crash is a car crash whether it was
> > intentionally done or not it's still a car crash, don't you think?
> yes, a car crash is a car crash, and a fatality is a fatality.
> why do i make a stink about it? because, if you called it a drunk
> driving accident, someone else might decide "hey, just ban alcohol, and
> the problem goes away." that wouldn't work. similarly, i worry that,
> if you call it a hook turn fatality, the response will be "hey, just
> don't do hook turns." often, the accidents are from people who do _not_
> do hook turns, they just do a normal manuever (a turn into the wind) at
> the wrong place.
> sure, that looks just like a hook turn, and the initiation and
> result are often the same. but calling it that may make it harder to
> fix the problem.
>
> -bill von
So you agree that it was a hook turn, you just don't want to hear it called
one!
;-)
Paul Quade
"Full Flare"? Isn't that dang close to stall?
Paul
**********
Alan Binnebose
--
Blue Skies,
Alan Binnebose D17868
DJ Mike <mom...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000626093457...@ng-cu1.aol.com...
Michael
> So you agree that it was a hook turn, you just don't want to hear it
called
> one!
Are you intentionally being dense, or does it come naturally?
bill is attempting to define a very important difference - the difference
between
a maneuver that is done to intentionally push the limits and goes sour, and
a maneuver that the pilot has no idea is pushing the limits.
In airplane terms: When someone makes a fast low approach with a steep
pull-up at the end and stalls in the pull-up, that's a high performance
maneuver
gone bad. When someone makes an approach to landing, does a
go-around, and stalls on the go-around because the propwash over the
tail lifted the nose too high, that's inadvertent.
They're both low altitude stall-spins, but anyone who understands anything
about flying understand they're very different events, happen for very
different reasons, and manifest very different problems. You couldn't
even get an argument about that going on one of the aviation groups
because just about every pilot knows enough about the problem to
know that, and to know what factors are involved. To the uninitiated,
they look about the same, but the experts who write the incident
report have a very clear grasp on the difference.
When someone intentionally makes a low turn to build up speed for a
surf, botches it, and hammers in, that's a high performance maneuver
gone bad. When someone realizes he's headed downwind, or towards
an obstacle, and turns too low and hammers in, that's inadvertent.
They're both turns made too low to the ground, and, just as in the
airplane example, the control inputs were made by the pilot in each
case, but to blur the distinction by calling them the same thing and
failing to recognize that one is intentional and the other isn't really
is about the most counterproductive thing you can do. To
the uninitiated, they look about the same, and unfortunately too many
experienced jumpers can't see the difference either.
Michael
bil...@qualcomm.com
"Martin Evans" <skyeyes...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> So you agree that it was a hook turn, you just don't want to hear it
> called one!
we're arguing over definitions, which is silly. i say line and
apartment, you say queue and flat (or whatever) it doesn't really
matter. we're both right.
what i really don't want is an accidental turn into the wind at a
low altitude to be confused with an intentional initiation of a turn to
achieve a high performance landing. they are two completely different
animals, and if either one causes a problem, there are two different
solutions.
if someone is (i won't use that term again) initiating a turn to a
high performance landing too low, and they get hurt, the right response
is to either learn how to do a better high performance landing, and/or
to stop doing them until they can control them better.
if a conservative jumper is making a pattern turn in order to land
into the wind, and they are too low, the right response is to learn how
to flat turn the canopy, so they don't hammer into the ground. telling
them to not hook turn is useless - they didn't do it intentionally, and
they don't know what a hook turn is.
i think it's important to make a distinction between those two. if
you want to call them by the same name, fine. i think that makes it
harder to keep them separate.
ALGHURLEY
How should the turn be initiated (front riser? toggle?) ?
How sharp should the turn be ?
When, how much and for how long should you partially flare in the turn to
prevent the dive ?
Tom
Nervous Nick
"part way to full flare," meaning not quite full flare,
rather than
"part way--to full flare."
At least I *hope* that's what was meant.
Blues.
--NWK
--
do not open the following URL:
http://www.geocities.com/strutterman.geo/clownish.html
Strutterman
remove the obvious to respond via mail.
Jan Meyer
>
> I'm pretty sure Jan meant
>
> "part way to full flare," meaning not quite full flare,
>
> > > Braked turns: hold the toggles part-way down (to full flare point). Let
> > > one up a few inches to do a flat, non-diving turn.
point A = toggles up = full flight
point B = full flare point
= place you 'stop' toggle travel during your 'normal' flare
= physical distance varies according to wing loading
'part way' = some indeterminate distance between point A and point B
= could be 6 inches
= could be 2 feet
eg SPZ the distance btn pt A and pt B = 3 feet
You can do a braked turn w/ toggles nominally at 1 ft or 2 ft or 3 ft of
travel by letting up on one toggle by a smaller distance. Or you can
pull down one toggle by a small distance.
kallend
CRWMike <CRW...@Bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >
>
> Regular practice of flat/brake/flare/stall turns and avoidance
maneuvers
> would prevent more serious injuries and save more lives than AAD's. I
> wonder why more people aren't thoroughly proficient in them?
>
> BSBD,
>
> Michael
>
>
Maybe, maybe not.
While the fatality rate due to botched landings is rising and is now a
leading cause of skydiving fatalities, it is still not as high as the
fatality rate due to no-pull/low-pull was just 10 years ago in the
pre-Cypres era. See http://www.iit.edu/~skydive/fatality.gif
Will Packard
<snip>
> we're using different definitions then. a hook turn, to me, is an
> intentional >90 degree turn at a low altitude to build up speed for a
> high performance landing. a low turn into the wind, too low to recover,
> is a low turn.
The problem that I see with your definition is that they were called
"hook turns" *before* high performance landings were popular.
Intentional or not, the manoeuvre, and possible results, are identical.
Will
ALGHURLEY
>
>Please let me know if 'braked' or 'flat' turns is a new concept to you.
>
These ideas are ones I have not heard before!
Martin Evans
<bil...@qualcomm.com> wrote in message news:8j8dj2$spo$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <#1BbnQ43$GA.288@cpmsnbbsa09>,
> "Martin Evans" <skyeyes...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > So you agree that it was a hook turn, you just don't want to hear it
> > called one!
>
> we're arguing over definitions, which is silly. i say line and
> apartment, you say queue and flat (or whatever) it doesn't really
> matter. we're both right.
>
> what i really don't want is an accidental turn into the wind at a
> low altitude to be confused with an intentional initiation of a turn to
> achieve a high performance landing. they are two completely different
> animals, and if either one causes a problem, there are two different
> solutions.
>
> if someone is (i won't use that term again) initiating a turn to a
> high performance landing too low, and they get hurt, the right response
> is to either learn how to do a better high performance landing, and/or
> to stop doing them until they can control them better.
>
> if a conservative jumper is making a pattern turn in order to land
> into the wind, and they are too low, the right response is to learn how
> to flat turn the canopy, so they don't hammer into the ground.
Absolutely. I agree whole heartedly with your sentiments in regard to
informing and training and have no arguement with you. As I said before,
regardless if it's initiated intentionally or inadvertently it's still a
hookturn, that's all I meant and never for one moment did/would I try to
undermine your attempts to educate and inform.
> telling
> them to not hook turn is useless - they didn't do it intentionally, and
> they don't know what a hook turn is.
I agree that most people don't perform bad or uncontrolled hookturns
intentionally (though there are a few that do ;-) but I believe you under
estimate the comprehension of most skydivers whether new or not to the sport
by saying they don't know what one is! At most dropzones every weekend
there are good and not so good hookturns being demonstrated and later talked
or laughed about for all to see, hear or join in on the jostling and
ballbusting that tends to follow the not so good demonstrations. They may
not know how to perform them safely and efficiently but I'm pretty sure they
understand the basic concept of what one is!
> i think it's important to make a distinction between those two. if
> you want to call them by the same name, fine. i think that makes it
> harder to keep them separate.
I think it's just fine to prefix them with **good, bad, intentional,
unintentional or whatever is the appropriate term in each circumstance!
Keep up the good work here though.
--
Martin Evans
Michael <cre...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:aeO55.4786$oW3.4...@news.flash.net...
> Martin Evans <skyeyes...@email.msn.com> wrote
> > So you agree that it was a hook turn, you just don't want to hear it
> called
> > one!
> Are you intentionally being dense, or does it come naturally?
You can take it how you like I'd suggest you rein it in a bit though!
> bill is attempting to define a very important difference - the difference
> between
> a maneuver that is done to intentionally push the limits and goes sour,
and
> a maneuver that the pilot has no idea is pushing the limits.
And what did I say that is detrimental to his goal?
> In airplane terms: When someone makes a fast low approach with a steep
> pull-up at the end and stalls in the pull-up, that's a high performance
> maneuver
> gone bad. When someone makes an approach to landing, does a
> go-around, and stalls on the go-around because the propwash over the
> tail lifted the nose too high, that's inadvertent.
> They're both low altitude stall-spins, but anyone who understands anything
> about flying understand they're very different events, happen for very
> different reasons, and manifest very different problems.
I think we are all aware that most people don't HOOKTURN themselves into the
ground intentionally which is why it is appropriate to prefix the word
HOOKTURN with the appropriate description i.e. intentional or unintentional
or whatever seems appropriate to each performance. The fact remains that a
HOOKTURN is a HOOKTURN is a HOOKTURN!
>To the uninitiated,
> they look about the same, but the experts who write the incident
> report have a very clear grasp on the difference.
>
As do many of us in skydiving have a very clear grasp on what the
appropriate prefix is in our incidence reports!
> When someone intentionally makes a low turn to build up speed for a
> surf, botches it, and hammers in, that's a high performance maneuver
> gone bad.
NO SHIT!
> When someone realizes he's headed downwind, or towards
> an obstacle, and turns too low and hammers in, that's inadvertent
and inapropriate
> They're both
HOOKTURNS
> made too low to the ground, and, just as in the
> airplane example, the control inputs were made by the pilot in each
> case, but to blur the distinction by calling them the same thing
even though they are (but requiring different prefixes)
>and
> failing to recognize that one is intentional and the other isn't
and when did I do that??
>really
> is about the most counterproductive thing you can do. To
> the uninitiated, they look about the same, and unfortunately too many
> experienced jumpers can't see the difference either.
>
> Michael
Hey Mikey,
Here's another smiley face as it appears you missed the first one!
;-)
get that plug out of your butt and enjoy the rest of the summer mate!
D16842
>> between
>> a maneuver that is done to intentionally push the limits and goes sour,
>and
>> a maneuver that the pilot has no idea is pushing the limits.
>
Hmmmm. Do they treat them differently in the emergency room, ICU, and morgue?
Tom B
Martin Evans
Paul Quade <qu...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:B57CF48A.8F7E%qu...@usa.net...
> Jan --
>
> "Full Flare"? Isn't that dang close to stall?
>
>
> Paul
>
> **********
You have seen Jan land haven't you?
;-)
DJ Mike
>> results as
>> a "Low Hook Turn".
>
> so if someone struggles with their reserve for the last 1000 feet,
>and never gets it out due to a pebble in the housing, would you conclude
>it was a no-pull? with the simple solution "remember to pull your
>reserve?" that's misleading, even if technically correct.
>
>-bill von
Yes........it is still considered a "no-pull", and that is the catagorie it
will be placed in when we read the incident reports.
Call it what it is......then investigate the why's, how's, and what-for's. The
"reason" for a no-pull does not change the fact that it was a no-pull
I remember when hook turns first came about......at first, I didn't understand
why they were called hook turns. Somewhere along, I read a primitive manual on
how to do "Turf Surfs"(the original title for high performance landings), and
it explained (with diagrams) what a "hook turn" is.
Now several years later....the term "hook turn" has taken on a completely
different meaning, because most now "assume" that a "hook turn" is that
"totally radical" turn you do, so you can "swoop" your landing. Just like most
don't know the real definition of "hook turn", those same don't know that a
hook is not nessecary to get a good surf.
Call it what you want......if it goes beyond 90 degrees...it's a hook
turn...because of the shape the flight path takes on.
Now...as far as people learning how to better make safer turns at lower
altitudes...I fully agree with you Bill. "I" believe that to best educate the
uneducated, is to educate them on the hook turn. If a person understands what a
correct one looks like, and what an incorrect one looks like.....that person
will better understand what it looks like, when they should not initiate those
types of turns (front riser, full flight toggle, etc.). Hell....for that
matter....less than 90's too low, can fuck up your day also....or your life.
Bottom line is....if you make a turn that goes beyond 90.....it is a hook turn.
If you make it at an altitude that is too close to the ground to recover
from....it doesn't matter if it was intentional or not. It was a "hook turn"
too low to the ground !!
bil...@qualcomm.com
"Martin Evans" <skyeyes...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I agree that most people don't perform bad or uncontrolled hookturns
> intentionally (though there are a few that do ;-) but I believe you
under
> estimate the comprehension of most skydivers whether new or not to the
sport
> by saying they don't know what one is!
have you ever heard the following:
"joe blow just broke his pelvis doing a hook turn."
"that's strange, he's a really conservative jumper, he never does
hook turns."
i've heard that a lot. that's what worries me. most people
associate hook turns with intention, at least where i'm from. but as
long as people make that distinction, between intention and an
accidental low turn, then you're right, it doesn't much matter what you
call them.
-bill von
bil...@qualcomm.com
mom...@aol.com (DJ Mike) wrote:
> Now...as far as people learning how to better make safer turns at
lower
> altitudes...I fully agree with you Bill. "I" believe that to best
educate the
> uneducated, is to educate them on the hook turn.
yes and no. here's the problem with that terminology -
you can teach someone to do high performance landings. that will
let them get a better feel for their canopies, let them get better
landings out of certain types of canopies, and generally have a lot of
fun. it's a dangerous pasttime, and any kind of education concerning
high performance landings has to take that into account, with
discussions of outs, how to abort a surf, how to leave some margin for
recovery, etc.
many people do not want to take that risk. these people will never
intentionally point their canopies at the ground at 80 feet just for the
fun of it. these people still need to learn about flat turns and flare
turns, since those skills can save their lives if they ever do turn too
low.
those are two different kinds of people, with different needs for
different kinds of education. the second group may _never_ want to
learn about high performance landings, and that's fine. they may hear
"learn to hook turn" and say "no thanks, not for me, i don't want to
risk my life" and thus miss out on learning how to _save_ their lives if
they ever turn too low.
try this experiment. go to someone with 30 jumps and ask them "want
to learn to hook turn?" many will say no, they're not ready, it's too
dangerous etc. if you explain it further, tell them that you really
want to teach them to survive a low turn, they will likely listen. that
tells me that there's something wrong with using that term.
sure, you can break it down further into "unintentional hook turn
due to low turn into the wind" and "intentional hook turn." i would
rather call it something else, since it needs to be taught a completely
different way, and the name "hook turn" may mislead people into avoiding
an important subject.
Paul Quade
I realize you have more canopy landings than I probably ever will and I
can't begin to tell you how much respect I have for your wisdom and advice.
I just wanted to make sure that nobody thought you meant the point at which
you -finish- your flare just prior to setting foot on the ground. Clearly
for the softest landing possible, that would be just above the stall point
of the wing -- an airspeed you probably shouldn't be fooling around with
near the ground for anything except actually touching down. A safe margin
might be 1.3 times stall speed, but since most skydivers do not come
equipped with airspeed indicators you'll need to find out what is a safe
airspeed by practicing the maneuver at altitude and getting a feel for the
sound of the wind and it's feel on our face.
Another minor bickering point might be that any fixed physical reference
point ("pull the toggles 1.618 feet," for example) should -probably- not be
used to make landings. Something like that might be fine for a reference
point ("gee, I -should- be flattening out by now"), but landings should be
made with respect to a number of variables and any attempt to strictly
mechanize the process will -probably- give widely variable results. On one
day you'd balloon up and on another you'd sink in -- neither would be a good
landing. Since conditions are variable, so should be your control inputs.
Both in range and speed of application.
Paul
**********
Marc
Irrelevant to the point at hand.
DJ Mike
>lower
>> altitudes...I fully agree with you Bill. "I" believe that to best
>educate the
>> uneducated, is to educate them on the hook turn.
>
> yes and no. here's the problem with that terminology -
>
> you can teach someone to do high performance landings. that will
>let them get a better feel for their canopies, let them get better
>landings out of certain types of canopies, and generally have a lot of
>fun.
<snip>
Boy....you got me wrong that time Bill.
I was not saying "teach" people to do correct hook turns. I said "educate"
people about correct, and incorrect hook turns, and what the two look like. One
may never do a hook....but that does not mean lessons can't be learned by
observing them.
It's pretty simple to do at most DZ's these days, since hooks are very common.
Show and explain to people what a good hook looks like, how high it was
started, the flight path of the canopy, the jumpers inputs after initiated,
etc. Same goes with pointing out bad hooks. Same goes with those not making
hooks and turn correctly or incorrectly. Use those under canopy as
examples....get the person to observe and learn, by both the good and bad
examples.
It's not teaching them how to do hooks.....it's "educating" them on what good
canopy control looks like.
Bottom line is...intentional, unintentional, good, bad, pretty, ugly, sweet,
pucker-factored, bone breaking, fatal, etc, etc, etc.........a hook turn is a
hook turn is a hook turn. Why lie to your student and call it something other
than what it is, because you fear it gets a stigma attached to it?? Call it a
hook, and educate people about hooks....and the stigma goes away.
> it's a dangerous pasttime, and any kind of education concerning
>high performance landings has to take that into account, with
>discussions of outs, how to abort a surf, how to leave some margin for
>recovery, etc.
That's absolutely correct Bill......."it's a dangerous sport".....and I contend
"that" is all the more reason not to "sugar coat" something by avoiding calling
it what it actually is.
<snip>> i would
>rather call it something else, since it needs to be taught a completely
>different way, and the name "hook turn" may mislead people into avoiding
>an important subject.
Call it other than what it is.....then you are lieing to your students. They
deserve the truth from Instructors.
If calling it what it really is makes people avoid the subject....then maybe
those people belong at the bowling alley.
You can't sugar coat a broken bone or death....so why sugar coat something that
is a cause of them??
Marc
>I remember when hook turns first came about.....
I very seriously doubt that. You've only been in the sport for about ten
years, right?
[snip]
>Call it what you want......if it goes beyond 90 degrees...it's a hook
>turn...because of the shape the flight path takes on.
So by your definition, a flat turn (aka "braked turn") that goes beyond 90
degrees is a "hook turn." Not.
Blue Skies,
Marc
Goose
WiseRaptor
>
>>
>>Please let me know if 'braked' or 'flat' turns is a new concept to you.
>>
>
>These ideas are ones I have not heard before!
Which brings up my NUMBER ONE COMPLAINT about today's jump training: Too many
students graduate without the first clue about emergency canopy control. When
I graduated, I had no idea about braked turns either (or other VERY important
canopy control techniques). You instructors out there take note...it only
takes a few minutes to teach, and it can save your student's butt. Talking
about extreme toggle inputs might be useful too...like how you can induce line
twists. This doesn't just happen on hot little ellipticals, I did it on a
Manta 260 ( I weigh 190). Fortunately, I was practicing and experimenting with
the canopy at about 5K feet and had time to kick out.
Mark
B-23306
D16842
Marc, I was trying to illustrate that no matter what you call the damn things,
the consequence is the same. But I am glad you were here to help define the
relevence of things. God knows us non-lawyers can't do that on our own. :) I
still don't see the all important difference in dying from a poorly done
intentional Hook, or dying from an unintentional one. Dead is still dead.
Tom B
Tom B
DJ Mike
>degrees is a "hook turn." Not.
>
>Blue Skies,
>
>Marc
.....and here is where I get to use one of Marc's favorite tactics against
himself.
Gee Marc, I don't recall ever stating that a brake turn, or flat turn that goes
beyond 90....a hook turn. Can you show me where I stated so??
I do recall stating that I read a manual on turf surfing, that explained
(complete with diagrams) what a hook turn is.
Maybe you could explain better to us all, what the exact definition of a "hook
turn" is and is not, complete with how this certain turn's name came about.
bil...@qualcomm.com
mom...@aol.com (DJ Mike) wrote:
> Bottom line is...intentional, unintentional, good, bad, pretty, ugly,
sweet,
> pucker-factored, bone breaking, fatal, etc, etc, etc.........a hook
turn is a
> hook turn is a hook turn. Why lie to your student and call it
something other
> than what it is, because you fear it gets a stigma attached to it??
Call it a
> hook, and educate people about hooks....and the stigma goes away.
i call it a low turn, because a) that's what it is, b) it's self
explanatory and c) that's what kills people who turn too low. you can
call it a hook turn, or a pucker turn, or a ski slope turn, that's fine.
to me, it looks more like a ski jump than a hook anyway. but i prefer
to use a clear term rather than a slang term that they may or may not
understand. after all, the people who really need to know this stuff are
beginners, and they are the ones who may not know what your definition
of a hook turn is.
some people's definitions of hook turn is an intentional entry into
a high performance landing, and by that definition, your definition is
wrong. many people turn too low without meaning to initiate a high
performance landing. i would rather that they understand me, even if
you disagree.
> That's absolutely correct Bill......."it's a dangerous sport".....and
I contend
> "that" is all the more reason not to "sugar coat" something by
avoiding calling
> it what it actually is.
so why use slang instead of calling it what it is - especially if
your aim is to educate the people who really need to know, the low
timers?
TY
bil...@qualcomm.com wrote:
> many people do not want to take that risk. these people will never
> intentionally point their canopies at the ground at 80 feet just for the
> fun of it. these people still need to learn about flat turns and flare
> turns, since those skills can save their lives if they ever do turn too
> low.
Are flat turns and flare turns different or just 2 different names for the
same manuever?
Michael
> I still don't see the all important difference in dying from a poorly done
> intentional Hook, or dying from an unintentional one. Dead is still dead.
That's too bad. I see a huge difference.
When someone is doing intentional hook turns, he knows the game
he is playing, and has good and sufficient reasons to play it. They
may not sound like good reasons to you, and I'm sure the reasons
for doing a high-speed low-altitude flyby with three airplanes in
formation will probably not sound like good ones to you either.
I choose to do the latter, and not the former, but make no value
judgments on either. They are both inevitably dangerous (to some
extent) for the participant. If properly planned, the danger to the
spectators can be essentially eliminated.
If someone intentionally executing an inherently risky maneuver
cuts his margins too close, or botches it, and then dies, well, I'll
grieve for him. I've lost friends that way. Someday I may die
that way too, and that's OK - I've made my choices, and decided
the risk is worth it, to me, for my reasons. If it's not worth it to
you, don't do it. But such a death is not a tragedy. The last thought
in the mind of the man we will take to the morgue is not "What the
fuck happened?" It will be, as echoed in Robin Wilcox's last words,
"I fucked up." The people who are intentionally doing these
inherently risky maneuvers are not interested in "education" about
them, unless it is education about how to do them better. And
that won't reduce the accident rate - it will just allow them to push
the envelope more.
Where we have a huge potential to make a difference is among
those who have no intention of doing hook turns. They know
it is a dangerous game, and have no wish to play it. So why do
they keep dying in open-canopy accidents? The reason is lousy
training. There are maneuvers that, if taught properly and
practiced to proficiency, will allow a far greater margin of safety
in the canopy flight - and people are graduating without knowing a
thing about them. Then, when they see the fence or the windsock,
they sink a toggle like they do at altitude, only they are too low.
The last thing going through their minds is "What the fuck happened?"
That's the difference, and it's an important one.
Michael
Marc
>> I said:
>>>Hmmmm. Do they treat them differently in the emergency room, ICU, and
>>morgue?
>>
>>
>>Irrelevant to the point at hand.
>
>Marc, I was trying to illustrate that no matter what you call the damn
>things,
>the consequence is the same.
And as I stated, that fact is irrelevant to the point at hand.
I
>still don't see the all important difference in dying from a poorly done
>intentional Hook, or dying from an unintentional one. Dead is still dead.
Dead is dead, and to the family of the deceased it matters not a whit whether
the turn was intentional or not. To fellow skydivers who seek to *learn*
something, however, it matters quite a lot. Dead is dead in both cases, but
the contributory factors are different. Recognizing the differences allows us
to more effectively target education and training at the different categories
of jumpers -- those who perform high performance landings, and those who don't.
Blue Skies,
Marc
Will Packard
<snip>
> have you ever heard the following:
>
> "joe blow just broke his pelvis doing a hook turn."
>
> "that's strange, he's a really conservative jumper, he never does
> hook turns."
>
> i've heard that a lot. that's what worries me. most people
> associate hook turns with intention, at least where i'm from. but as
> long as people make that distinction, between intention and an
> accidental low turn, then you're right, it doesn't much matter what you
> call them.
Don't you think that you're contributing to this confusion by changing
the meaning of the term "hook turn"?
I started on round canopies, but when I got my "square check-out", I was
told what a hook turn was, and that it was better to land down wind, if
necessary. That was long before high performance landings were popular.
A low turn isn't necessarily a "hook turn". There are safe ways to do
low turns. You do your students a disservice by not a) explaining what
constitutes a "hook turn", and b) not explaining how to do turns close
to the ground, when necessary.
Will
BTW, if you're doing a high performance landing on a canopy that's
*designed* for such things, the turn isn't really that low. I jumped
my other rig on Saturday (my main rig was getting a reserve re-pack).
It's got an old Jonathan 92 in it. Even with that rig, I initiate at
500 feet.
Marc
>> I said:
>>So by your definition, a flat turn (aka "braked turn") that goes beyond 90
>>degrees is a "hook turn." Not.
>.....and here is where I get to use one of Marc's favorite tactics against
>himself.
Actually, here is where you fail to use one of my "favorite tactics" (as you
call it) against me.
>Gee Marc, I don't recall ever stating that a brake turn, or flat turn that
>goes
>beyond 90....a hook turn. Can you show me where I stated so??
Yes.
Begin Quote ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In article <20000626092404...@ng-cu1.aol.com>,
mom...@aol.com (DJ Mike) wrote:
> Why is a hook turn called a "hook turn" ??
> Because if you look at the flight path of it from above.....the flight path
is
> in the shape of a hook. Therefore...any turn beyond 90 degrees, starts to
take
> on the shape of a hook. It really makes no difference about intentions. A
hook
> turn is a hook turn is a hook turn.
End Quote ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
See Mike? By your definition, "ANY turn beyond 90 degrees starts to take on
the shape of a hook," and is, "therefore," a hook turn. [emphasis added]
Have a nice day.
Blue Skies,
Marc
kallend
mom...@aol.com (DJ Mike) wrote:
> >Maybe they should make watching one of the canopy control video
compulsary
> >as part of the A licence req's?
>
> Why????? Why is it that anytime there is a percieved problem, some
people
> believe mandates are needed to fix it??
>
> Are you really that incapable of learning something unless it is a
> requirement??
Following your reasoning, why have any requirements at all?
First, he's not suggesting mandating it on you, he's suggesting it be
added to the archaic A license requirement. Second, it seems like a
good time to do it, since landing accidents have now taken over as the
leading cause of death in skydiving. Third - why would a student
skydiver be expected to devise his/her own curriculum to include more
advanced canopy training than is currently required. Do the students
generally check out the fatality rates to see what they need to know
over and above the USPA requirements? Or do they expect their
instructors to provide guidance here? The accident data make it pretty
clear that the current curriculum is not adequate in the area of canopy
training and that instructors aren't teaching it and folks aren't
learning it on their own, despite your wishful thinking.
>
> We got enough fucking rules. You want more rules??? Then go mandate
them on
> yourself, and leave me and the rest of us that are capable of fending
for
> ourselves, out of it !!
>
> Blue Skys and Godspeed,
> DJ Mike
>
> The only guarantee in Skydiving is...you WILL land !
>
Jan Meyer
>
> surely that's in www.makeithappen.com.... isn't it? That's a good place to
> look, TY. Need to know how to do a flat turn.....
Actually, flat turns don't have an article there, yet.
Just recently, I have learned how many folks do not know how to do or
ever heard of flat turns.
--
Jan Meyer
mailto:Aeroso...@MakeItHappen.com
http://www.MakeItHappen.com
http://www.DiveMaker.com
Jan Meyer
>
> Jan,
>
> >
> >Please let me know if 'braked' or 'flat' turns is a new concept to you.
> >
>
> These ideas are ones I have not heard before!
ok i guess i better get going on a flat turn article.
DJ Mike
>call it) against me.
>
>>Gee Marc, I don't recall ever stating that a brake turn, or flat turn that
>>goes
>>beyond 90....a hook turn. Can you show me where I stated so??
>
>Yes.
>
>Begin Quote ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> mom...@aol.com (DJ Mike) wrote:
>
>> Why is a hook turn called a "hook turn" ??
>> Because if you look at the flight path of it from above.....the flight path
>is
>> in the shape of a hook. Therefore...any turn beyond 90 degrees, starts to
>take
>> on the shape of a hook. It really makes no difference about intentions. A
>hook
>> turn is a hook turn is a hook turn.
>
>End Quote ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>See Mike? By your definition, "ANY turn beyond 90 degrees starts to take on
>the shape of a hook," and is, "therefore," a hook turn. [emphasis added]
>
>Have a nice day.
>
>Blue Skies,
>
>Marc
Forgive me your honor, and allow me to clarify my stance. This whole thread has
to do with someone that died after making a rapid 180 toggle turn back into the
wind. By a large majority of Skydivers....this is known as a "hook turn".
Others are contending that it was not a hook turn because the indivdual was not
the type to make turns of that nature. Therefore, they prefer to call it a turn
too low to the ground or some other such thing. Their argument is that it was
not a hook turn, because it was not intended. I am contending that, it makes
no difference if a turn of this nature is intentional or not
intentional......it is still the same type of turn. A "hook turn".
Now, in an attempt to further clarify "for you", what kind of turn warrants the
title of hook turn, I will state that in addition to the shape of it's flight
path....it is a turn that inherently increases the forward speed of the canopy,
and subsequently, the forward speed of the person under the canopy. Do I need
to add, that the increase in forward speed is due to the input for the turn, is
of the nature that will inherently make the canopy lose altitude more rapidly?
When I refer to what a hook turn is...I'm refering to turns of this
nature...whether they are made using a toggle or a riser.
I do hope for your sake, and others who may be as confused, that by this
definition...a "brake turn" or "flat turn" that has a flight path beyond 90
degrees....does not define it as a "hook turn".
Please your honor....forgive me for not better clarifying the definition of a
term that is already generally understood by the majority of the forum. My
observation shows me that there are those unlike yourself, that already
understand what I've stated concerning the definition of a hook turn. You
however, are disagreeing with what seems to already be understood....without an
opposing definition. Since you choose not to contribute a better definition
with clarity, of what constitutes a "hook turn", the burden of proof surely
lays upon my shoulders for your self satisfaction.
Again......I will ask if you can better define for us what a hook turn is,
complete with how this certain turn's name came about. Can you?
Or would you prefer to play that typical lawyer game of splitting hairs,
without adding anything constructive to the conversation?
I will once again state my initial argument on this topic.
Made with Intention, or not....a "fucking" hook turn is a hook turn is a hook
turn.[emphasis added]
Jan Meyer
>
> Jan (but mostly et al) --
>
> I realize you have more canopy landings than I probably ever will and I
> can't begin to tell you how much respect I have for your wisdom and advice.
aw sucks.. thank you for your kind words.
>
> I just wanted to make sure that nobody thought you meant the point at which
> you -finish- your flare just prior to setting foot on the ground.
I did mean the place you finish your flare.
Clearly
> for the softest landing possible, that would be just above the stall point
> of the wing -- an airspeed you probably shouldn't be fooling around with
> near the ground for anything except actually touching down.
You can do flat turns (aka braked turns) at any toggle position.
You can steer your canopy ALL the way to the ground!
A safe margin
> might be 1.3 times stall speed, but since most skydivers do not come
> equipped with airspeed indicators you'll need to find out what is a safe
> airspeed by practicing the maneuver at altitude and getting a feel for the
> sound of the wind and it's feel on our face.
There are two types of stalls: static and dynamic.
A static stall is one that you slowly increase the airfoil's angle of
attack, through a series a quasi-equilibrium states, until the airflow
separates from the airfoil. There is a loss of lift when the airflow
separates.
A dynamic stall is one where the angle of attack is rapidly increased
over a short time interval. The rapid change in angle of attack
generates a significant increase in lift for a short period of time.
After the short period of time, there is a rapid loss of lift.
Your ROT of "A safe margin might be 1.3 times stall speed" comes from
your aircraft pilot background. Pilots practice static stalls and are
familiar with the static stall airspeed for their aircraft. Static stall
airpeeds are also listed in tables in the flight manuals.
We don't have such data in skydiving. Very rarely will you see someone
practicing a static stall. Our ROTs come from experience (our own &
those of others) of dynamic stalls. The rate and amount of toggle travel
are the 2 most important factors for a parachute landing flare for a
given wing loading.
ROT = rule of thumb
>
> Another minor bickering point might be that any fixed physical reference
> point ("pull the toggles 1.618 feet," for example) should -probably- not be
> used to make landings. Something like that might be fine for a reference
> point ("gee, I -should- be flattening out by now"), but landings should be
> made with respect to a number of variables and any attempt to strictly
> mechanize the process will -probably- give widely variable results. On one
> day you'd balloon up and on another you'd sink in -- neither would be a good
> landing. Since conditions are variable, so should be your control inputs.
> Both in range and speed of application.
>
> Paul
>
> **********
>
> Jan Meyer wrote:
> > point A = toggles up = full flight
> > point B = full flare point
> > = place you 'stop' toggle travel during your 'normal' flare
Jan Meyer
DJ Mike
>> requirement??
>
>Following your reasoning, why have any requirements at all?
You tell me. You are the better authority on how a centralized power better
benifits the masses.
>First, he's not suggesting mandating it on you, he's suggesting it be
>added to the archaic A license requirement.
First. I am a member of the USPA. If his suggestion were to be mandated, it
would be mandated on me bacause I am a member. As a member of the USPA, it
would be a mandate that I disagree with and would not feel compelled to adhere
to. So much for the effectiveness of "stupid" rules.
> Second, it seems like a
>good time to do it, since landing accidents have now taken over as the
>leading cause of death in skydiving
Second. And where do you lay the blame for this? My contention is still the
same. Are you really that incapable of learning something unless it is a
requirement?
>Third - why would a student
>skydiver be expected to devise his/her own curriculum to include more
>advanced canopy training than is currently required.
Third. My observation is that it is not "students" frapping themselves in under
inflated parachutes. Rather, it is those that have forgotten or dismiss the
fact, that in an activity of this nature.....you can never stop being a
student.
>Do the students
>generally check out the fatality rates to see what they need to know
>over and above the USPA requirements? Or do they expect their
>instructors to provide guidance here?
Is this question really meant to have the condescension it possesses? Just
where "do" you lay the blame? The instructors? If so......are you just one of a
very elite few, possessing enough inteligence to better your education, despite
the incompetent curiculum and training you recieved?
>The accident data make it pretty
>clear that the current curriculum is not adequate in the area of canopy
>training and that instructors aren't teaching it and folks aren't
>learning it on their own, despite your wishful thinking.
So it's the curriculum's fault? Or is it the Instructor's fault? And if this is
truly the case, couldn't it be said that the minimal requirements already in
place are not being adhered to? If whats required now, is not being adhered to,
how will more rules change this?
Again....it's not the students....it's those that choose to stop being a
student. The accident data show that after a person has proven they have enough
knowledge, skill, and experience to be given a document of proficiency by the
USPA........they often choose to stop learning.
As far as the USPA is concerned, after someone has recieved that ducument of
proficiency, it is the individual's responsibility to further their own
education. They have submitted documentation that they no longer require
someone to continue holding their hand.
As much as you wish the USPA to be the almighty enforcing power that will take
care of us all....it is not. I recomend "professor" that you do a bit of
studying. You can start with the SIM's towards the front of the book. A page
you may find rather enlightening is about 3 pages in and is gold in color.
Don't forget to read the back-side of that page also.
Try getting your shit straight before you start preaching that we all should be
submitted to greater controlling powers.
kallend
mom...@aol.com (DJ Mike) wrote:
> >> Are you really that incapable of learning something unless it is a
> >> requirement??
> >
> >Following your reasoning, why have any requirements at all?
>
> You tell me. You are the better authority on how a centralized power
better
> benifits the masses.
>
> >First, he's not suggesting mandating it on you, he's suggesting it be
> >added to the archaic A license requirement.
>
> First. I am a member of the USPA. If his suggestion were to be
mandated, it
> would be mandated on me bacause I am a member. As a member of the
USPA, it
> would be a mandate that I disagree with and would not feel compelled
to adhere
> to. So much for the effectiveness of "stupid" rules.
Well - what do YOU suggest as a remedy for the rapid increase in
the landing accident rate over the last 10 years?
>
> > Second, it seems like a
> >good time to do it, since landing accidents have now taken over as
the
> >leading cause of death in skydiving
>
> Second. And where do you lay the blame for this? My contention is
still the
> same. Are you really that incapable of learning something unless it is
a
> requirement?
>
Apparently there are many people killing or injuring themselves under
high performance canopies. Far more than 10 years ago. Apparently
self-education isn't doing a good job.
> >Third - why would a student
> >skydiver be expected to devise his/her own curriculum to include more
> >advanced canopy training than is currently required.
>
> Third. My observation is that it is not "students" frapping themselves
in under
> inflated parachutes. Rather, it is those that have forgotten or
dismiss the
> fact, that in an activity of this nature.....you can never stop being
a
> student.
>
When is the appropriate time to learn good canopy skills if not when a
student?
> >Do the students
> >generally check out the fatality rates to see what they need to know
> >over and above the USPA requirements? Or do they expect their
> >instructors to provide guidance here?
>
> Is this question really meant to have the condescension it possesses?
Just
> where "do" you lay the blame? The instructors? If so......are you just
one of a
> very elite few, possessing enough inteligence to better your
education, despite
> the incompetent curiculum and training you recieved?
>
I don't think I'm alone in thinking that the curriculum needs updating.
> >The accident data make it pretty
> >clear that the current curriculum is not adequate in the area of
canopy
> >training and that instructors aren't teaching it and folks aren't
> >learning it on their own, despite your wishful thinking.
>
> So it's the curriculum's fault? Or is it the Instructor's fault? And
if this is
> truly the case, couldn't it be said that the minimal requirements
already in
> place are not being adhered to? If whats required now, is not being
adhered to,
> how will more rules change this?
>
Did I ask for more rules?
The curriculum was designed for a 1970s environment. What is needed is
a curriculum appropriate to a 2000 environment. This revision is already
underway and I don't think your reactionary whining will stop it.
Curriculum revision is not "more rules" or "greater controlling power".
You need to improve your reading comprehension.
>
> Blue Skys and Godspeed,
> DJ Mike
>
> The only guarantee in Skydiving is...you WILL land !
>
--
DJ Mike
>still the
>> same. Are you really that incapable of learning something unless it is
>a
>> requirement?
>>
>
>Apparently there are many people killing or injuring themselves under
>high performance canopies. Far more than 10 years ago. Apparently
>self-education isn't doing a good job.
"Apparently self-education isn't doing a good job."?!?!?!
How do you come to this conclusion? I contend that self education is doing a
damn fine job for those that choose to endeavor in it. I forgot....your a
"professor"....convinced that people are incapable of learning unless it is in
a controlled formal environment.
>> Third. My observation is that it is not "students" frapping themselves
>in under
>> inflated parachutes. Rather, it is those that have forgotten or
>dismiss the
>> fact, that in an activity of this nature.....you can never stop being
>a
>> student.
>When is the appropriate time to learn good canopy skills if not when a
>student?
>
Open you eyes Professor. For the most part, good canopy skills are taught to
students. They are taught good "basic" canopy skills in preparation for
obtaining their "basic" license. In fact, all the skills one learns as a
student are "basic". All these "basic" skills happen to be survival oriented.
Once an individual has attained a license, not much more can be taught to the
person, unless they are openly willing to learn more.
Again...it is not the "students" that are frapping under inflated parachutes.
It is those that have failed to continue learning.
So....where do "you" want to draw the line between required to learn, and learn
on your own if you choose to do so?
>Just
>> where "do" you lay the blame? The instructors? If so......are you just
>one of a
>> very elite few, possessing enough inteligence to better your
>education, despite
>> the incompetent curiculum and training you recieved?
>
>I don't think I'm alone in thinking that the curriculum needs updating.
Professor....it says a whole bunch about you and your character, when you
consistantley avoid answering a question. If I'm wrong in my assesment of your
character, then just maybe you can explain yourself in more detail without
using the tactic of follow-up questions, or tangent statements.
With that said....I too believe the curriculum needs an update. I just don't
believe in the types of changes you wish to see.
>> So it's the curriculum's fault? Or is it the Instructor's fault? And
>if this is
>> truly the case, couldn't it be said that the minimal requirements
>already in
>> place are not being adhered to? If whats required now, is not being
>adhered to,
>> how will more rules change this?
>>
>
>Did I ask for more rules?
There you go again....avoiding the topic
>The curriculum was designed for a 1970s environment. What is needed is
>a curriculum appropriate to a 2000 environment. This revision is already
>underway and I don't think your reactionary whining will stop it.
>
Yes...I'm fully aware that revisions are underway. I have faith that when the
final draft is implimented, it will stay true in nature to all past
recomendations published within the SIM's.
As far as reactionary whining?? You only wish that would apply to me. Our
little tiff started because someone posted a stupid reactionary idea about
making watching some video a license requirement. An idea which "you" chose to
defend. I don't see reactionary whining on my part. I see an overt expression
that such simple minded ideas are just plain stupid and have the potential to
be oppressive.
>> As much as you wish the USPA to be the almighty enforcing power that
>will take
>> care of us all....it is not. I recomend "professor" that you do a bit
>of
>> studying. You can start with the SIM's towards the front of the book.
>A page
>> you may find rather enlightening is about 3 pages in and is gold in
>color.
>> Don't forget to read the back-side of that page also.
>>
>> Try getting your shit straight before you start preaching that we all
>should be
>> submitted to greater controlling powers.
>
>Curriculum revision is not "more rules" or "greater controlling power".
>You need to improve your reading comprehension.
In the immortal words of one great President....."there you go again" !
Maybe my reading comprehension would improve if you were to stop being evasive,
and have the balls to come out and actually say what you mean. Then again..you
already know what kind of abuse you would endure, if you did that.
Mike Manuel
at 50 feet--it is still by all accepted and commonly used definitions a
"hook turn".
To call it a 'low turn' I feel is a dangerous practice-especilly with
students. There is a lot of slang and a lot of terminology in this sport.
Some is seldom used and more technical, some is common, and although slang
or 'adopted' it refers to a specific move or item.
There are times when even a student or low timer may NEED to make a low
turn to avoid a mid air, or an obstacle etc. In fact the %'s are higher
that they will need to do it than an experienced jumper who has learned
better landing control and more all around awareness will need to do it.
To call a hook turn a low turn and then have them hear over and over
again, and see signs posted that say NO HOOK TURNS may, at the split second
that they need a flat turn or a 5 degree change in direction, hesitate
because it has been drilled into them that "hook" and "low" are the
same--and to do "hook turns" will kill you.
A low turn is much more "unclear" than hook turn. A low turn could be
anything from the shortest, minor direction change at 30 feet to a wide,
arching 90 degree turn from 80 feet. A hook turn is a specific manner of
making a turn-regardless of the altitude (the lack thereof to be the
fatality determinate). People that die as the result of intentional hook
turns, although listed as such, do not die from a skydiving accident. They
had a fully functional canopy that they decided to use improperly. Call it
stupidity, ego, cockiness, a thrill or pilot error--but don't call it an
accident. Students MUST understand that. NOTE: an unintentional hook turn
may be one where a person attempting to avoid a midair at 40 ft+- overreacts
and buries a toggle too far. Watched one happen right over my head and the
body thud a few feet away.
When you have terms that have specific meanings, whether or not 'slang',
it is especially important for students to know and understand exactly what
they mean.
A note on another unrelated comment. IMHO to suggest that a trained
skydiver should consider failure rates of reserves in the decision to
cut-a-way what he/she has determined to be a bad main is to suggest
'excessive thought induced suicide'. No one but the jumper can make the
decision as to when they should or should not cut-a-way. We can maybe look
at video LATER and take comments, slow motion it, even take a vote--but we
cannot go back and intervene in that split second when the decision is made
with all of our 'after the fact study' and assist them.
The reserve has one purpose. When the main canopy, in the opinion, of
the jumper, cannot perform at a level of confidence that jumper sets for
himself/herself it should be cut-a-way and the reserve deployed. Some may
cut-a-way quicker than they should, some may ride it all the way in. Some
may feel the point is where they feel they can't make an acceptable, walk
away landing, others may feel the point of decision to be where they may
break a leg or so but should live through it.
The point of decision is irrelevant to the action. Whatever and
whenever that skydiver has determined the main to be less than their
standard of acceptability they should cut-a-way with NO thought as to the
chance of a reserve failure. Eject systems fail on $30 million dollar jets
and ABS brakes on cars fail, but I don't want someone hitting me head on
because they 'thought' they could steer past a problem rather than risk only
one brake working and sliding sideways.
The odds favor the use of the intended system. To further increase
those odds you can work with your students and younger jumpers (even
experienced) to help insure that their level of confidence goes up, that
they are aware of problem and altitude, and can make a better informed
decision as to a cut-a-way. But to clutter the thought process during a
snap shot instant in time with one last decision of whether or not to trust
a reserve is asking for an increased rate of fatalities.
If the intent was directed at Tandem it is still true, but to an even
higher degree. A tandem master is an experienced and trained individual
that could and should with the experience and extra altitude of tandem
openings make an extremely informed decision on when the main is not
functional and the reserve is needed. Although some may say they know
tandem masters that are so dumb they can't find their way to the drop zone,
much less make an informed decision, then they certainly cannot handle an
extra decision as to whether or not the reserve will work.
SD Mike
----------
In article <8j9c86$j68$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, bil...@qualcomm.com wrote:
> i call it a low turn, because a) that's what it is, b) it's self
> explanatory and c) that's what kills people who turn too low. you can
> call it a hook turn, or a pucker turn, or a ski slope turn, that's fine.
> to me, it looks more like a ski jump than a hook anyway. but i prefer
> to use a clear term rather than a slang term that they may or may not
> understand. after all, the people who really need to know this stuff are
> beginners, and they are the ones who may not know what your definition
> of a hook turn is.
>
> some people's definitions of hook turn is an intentional entry into
> a high performance landing, and by that definition, your definition is
> wrong. many people turn too low without meaning to initiate a high
> performance landing. i would rather that they understand me, even if
> you disagree.
>
>> That's absolutely correct Bill......."it's a dangerous sport".....and
> I contend
>> "that" is all the more reason not to "sugar coat" something by
> avoiding calling
>> it what it actually is.
>
> so why use slang instead of calling it what it is - especially if
> your aim is to educate the people who really need to know, the low
> timers?
>
> -bill von
>
>
Stephen
Jan Meyer wrote
>ALGHURLEY wrote:
>>
>> Any more detailed info on how to do a turn with a minimum of height loss:
>>
>> How should the turn be initiated (front riser? toggle?) ?
>>
1st: Practice High!!
Bring both toggles down around shoulder. Continue to bring one toggle down
to a slow braked turn.
Bring both toggles down below shoulder. Ease one toggle up to a slower
braked turn. Bring the upper toggle down to a flare in a turn. EASE both
toggles up to full flight, and practice again. (altitude permitting.)
>> How sharp should the turn be ?
>>
Try different modes up high. Find the control range for your own canopy
before you find yourself faced with a barb wire fence on an out landing.
Belive me, a flaring turn comes in handy there. ;)
>> When, how much and for how long should you partially flare in the turn to
>> prevent the dive ?
>>
Different for different canopies. Finding out for yourself gives you an
accurate picture of your canopys flight regime, and builds mucle memory
and mental reaction for when you need it.
>
>Braked turns: hold the toggles part-way down (to full flare point). Let
>one up a few inches to do a flat, non-diving turn.
>
Up to the full flare point. (for those that jumped on Jan's point)
>Please let me know if 'braked' or 'flat' turns is a new concept to you.
>
Recently during a wind hold, sitting around the picnic table. I was talking
to some jumpers with 50 to 100 or so jumps, talking about my last CRW
trip, the methods we use,etc. Amazed how many didn't have any idea
what a flat or braked turn was. Talked about the above, and some examples
of when I've had to use them low, and several decided to open higher the
next jump and try it. I realized that that's about how I learned them,
around
the campfire. On student status, it's basically "no low turns, now go forth
and jump".
>--
>Jan Meyer
>mailto:Aeroso...@MakeItHappen.com
>http://www.MakeItHappen.com
>http://www.DiveMaker.com
Much good info there at the sports parachutes safety journal.
http://www.makeithappen.com/spsj/index.html
Definitely need another chapter for flat turns. It would be nice if all
DZ's would access and provide the journal to their newbies.
CReW Skies,
Steve Fennell
TY
ask my JMs about it next week but in the mean time would you be able to explain
the difference to me or suggest some place I can read up on this?
Thanx,
Donna
Jim Bozarth wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Fatality in Florida?
> >From: TY ddoh...@net1plus.com
>
> >Are flat turns and flare turns different or just 2 different names for the
> >same manuever?
>
> Similar but still different
> jim
> D-10154
> TM/I
> GW
> DW
Stephen
TY asked;
>
>Are flat turns and flare turns different or just 2 different names for the
>same manuever?
>
either during a flare for landing, or that end in a flare for landing while
still in a turn; with or without a pendulum. IMHO.
Safe skies,
Steve F.
D16842
>Forgive me your honor, and allow me to clarify my stance. This whole thread
>has
>to do with someone that died after making a rapid 180 toggle turn back into
>the
OK Mike, now having a baseline to compare to, take pause the next time you
decide to pick on the profession of engineering. We could all be laywers you
know!
Tom B
kallend
mom...@aol.com (DJ Mike) wrote:
> >> Second. And where do you lay the blame for this? My contention is
> >still the
> >> same. Are you really that incapable of learning something unless it
is
> >a
> >> requirement?
> >>
> >
> >Apparently there are many people killing or injuring themselves under
> >high performance canopies. Far more than 10 years ago. Apparently
> >self-education isn't doing a good job.
>
> How do you come to this conclusion? I contend that self education is
doing a
> damn fine job for those that choose to endeavor in it. I
forgot....your a
> "professor"....convinced that people are incapable of learning unless
it is in
> a controlled formal environment.
The rate of landing fatalities accidents is up by 4000% (four thousand
percent in case you thought that was a typo) over the last ten years
(source, USPA published data). This suggests to me that necessary
skills to fly high performance canopies are not being picked up by just
relying on self education. Apparently you think relying on self
education is just fine. Well, we disagree.
>
> >> Third. My observation is that it is not "students" frapping
themselves
> >in under
> >> inflated parachutes. Rather, it is those that have forgotten or
> >dismiss the
> >> fact, that in an activity of this nature.....you can never stop
being
> >a
> >> student.
>
> >When is the appropriate time to learn good canopy skills if not when
a
> >student?
> >
> Open you eyes Professor. For the most part, good canopy skills are
taught to
> students. They are taught good "basic" canopy skills in preparation
for
> obtaining their "basic" license. In fact, all the skills one learns as
a
> student are "basic". All these "basic" skills happen to be survival
oriented.
> Once an individual has attained a license, not much more can be taught
to the
> person, unless they are openly willing to learn more.
>
> Again...it is not the "students" that are frapping under inflated
parachutes.
> It is those that have failed to continue learning.
>
> So....where do "you" want to draw the line between required to learn,
and learn
> on your own if you choose to do so?
>
> >Just
> >> where "do" you lay the blame? The instructors? If so......are you
just
> >one of a
> >> very elite few, possessing enough inteligence to better your
> >education, despite
> >> the incompetent curiculum and training you recieved?
> >
> >I don't think I'm alone in thinking that the curriculum needs
updating.
>
> Professor....it says a whole bunch about you and your character, when
you
> consistantley avoid answering a question. If I'm wrong in my assesment
of your
> character, then just maybe you can explain yourself in more detail
without
> using the tactic of follow-up questions, or tangent statements.
>
> With that said....I too believe the curriculum needs an update. I just
don't
> believe in the types of changes you wish to see.
>
> >> So it's the curriculum's fault? Or is it the Instructor's fault?
And
> >if this is
> >> truly the case, couldn't it be said that the minimal requirements
> >already in
> >> place are not being adhered to? If whats required now, is not being
> >adhered to,
> >> how will more rules change this?
> >>
> >
> >Did I ask for more rules?
>
> There you go again....avoiding the topic
>
Rules weren't the topic so how can I avoid it? Curriculum was the
topic, which you seem to have forgotten.
> >The curriculum was designed for a 1970s environment. What is needed
is
> >a curriculum appropriate to a 2000 environment. This revision is
already
> >underway and I don't think your reactionary whining will stop it.
> >
>
> Yes...I'm fully aware that revisions are underway. I have faith that
when the
> final draft is implimented, it will stay true in nature to all past
> recomendations published within the SIM's.
>
> As far as reactionary whining?? You only wish that would apply to me.
Our
> little tiff started because someone posted a stupid reactionary idea
about
> making watching some video a license requirement. An idea which "you"
chose to
> defend. I don't see reactionary whining on my part. I see an overt
expression
> that such simple minded ideas are just plain stupid and have the
potential to
> be oppressive.
>
> >> As much as you wish the USPA to be the almighty enforcing power
that
> >will take
> >> care of us all....it is not. I recomend "professor" that you do a
bit
> >of
> >> studying. You can start with the SIM's towards the front of the
book.
> >A page
> >> you may find rather enlightening is about 3 pages in and is gold in
> >color.
> >> Don't forget to read the back-side of that page also.
> >>
> >> Try getting your shit straight before you start preaching that we
all
> >should be
> >> submitted to greater controlling powers.
> >
> >Curriculum revision is not "more rules" or "greater controlling
power".
> >You need to improve your reading comprehension.
>
> In the immortal words of one great President....."there you go again"
!
>
> Maybe my reading comprehension would improve if you were to stop being
evasive,
> and have the balls to come out and actually say what you mean. Then
again..you
> already know what kind of abuse you would endure, if you did that.
>
I've said very clearly what I believe on many occasions - the USPA
licensing methodology is 3 decades out of date and needs a major
overhaul.
On the subject of evasion, you ignored my question: what would YOU
recommend to deal with the epidemic increase in landing accidents, since
you clearly don't believe in any formal training process.
Jim Bozarth
>From: TY ddoh...@net1plus.com
>Are flat turns and flare turns different or just 2 different names for the
>same manuever?
Similar but still different
frefa...@aol.com
mom...@aol.com (DJ Mike) wrote:
> >I said:
> >See Mike? By your definition, "ANY turn beyond 90 degrees starts to
take on
> >the shape of a hook," and is, "therefore," a hook turn. [emphasis
added]
> Forgive me your honor, and allow me to clarify my stance. This whole
thread has
> to do with someone that died after making a rapid 180 toggle turn
back into the
> wind. By a large majority of Skydivers....this is known as a "hook
turn".
True. And according to your statements, ANY turn greater than 90
degrees is also known as a "hook turn."
> Others are contending that it was not a hook turn because the
indivdual was not
> the type to make turns of that nature. Therefore, they prefer to call
it a turn
> too low to the ground or some other such thing. Their argument is
that it was
> not a hook turn, because it was not intended. I am contending that,
it makes
> no difference if a turn of this nature is intentional or not
> intentional......it is still the same type of turn. A "hook turn".
I know that Mike. Your earlier statement was still in error, however.
I'm glad that you've seen fit to retrac...err, I mean, "clarify" your
position.
> Now, in an attempt to further clarify "for you", what kind of turn
warrants the
> title of hook turn, I will state that in addition to the shape of
it's flight
> path....it is a turn that inherently increases the forward speed of
the canopy,
> and subsequently, the forward speed of the person under the canopy.
Do I need
> to add, that the increase in forward speed is due to the input for
the turn, is
> of the nature that will inherently make the canopy lose altitude more
rapidly?
> When I refer to what a hook turn is...I'm refering to turns of this
> nature...whether they are made using a toggle or a riser.
Why not simply say that a "hook turn" is any turn in excess of 90
degrees in which the jumper's body swings out from under the canopy and
then pendulums back underneath? That would sure be a lot more concise,
don't you think?
> I do hope for your sake, and others who may be as confused,
I'm not confused. I'm the one who pointed out the flaws in YOUR
statements about "any" turn, remember? You then challenged me to prove
that you had ever said that -- a challenge which I promptly met,
remember? It appears that YOU are the one who was confused. Now that
you have provided your "clarification," however, it seems that you may
have merely misspoken. No biggee, it happens.
You are, however, misspeaking yet again by now suggesting that it was I
who was confused.
> Please your honor....
[snip some sarcasm]
You
> however, are disagreeing with what seems to already be
understood....without an
> opposing definition.
1) I did not disagree what is "understood." I disagreed with your
flawed statement.
2) It is not necessary for me to provide an "opposing definition" in
order to point out the flaws in your definition.
[snip more sarcasm]
> Again......I will ask if you can better define for us what a hook
turn is,
> complete with how this certain turn's name came about. Can you?
There is no universally accepted definition of what a "hook turn" is.
I, unlike yourself, am not so pretentious as to suggest that my
definition is THE definition. There is no controlling authority here,
so as a result there exists more than one equally valid definition.
Having said that, I generally consider a "hook turn" to be any turn
greater than 90 degrees which results in the jumper's body swinging out
from under the canopy to a significant degree and then penduluming back
under the canopy. What is a "significant degree?" I've never really
thought about it. It's like the Supreme Court's definition of
obscenity -- they know it when they see it. As a ballpark, I guess
anything in excess of about 45 degrees could be considered to be a
"significant degree."
Whatever definition is used, bill von's and Michael's point(s) is/are
valid. It's important to differentiate between high performance
landing "hook turns" and inadvertent screw-up "hook turns." Whether we
differentiate by calling them different things or by simply adding a
prefix before the term "hook turn" is just six of one, half dozen of
the other, but if I had to choose sides I'd probably end up with bill
and Michael -- use *distinctly* different terms so that newbies grok
the differences.
As for HOW the term "hook turn" came about, I don't know. I have heard
from more than one veteren jumper that they used to "hook turn" their
Para-Commanders. I don't know if they actually called it a "hook turn"
back then or if they were merely applying a newer turn to an old
manuever. It probably isn't possible to get one's body to pendulum in
excess of 45 degrees under a PC, but it certainly is possible to turn
them over 90 degrees on final.
At any rate, I'll be gone from the newsgroup for a good while, so if
you have any comments for me, sarcastic or otherwise, it'll be awhile
before I get them (if ever). I'll probably come back and just delete
all posts and start from scratch, so if there's anything you really
want me to read, email it to me.
Blue Skies,
Marc
DJ Mike
>percent in case you thought that was a typo) over the last ten years
>(source, USPA published data). This suggests to me that necessary
>skills to fly high performance canopies are not being picked up by just
>relying on self education. Apparently you think relying on self
>education is just fine. Well, we disagree.
Boy...you do enjoy spouting off statistics. Especially ones created to show
that things are going to hell in a hand basket. Afterwards, you seem to enjoy
screaming to the rafters that something must be done to put an end to these
most great maladies.
Yes..you do percieve great miseries degrading our happy little world. Ironic
though...is that although you have mastered showing us the woe's, you seem
incapable of bringing forth anything of substance as to how "you" would go
about fixing this disasterous state of affairs.
I don't buy your tripe professor. Though I believe there are things within the
system that could use a little fixing, I don't believe the state of our sport
is in the dire straits, you want us all to believe it's in.
Your rhetoric is dangerous for it's alarming manner. It serves to panic the
uninformed / uneducated into believing that something must be done by someone
of higher powers. It leads others into a false sense that surely they cannot
personally deal with a problems magnitude, so the solution must require "one"
to dictate to the "rest".
It is a pity, and you are pityful professor, that you don't have more faith in
your fellow man, or fellow Skydiver.
>> Maybe my reading comprehension would improve if you were to stop being
>evasive,
>> and have the balls to come out and actually say what you mean. Then
>again..you
>> already know what kind of abuse you would endure, if you did that.
>I've said very clearly what I believe on many occasions - the USPA
>licensing methodology is 3 decades out of date and needs a major
>overhaul.
Yes....and that is all you ever have to say. "The system is broke, and somebody
needs to fix it". Now that you have said it enough times for all to clearly
understand your position.....is it at all possible that you have something
constructive to say concerning just what, and how the broken parts should best
be fixed??
>On the subject of evasion, you ignored my question: what would YOU
>recommend to deal with the epidemic increase in landing accidents, since
>you clearly don't believe in any formal training process.
There you go again, with your alarmist rhetoric. "...to deal with the
epidemic..". I don't see the epidemic you claim exists. Spout all the numerical
data you want...it does not show proof of an epidemic. My God man......if this
were truly an epidemic, why are there not more in positions of influence
stating as you do?
If there is any epidemic in our sport right now......it is in the large amount
of mental midgets that attempt to become Skydivers, and do become licensed.
Additionally, it's not that I don't believe in a formal training process (your
putting words in my mouth). I will believe in a formal training process when
one has been developed and has proven itself successful.
For this to happen takes individuals at the grass roots level, learning, and
analizing the dynamics of that which needs to be taught. After it is understood
by those individuals, it needs to be structured and formatted in a way that the
rest can easily understand. Out of all that are now in the throes, and
proactive in the development of a training method ..eventually a proven formal
system of training will emerge.
Your pet problem professor, will be solved at the grass roots level. NOT at the
headquarters level.
My recomendation to you professor, is to do what I and many others around the
world, have been doing all along. "Learn"...then share what you have learned to
those that also want to learn. When there is enough of this going on....your
contrived epidemic will go away.
What "I" don't understand...is why little ole me needs to explain this to a
professor that would rather spew forth at every opportunity, that the sky is
falling.
Jan Meyer
>
> what would YOU
> recommend to deal with the epidemic increase in landing accidents, since
> you clearly don't believe in any formal training process.
>
back in the olden days, there was a recommendation that 'you needed 100
jumps b4 you jumped a ramair.'
today we probably could use a recommendation in the vein of 'you need n
many jumps to jump wing loadings of x level.' or 'you need to make small
wing loading changes, not more than y amount.' eg do 30 jumps at 1.2 WL,
then 30 jumps at 1.5 WL etc
the problem with this is that it would be extremely hard to enforce. you
would have to depend on voluntary compliance or hire DZ canopy police.
The closest i've seen are the PD Tours where PD does their best to
ensure that the jumper has sufficient experience. Of course, jumpers can
always lie about their experience & pad their logbooks.
Paul Quade
> Paul Quade wrote:
<snippage>
>> I just wanted to make sure that nobody thought you meant the point at which
>> you -finish- your flare just prior to setting foot on the ground.
>
> I did mean the place you finish your flare.
Eeek! More about this after the next paragraph.
>> Clearly
>> for the softest landing possible, that would be just above the stall point
>> of the wing -- an airspeed you probably shouldn't be fooling around with
>> near the ground for anything except actually touching down.
>
> You can do flat turns (aka braked turns) at any toggle position.
> You can steer your canopy ALL the way to the ground!
Yes. And it makes sense to do so to avoid obstacles in the landing area,
but with the caveat that as you get slower the chance of a stall increases.
Deciding to perform a "flat turn" as you've described at 100 feet above the
ground would (in my opinion) be a fairly risky thing for a novice to do
unless s/he has received some instruction and performed them previously at a
safer altitude. Even at that, I believe they can be fairly deceptive at
altitude and should probably be approached closer to the ground only in
stages.
<snippage>
> There are two types of stalls: static and dynamic.
> A static stall is one that you slowly increase the airfoil's angle of
> attack, through a series a quasi-equilibrium states, until the airflow
> separates from the airfoil. There is a loss of lift when the airflow
> separates.
>
> A dynamic stall is one where the angle of attack is rapidly increased
> over a short time interval. The rapid change in angle of attack
> generates a significant increase in lift for a short period of time.
> After the short period of time, there is a rapid loss of lift.
Here we have a conflict of terminology and perhaps understanding.
From an aircraft pilot instructor's point of view, the terms static and
dynamic normally are associated with the concepts of stability. For what
you've described, CFIs usually use the terms stall and accelerated stall
respectively.
Technically, a stall occurs ONLY when the critical angle of attack is
exceeded. This can happen at any attitude or airspeed.
Normally the accelerated stall is demonstrated to students by first stalling
the aircraft normally and having the student take note of the feel of the
controls, airspeed indicator and perhaps a little string tied to a wing
strut that can act as a cheap angle of attack indicator. After recovery and
at a higher airspeed, the CFI banks the aircraft sharply to 60 degrees which
increases the load on the airplane to 2 Gs. The aircraft then -should-
stall at 1.414 times the speed it previously did. At least, that's the way
I demonstrate it. Controls remain crisp at this higher airspeed, but the
angle of attack -should- be exactly the same.
> Your ROT of "A safe margin might be 1.3 times stall speed" comes from
> your aircraft pilot background. Pilots practice static stalls and are
> familiar with the static stall airspeed for their aircraft. Static stall
> airspeeds are also listed in tables in the flight manuals.
Yep. And that is the recommended approach speed from the FAA as well -- 1.3
times Vso. Gives a margin of error.
> We don't have such data in skydiving. Very rarely will you see someone
> practicing a static stall. Our ROTs come from experience (our own &
> those of others) of dynamic stalls. The rate and amount of toggle travel
> are the 2 most important factors for a parachute landing flare for a
> given wing loading.
>
> ROT = rule of thumb
>
>>
>> Another minor bickering point might be that any fixed physical reference
>> point ("pull the toggles 1.618 feet," for example) should -probably- not be
>> used to make landings. Something like that might be fine for a reference
>> point ("gee, I -should- be flattening out by now"), but landings should be
>> made with respect to a number of variables and any attempt to strictly
>> mechanize the process will -probably- give widely variable results. On one
>> day you'd balloon up and on another you'd sink in -- neither would be a good
>> landing. Since conditions are variable, so should be your control inputs.
>> Both in range and speed of application.
>>
>> Paul
I think we agree here. Maybe there's hope for me afterall! ;^)
Paul
Myron Sothcott
"Sabre" first came out,many landing deaths resulted before proper learning of
how the canopy really flew became common knowledge.The same "Cycle" reappeared
in the middle 90,s when the new generation of high performance parachutes came
on the market.Spending 100,s of jumps learning all the ins and outs makes too
much sense and does not give the "Thrill" canopy pilots want "Now".Some will say
that weeding out the "Reckless" is a natural event in this sport.It does not
mean that it should be this way.Time and education in any from will improve
skills.rob
Jan Meyer wrote:
>
> kallend wrote:
> >
> > what would YOU
> > recommend to deal with the epidemic increase in landing accidents, since
> > you clearly don't believe in any formal training process.
> >
>
Freephly
At any rate, I'll be gone from the newsgroup for a good while, so if
you have any comments for me, sarcastic or otherwise, it'll be awhile
before I get them (if ever). I'll probably come back and just delete
all posts and start from scratch, so if there's anything you really
want me to read, email it to me.
******
Where are you going? Are you fed up? Buisy?
You presence in the ng debates will be missed.
See ya
Deven
kallend
Myron Sothcott <"sothcott"@visi.,net> wrote:
> Everyone,these tragedies occur in cycles.(time periods)Some remember
when the
> "Sabre" first came out,many landing deaths resulted before proper
learning of
> how the canopy really flew became common knowledge.The same "Cycle"
reappeared
> in the middle 90,s when the new generation of high performance
parachutes came
> on the market.Spending 100,s of jumps learning all the ins and outs
makes too
> much sense and does not give the "Thrill" canopy pilots want
"Now".Some will say
> that weeding out the "Reckless" is a natural event in this sport.It
does not
> mean that it should be this way.Time and education in any from will
improve
> skills.rob
>
As I look at the graph of landing fatalities over time for the last 10
years I see maybe a hint of cyclical behavior that may actually just be
random fluctuations (noise). What is indisputable is the steady rise in
fatalities over this period. 4000% increase in landing fatality rate
between the period 1989-91 and 1997-99.
Cris G
>The rate of landing fatalities accidents is up by 4000% (four thousand
>percent in case you thought that was a typo) over the last ten years
You mean the rate has gone up since these types of canopies were available?
These statistics only show that since the weapon was available, the masses have
used it.
>This suggests to me that necessary
>skills to fly high performance canopies are not being picked up by just
>relying on self education.
It suggests to me that equipment has changed, but training hasn't. I know that
when I was a student, there was no formal canopy control curriculum. It wasn't
until I sat down with someone willing to explain to me the physics behind the
machine that I understood.
>Apparently you think relying on self
>education is just fine. Well, we disagree.
Self education can also be the act of reaching out.. Not just trial and error.
blue skies
Cris
D-21518
**"If it jams, force it. If it breaks, it needed fixing anyway."**
DJ Mike
>years I see maybe a hint of cyclical behavior that may actually just be
>random fluctuations (noise). What is indisputable is the steady rise in
>fatalities over this period. 4000% increase in landing fatality rate
>between the period 1989-91 and 1997-99.
Yes Kallend....we are all fully aware of your love of statistics, and
manipulation of numbers. Again with your alarming rhetoric....and your probably
convinced that if you shout it at the rafters enough times....you'll get others
to believe what you want them to.
Now, I will use your tactic, and repeat myself.....Do you have anything
proactive to say about your pet "epidemic"? Or are you content with your tiring
"the system is broke, and somebody needs to fix it"?
Chicken Little...."THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING"
kallend
mom...@aol.com (DJ Mike) wrote:
> >As I look at the graph of landing fatalities over time for the last
10
> >years I see maybe a hint of cyclical behavior that may actually just
be
> >random fluctuations (noise). What is indisputable is the steady rise
in
> >fatalities over this period. 4000% increase in landing fatality rate
> >between the period 1989-91 and 1997-99.
>
> Yes Kallend....we are all fully aware of your love of statistics, and
> manipulation of numbers. Again with your alarming rhetoric....and your
probably
> convinced that if you shout it at the rafters enough times....you'll
get others
> to believe what you want them to.
No manipulation needed - the numbers are just what USPA reported.
I simply chose to look at the data whereas you just rant.
>
> Now, I will use your tactic, and repeat myself.....Do you have
anything
> proactive to say about your pet "epidemic"? Or are you content with
your tiring
> "the system is broke, and somebody needs to fix it"?
>
I already told you what I think but you were too busy ranting to notice.
> Chicken Little...."THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING"
>
> Blue Skys and Godspeed,
> DJ Mike
>
> The only guarantee in Skydiving is...you WILL land !
>
Martin Evans
DJ Mike <mom...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000627185022...@ng-cm1.aol.com...
> Open you eyes Professor. For the most part, good canopy skills are taught
to
> students. They are taught good "basic" canopy skills in preparation for
> obtaining their "basic" license. In fact, all the skills one learns as a
> student are "basic". All these "basic" skills happen to be survival
oriented.
> Once an individual has attained a license, not much more can be taught to
the
> person, unless they are openly willing to learn more.
and this is where the problem lies. There is such an attitude and arrogance
amongst so many of those entering the sport nowadays (along with the 'I
can't possibly die or be seriously hurt doing this' mentality) that they
won't listen to the advice of those that try to help. Therefore many who
have the knowledge and ability to mentor those new to the sport through
their progression into safe, capable and knowledgable skydivers neglect to
get involved for fear of being snubbed or tagged as 'an uptight asshole', so
they keep their mouths shut and sit back and allow the neophytes to learn
through the school of hard knocks! I'm one of those that can't bring myself
to do that, so to some (those unwilling to be assisted) I'm an uptight
asshole!
We, as a group have already entered the realm of political correctness and
it's killing our members off! I have a simple solution to the problem but
unfortunately although it would have been considered 'proper order' 10/20
years ago it wouldn't go down too well nowadays! :-(
--
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
DJ Mike
>> manipulation of numbers. Again with your alarming rhetoric....and your
>probably
>> convinced that if you shout it at the rafters enough times....you'll
>get others
>> to believe what you want them to.
>
>No manipulation needed - the numbers are just what USPA reported.
>I simply chose to look at the data whereas you just rant.
Yes you do professor....yes you do. And then you make unsubstantiated alarmist
announcements, about the sky falling down, and attempt to use your little
charts, graphs, and numbers as proof positive. IT DON'T FLY KALLEND.......IT
DON'T FLY!!
(now I'm ranting)
>I already told you what I think but you were too busy ranting to notice.
Translation( in a little girly's voice): "your not playing nice.....so I'm
taking my ball, and I'm going home...so there!!!"
humor me kallend, humor simple little me. I understand it may be difficult to
do, but please try to come down to my mindless, uninteligent level, and explain
to me what you are attempting to contribute to the masses.
Freephly
humor me kallend, humor simple little me. I understand it may be difficult to
do, but please try to come down to my mindless, uninteligent level, and explain
to me what you are attempting to contribute to the masses.
******************************
After Quoting JK:
What is indisputable is the steady rise in
fatalities over this period. 4000% increase in landing fatality rate
between the period 1989-91 and 1997-99.
************
Mike,
Many laws that are written in this country are based on much less significant
Statistics.
The law that could be put on the books due to the "undisputable" statistics
that John pointed too would be similar to the laws in certain countries in
Europe that disallows a jumper to progress to a different, smaller, canopy size
without documented experience.
All that has to happen is to have some newbie from an influential family die
due to a canopy incident that resulted from poor training or poor choice in
canopy.
There is a big difference between being an alarmist and pointing out fact.
Deven.
DJ Mike
>
>humor me kallend, humor simple little me. I understand it may be difficult to
>do, but please try to come down to my mindless, uninteligent level, and
>explain
>to me what you are attempting to contribute to the masses.
>
>******************************
>After Quoting JK:
>
>What is indisputable is the steady rise in
>fatalities over this period. 4000% increase in landing fatality rate
>between the period 1989-91 and 1997-99.
>
>************
>Mike,
>Many laws that are written in this country are based on much less significant
>Statistics.
Yes you are correct....and isn't it a crying shame that in todays society, and
in this great nation, that his kind of panic inducing drivel can have such an
impact on you, me, and the rest of the masses. Personally...I will not stand
silently on the sidelines.
>
>The law that could be put on the books due to the "undisputable" statistics
>that John pointed too would be similar to the laws in certain countries in
>Europe that disallows a jumper to progress to a different, smaller, canopy
>size
>without documented experience.
And that is exactly why I endeavor to ride his sorry ass, and any socialistic
minded simpleton like him..... deep into the dirt. I will "enjoy" exposing
these types of fecal matter for what they really are.
WE DON'T LIVE IN EUROPE....and I for one do not wish to follow Europes lead in
how we conduct our lives, or our Skydiving activities. I will not go down
without a fight against those that believe they know how to live "my" life
better than "I" do. I have nothing more than utter contempt for anyone wanting
more control brought upon "We the people".
>
>All that has to happen is to have some newbie from an influential family die
>due to a canopy incident that resulted from poor training or poor choice in
>canopy.
>
>There is a big difference between being an alarmist and pointing out fact.
>
>Deven.
Yes Deven....there is a "large" difference between an alarmist and pointing out
the facts. I know you personally, and know your character quite well. You don't
strike me as the type that would agree with the crap that kallend attempts to
spew forth. I would be greatly appalled to learn that you believe, this
socialistic minded chicken little, is truly spuoting honest to God, true facts,
rather than alarmist drivel.
I refuse to stand by silently, anytime some nimrod has a brilliant idea on how
he/she can make my life safer/better by putting controls on what I can or can't
do. And for those of you reading my little tirade, and thinking I've finally
gone off the deep end.....think about this. The compassionate professor
Kallend, continually sides with an argument that states "something is wrong and
someone needs to fix it". He ceaselesly spews forth statistics manipulated to
show that our Skydiving world is going to hell in a hand basket. Yet
"never"....."never" does the compasionate professor Kallend have anything
"positive" to contribute concerning fixing his contrived epidemics. His only
response is always along the lines of "it's broke and somebody must fix it".
NEVER do you read from him something along the lines of "We have a problem, and
I think I have a solution". It is a sad day if you cannot identify that his
rhetoric leans towards socialism. And now you are wondering what the hell
political leanings have to do with us and Skydiving?? Because the professor has
found a little world that he believes he can lay his influence into. I have
said it and others have to.....what you see going on in the Skydiving
world....is a reflection of the society that we presently live in. If you enjoy
the freedoms you possess when you Skydive....you better start fighting like
hell to keep them. Cause if you don't, we will all end up doing things Mr.
kallends way. God have mercy on us all, then.
Mark my words....Call me crazy, but mark my words..........John Kallend, or one
of his ilk....will be the next Gerry Dyck !! Go ahead.....call me crazy. I love
when I can say "I told you so".
I gotta git off his soap now......I feel dizzy..........HONEY........have you
seen my prozac??
WiseRaptor
>For the most part, good canopy skills are taught
>to
>> students
Ridiculous. I was one of those students recently, and I am APPALLED at the
things I was not taught about canopy control. Being the uptight safety nazi
that I am, I learned the skills I needed pretty much on my own via video and
research. I'm not saying that my instructors were negligent, only that the
prescribed curriculum is inadequate in this area. When you've got graduates
that have no clue about turning in brakes, you've got a PROBLEM.
They are flying gliders close to the ground in potentially crowded airspace,
and you haven't taught them how to maneuver in that environment. "No low
turns" isn't good enough.
I'm hopeful that the new curriculum I've been reading about will address this
issue.
Mark
B-23306
LORD OF THE SKY
kallend wrote in message <8jcup5$872$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>What is indisputable is the steady rise in
>fatalities over this period. 4000% increase in landing fatality rate
>between the period 1989-91 and 1997-99.
Also indesputable is that fatalities attributable to canopy control
or lack there of,in the U.S. in 1998 took the lives of less than 2/10ths of
1% of the active skydiving population.
This hardly qualifies as an epidemic.
Furthermore I'm not sure of your statistic of a 4000% increase in
landing fatalities.
It would be interesting to see how you arrived at that statistic.
"Treetop" a.k.a. LORD OF THE SKY
kallend
"LORD OF THE SKY" <lord...@ellijay.com> wrote:
>
> kallend wrote in message <8jcup5$872$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
> >What is indisputable is the steady rise in
> >fatalities over this period. 4000% increase in landing fatality rate
> >between the period 1989-91 and 1997-99.
>
> Also indesputable is that fatalities attributable to canopy
control
> or lack there of,in the U.S. in 1998 took the lives of less than
2/10ths of
> 1% of the active skydiving population.
> This hardly qualifies as an epidemic.
>
2/10 of 1% is 1 in 500 of the active population.
If 1 in 500 of the population died of polio, we'd have 1/2 million polio
deaths per year - far more than in the worst of the polio "epidemics" of
the 50's. Ditto for influenza, measles, hepatitis etc. If 1 in 500 died
of gun related injuries we'd have
1/2 million gun fatalities a year and I can guarantee that the
politicians would be going on about an epidemic of gun violence. Need I
say more?
> Furthermore I'm not sure of your statistic of a 4000% increase
in
> landing fatalities.
> It would be interesting to see how you arrived at that statistic.
>
> "Treetop" a.k.a. LORD OF THE SKY
>
You can make the value anything you want by choosing the correct year
for comparison. Through the 1980's until 1992 there were typically zero
or 1 landing fatalities most years. Compared to 1990 or 1992 there's an
infinity% increase. Right now landing accidents comprise about 40% of
all skydiving fatalities. Maybe DJMike is right; we shouldn't worry
about it, and just write off some 10 - 20 colleagues each year.
kallend
Don't worry about it Mark. DJMike assures us there is no problem.
Lucky Dave
Some of us do live in Europe.
No really. We Do.
And we can access the net.
Each country in Europe is so different from the next. You can legally buy and smoke
pot in licenced cafes in Amsterdam - Is that more control ?. You Americans could
learn a lot from following the lead of some countries where just cause a building
is 50 years old it isn't considered historic.
8-D
Blues,
Lucky Dave.
DJ Mike wrote:
<HUGE SNIP>
>
> WE DON'T LIVE IN EUROPE....and I for one do not wish to follow Europes lead in
> how we conduct our lives, or our Skydiving activities. I will not go down
> without a fight against those that believe they know how to live "my" life
> better than "I" do. I have nothing more than utter contempt for anyone wanting
> more control brought upon "We the people".
<HUGE SNIP>
DJ Mike
>
>Some of us do live in Europe.
>
>No really. We Do.
Really??........wow!
>
>And we can access the net.
>
You guys got lectricity????? Next thing you'll tell me is you got plumbing
too!!
>Each country in Europe is so different from the next. You can legally buy and
>smoke
>pot in licenced cafes in Amsterdam - Is that more control ?. You Americans
>could
>learn a lot from following the lead of some countries where just cause a
>building
>is 50 years old it isn't considered historic.
>
>8-D
>
>Blues,
>Lucky Dave.
>
Yer funny lucky Dave....yer funny. I'm always amused at how people interperate
what is said in the English vernacular.
Here....let me attempt to make the picture all pretty and clear for you. Deven
lives in the good ole US of A, as do I. He brought up a point that US laws
could be made, because of idiotic crap that Kallend enjoys spewing. He further
re-enforced his point by explaining that countries in Europe have done just
that.
Now as far as my reply is concerned....I was pointing out to this US citizen
that we don't live in Europe...and I don't take much heed in how controlled or
uncontrolled peoples lives are on the other side of the pond.
You see....for the last 224 years since "We the people" declared our
independance from a tyranical oppressive Empire...we have chosen to be governed
by laws, and NOT to be governed by men.
In otherwords the United States of America has marched to it's own tune for the
last 224 years.....and will continue to do so. You Europeans can think all you
want that the US would be a better place if we followed your lead. It doesn't
matter, cause your not living here, or have a say in how we conduct ourselves
on our homeland.
For the most part, The United States of America is inhabited by
"leaders"....not "followers". History bares this to be true.
DJ Mike
>--
>www.iit.edu/~kallend
>
Translation: I see your a little "whiner" like me Mark. Let's whine together,
and in the meantime, I'll put words in DJ Mikes mouth to make him appear to be
the extremist, that we actually are. Oh ya.....ssshhhhh....don't let it out
that you were actually able to learn things on your own without it being
required.
DJ Mike
>control
>> or lack there of,in the U.S. in 1998 took the lives of less than
>2/10ths of
>> 1% of the active skydiving population.
>> This hardly qualifies as an epidemic.
>>
>
>
>2/10 of 1% is 1 in 500 of the active population.
>
>If 1 in 500 of the population died of polio, we'd have 1/2 million polio
>deaths per year - far more than in the worst of the polio "epidemics" of
>the 50's. Ditto for influenza, measles, hepatitis etc.
Translation: No, No....your number crunching is all wrong....because it doesn't
show that you guys are all being slaughtered by our own ignorance. Here, let me
show you that you need people like me to take care of you. You see......these
parachutes are a disease just like polio, the flu, measles, hepatitis....and
their killing you because you won't take your medicine.
>If 1 in 500 died
>of gun related injuries we'd have
>1/2 million gun fatalities a year and I can guarantee that the
>politicians would be going on about an epidemic of gun violence. Need I
>say more?
See...See.....you people don't know what your doing, just like you don't know
what your doing owning guns. Yea thats right....owning a gun is a disease too.
Only the diseased would want to have something that kills. My word, can't you
see all these diseases are at epidemic proportions and somebodys gotta save you
guys? We need somebody to help you guys. It's a disease I tell you. These
parachutes...these guns....your all gonna die if they're not taken away from
you!!!!!
>> Furthermore I'm not sure of your statistic of a 4000% increase
>in
>> landing fatalities.
>> It would be interesting to see how you arrived at that statistic.
>>
>> "Treetop" a.k.a. LORD OF THE SKY
>>
>
>You can make the value anything you want by choosing the correct year
>for comparison. Through the 1980's until 1992 there were typically zero
>or 1 landing fatalities most years. Compared to 1990 or 1992 there's an
>infinity% increase. Right now landing accidents comprise about 40% of
>all skydiving fatalities. Maybe DJMike is right; we shouldn't worry
>about it, and just write off some 10 - 20 colleagues each year.
>
Translation: I'm not going to show you how I came up with my
statistic......Thats not whats important here. Whats important is helpless
innocent people are dieing here. Here.....look....more numbers. Can't you see
it? Can't you? These poor innocent people are dieng at epidemic proportions.
It's a travesty I tell you...it's out of control, and insane.
Maybe I'm trying to explain this to insane people like DJ Mike. Maybe your all
diseased...well then...let those poor innocent dead peoples blood be on your
hands.