wmw999 2,351 #76 April 25, 2003 QuoteNo argument!Fact! Facts are arguments in a discussion. Opinions are other arguments. Fact is, it's a lot easier to hurt yourself on a little canopy than it is to hurt yourself on a big one. It's possible to break your ankle if you wear decent sneakers while jumping, right? It's also possible to break your ankle if you're jumping tall Carmen Miranda platform sandals. Both have risk, it's even the same consequences (landing injuries). Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 27 #77 April 25, 2003 Quote It's also possible to break your ankle if you're jumping tall Carmen Miranda platform sandals Kinky...Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #78 April 25, 2003 QuoteIt's also possible to break your ankle if you're jumping tall Carmen Miranda platform sandals. lol. i needed that image today..(the sandles not the breaking) i completely disagree with "pulling someones handle" thats a good way to set yourself up for some serious retrobution just because you were trying to "save someone from themselves" i'd like to think i have more sense than to jump a canopy i'm not ready for, but if someone did that to me..well..the principle of massive retaliation applies..things would get out of hand REAL fast.____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jumperconway 0 #79 April 25, 2003 Quote Well I screwed up under a 175. If I still had them, I'd post x-rays, suffice to say a moments madness cost me 2 yrs grounding. ----------------------------------------- But Dave, Didn't they tell you the wingloading of a VW under a 170? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
towerrat 0 #80 April 25, 2003 Bill you stole my joke.Play stupid games, win stupid prizes! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamsville 0 #81 April 25, 2003 I agree with Ron and Billvon about the wingloading and the potential regulations. I will be sad to see it, but if it happens we will have brought it upon ourselves as a sport. Myself, I load a Stiletto 135 at 1.4. Who knows if someone will make a rule saying that's too ambitious. Not to be naive, but maybe this is the year that DZs make a larger safety issue of this. |I don't drink during the day, so I don't know what it is about this airline. I keep falling out the door of the plane. Harry, FB #4143 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikeat10500 12 #82 April 25, 2003 QuoteI agree with Ron and Billvon about the wingloading and the potential regulations. Me too! Quote Myself, I load a Stiletto 135 at 1.4. Who knows if someone will make a rule saying that's too ambitious. Even though people with your experience pound in. I think the idea is to get jumpers through their first 500-1000 jumps alive. After that I really don't like regulation on canopy wing loading. Quote Not to be naive, but maybe this is the year that DZs make a larger safety issue of this. I think it will get a lot worse before it gets better! ...mike----------------------------------- Mike Wheadon B-3715,HEMP#1 Higher Expectations for Modern Parachutists. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
andy2 0 #83 April 25, 2003 sort of an offshoot question. Would you think the used price of small canopies will reduce significantly when/if there is a wingloading law put in place? --------------------------------------------- let my inspiration flow, in token rhyme suggesting rhythm... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #84 April 25, 2003 Quote It's also possible to break your ankle if you're jumping tall Carmen Miranda platform sandals. Seen that done and you are right. Lingerie jump for my bud Gil's 73rd birthday. Gil and 3 girls. Girls in lingerie and spike heels. Landing was unattractive. On the first step, the heels dug in. Feet, knees, face. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #85 April 25, 2003 Quote Bill you stole my joke. Hey brother, I'm a cracker from Palmetto. That's been a quote so long there that it is public domain. It has a lot of truth to it, doesn't it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 4 #86 April 25, 2003 QuoteThat is a bruise compared to a broken femur, crushed pelvis, and an eye popping out of you head. Yes, I have seen all these on one bad hook. One of the reasons we wear jumpsuits is to keep all the parts in one place. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Yoshi 0 #87 April 25, 2003 Quote I would. If it was someone from my dz that i knew couldn't handle this hanky. But then again i'm an asshole like that and I hope that if someone saw me with a 69 vx running out to the plane they woud pull mine-yoshi_________________________________________ this space for rent. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikeat10500 12 #88 April 26, 2003 Nope...supply and demand...the more they make, the cheaper it gets. But used ones could be available cheap...If you get what I mean. It does not really hurt the canopy when they get hooked it into the ground! ... ----------------------------------- Mike Wheadon B-3715,HEMP#1 Higher Expectations for Modern Parachutists. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sarge 0 #89 April 26, 2003 Quote Quote I can swoop a Stiletto 150, a Velocity 90, or a Spector 120. Just as I can die under any of these canopies. Yeah, so can a lot of people... doesn't mean they're more likely gonna die 'becaue they can.' The "risks" become less because they are less 'risks' as you say, because they have more experience and knowledge. (hopefully a lot more of both) Quote 100 jumps 1.1 max wingload 200 jumps 1.2 max 300 jumps 1.3 max... You want a 1.8 loaded canopy?...no problem, just wait till you have 800 jumps. *** I don't believe that Brian Germain intended the Jump# -v- wingloading formula to exceed 500 jumps...? This is why I personally have a philosophical disagreement with rules established by a dz prohibiting some [excessive] wing-loads. Like the PGA for example. Hey women can't participate in the Masters, ie: like hey, " its our club, you gotta be a guy to golf here, thats all..." (Fuck them!) Well it is their club, they can make their own rules... B.S. whatever! I have both supported developing high-performace canopy skills and defended conservative canopy disciplines and practices. I believe I have been consistently objective on both of these positions. The issue that Bytch brought up here (in concept) as she has before, is that she is morally/ethically and professionally committed to preserving our freedoms and the lives of the morons that would otherwise compromise our freedoms {with some liberty taken in that interpetation}. But she is only one person. What seems most frustrating perhaps is that $$ drive our free economy; our 'free' society... as long as it's monetarily 'cost effective.' Jackasses with $$ will always have the way if they have the will. Even the FAA couldn't prevent super-ace Kennedy from obtaining a Saratoga or from preventing him from flying it once he had it!!!!! Its a losing propostion, I'm pretty sure its only a matter of time... and well... WTF! .-- I'm done with the personally meaningful and philosophical sigs!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #90 April 26, 2003 Quote Well I screwed up under a 175. If I still had them, I'd post x-rays, suffice to say a moments madness cost me 2 yrs grounding. For me it was a straight in landing on a no wind day under a lightly loaded Sabre 230 - last minute brain fart and I forgot to fully flare. Four and a half years later neither one of my knees are at 100% and the Dr's still can't figure out why they keep clicking and popping. Some people still laugh about that one jump with multiple landings (I managed to bounce back up and thru my risers). You realize that it is possible for this skygod in training to get a canopy? He now knows what not to say when he calls another gear store, or he can just get someone else to call in for him. Once the canopy arrives, he goes to another DZ and jumps it there. I really hope that he never gets his hands on this canopy (or this is just a bad joke someone is playing on you). However, there is only so much we can do to stop the dumb ones from kiling themselves and ruining it for the rest of us. I do appreciate your dilegence in trying to stop this guy._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skybytch 259 #91 April 26, 2003 QuoteYou realize that it is possible for this skygod in training to get a canopy? Of course. I can't stop someone else from selling it to him, and I can't keep him from lying to someone else to get it. I did pass his information along to the manufacturer so they could watch out for an order. On his last call to me I referred him there. They spoke with him yesterday and think they got through to him exactly why we won't sell him this canopy. He wants to learn to swoop. He jumps at a large dz with a canopy control school. Hopefully he'll be working with them soon, under the 150 he already has. re: wingloading regulations. I'm not for regulation; I'd rather see us as a sport reduce landing injuries and fatalities through education. Unfortunately we need to do something quickly; weekends where six people die in canopy accidents around the world are unacceptable. It's going to take having advanced canopy control training available at every dz for education to have a significant impact on the landing injury and death rates - and that isn't going to happen quickly. Even regulation won't happen quickly, although one could likely be put into place faster than we could make quality canopy training available everywhere. What's the answer? I don't think there is a one-size-fits-all answer to this problem. I see a need for some sort of guideline for canopy selection for newer jumpers (less than, say, 500 jumps), and a definite need to make getting advanced canopy control training the norm for all skydivers (not just those wanting to learn to swoop). Blanket wingloading limits aren't the answer, and any guidelines also need to take into account things like currency, altitude and coaching. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
slayer21016 2 #92 April 26, 2003 Yea rusty, every time i need a new canopy i call rusty and ask for one of the condemned canopies, $100-200 bucks and i am back in the air until it self destruct's. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #93 April 28, 2003 QuoteI see a need for some sort of guideline for canopy selection for newer jumpers (less than, say, 500 jumps), and a definite need to make getting advanced canopy control training the norm for all skydivers And here is how it starts....WE as responsable skydivers need to develop a plan that can be presented to the USPA. If we wait for the USPA or God forbid the FAA. to take a look at this...It will be ugly. So how about a BSR for wingloading that follows Brian Germains plan up to 500 jumps? (I think it should personally go higher. I think that this will move the fatalities from 200-500 jumps and move them to the 500-1000 range, but I am ok with that). So thoughts? I am thinking that the people who have what they have now could be grandfathered in. For those people who still want to jump over the stated wingload, there are non-USPA DZ's around still. They can go there. I have my flame proof Superman underware on, so flame away.....I would like you to state jump # and canopy type/wingload with your replys I am willing to bet that the lions share of people who are gonna flame me will fit into the under 500 jump class. Ron"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #94 April 28, 2003 The Dutch system seemed fairly flexible, and actually named canopies within certain classes. I'm guessing it would not be that difficult to adapt it along with some sort of factor for sea level vs 'high alt' landing areas. The Dutch, not surprisingly, didn't really give this too much thought.I would definitely prefer to see more DZs trying it out before it went to the USPA though. Once these things become "law" they become very inflexible. -------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 15 #95 April 28, 2003 Ron... I think its a great idea. 489 jumps, 1.48 loading.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #96 April 28, 2003 The only problem I see with the Dutch system is that it needs to be looked at every time a new canopy comes out. To be honest I don't see THAT big of a differance between a Stiletto 107 and a Sabre 107. Yes I know that there are plenty of differences, but it is the wingload that seems to be the biggest problem...not so much TYPE of canopy. I just jumped a Specter 107 this weekend.....To be honest I was surprized at how much altitude it lost in a toggle turn, and I did a prety good pond swoop with it. I think size, not type is the big issue. And if it takes alot of work to maintain the system...USPA will not even look at it. Also, if the need to add TYPE of canopies does exist, it can always be added later....Taking it out would be much harder than adding. Ron"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikeat10500 12 #97 April 28, 2003 Quote So how about a BSR for wingloading that follows Brian Germains plan up to 500 jumps? I think it is a good idea...we did not have this concern before small/fast canopies so wing loading restrictions will have a positive effect! Quote (I think it should personally go higher. I think that this will move the fatalities from 200-500 jumps and move them to the 500-1000 range, but I am ok with that). I'm not a betting man...but it's a sure thing! And just maybe wile they wait to get 500 jumps...some will get smart! Quote So thoughts? I am thinking that the people who have what they have now could be grandfathered in. For those people who still want to jump over the stated wingload, there are non-USPA DZ's around still. They can go there. I have my flame proof Superman underware on, so flame away.....I would like you to state jump # and canopy type/wingload with your replys I am willing to bet that the lions share of people who are gonna flame me will fit into the under 500 jump class. Ron This stuff will not effect me directly with 500+ jumps @ 0.9:1 wing loading and non USPA, but reading about a 25 year old kid hooking it to death bugs me! ...mike----------------------------------- Mike Wheadon B-3715,HEMP#1 Higher Expectations for Modern Parachutists. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
swarley 0 #98 April 28, 2003 Quote Wants a Stiletto 107 or 97. Can't understand why we won't sell one to him; it's just a canopy after all and he has the money. Tell him: There is NO relationship between IQ and needed canopy size. My Site Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #99 April 28, 2003 "The only problem I see with the Dutch system is that it needs to be looked at every time a new canopy comes out. " Similarly, I don't know if Brian's system considers currency? And perhaps down size a wing loading by 1 point per 2000ft MSL, or something similar Either way, I'd prefer to see a voluntary system deployed at some large DZs first as a trial. Edit to add, sorry Ron I refuse to flame you over this, but will post #s 1200+ jumps most of them (800+) on 170s and 175s loaded at or around 1.5-1.6ish. I also have to add that I don't really care what system the USPA adopts as it probably won't affect me. But I am sick of hearing about, and witnessing people hurting themselves under way too small canopies.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #100 April 28, 2003 Quote I'd prefer to see a voluntary system deployed at some large DZs first as a trial. I would as well. However it just does not seem to happen. I would really prefer that equipment makers, Instructors, S&TA's, DZO's, up jumpers's...ect don't let kids with 300 jumps get a 1.8 loaded anything...However, it just has not happend yet. Regulation seems to be the only choice for a problem that WE let become a problem. When I tell some 200 jump wonder that he should not have a 90 Velocity...He tells me that I am old (I'm 30) and I am just upset because I could not handle it (I have several jumps on a 69, about 50ish on an 88, 150ish on a 96, and almost 2,000 on a 107.) But someone else tells him he will be OK if they pay them to attend his "canopy Control class". Well if I were a 200 jump kid...I would tell the "old guy" to shove it, and do what I want. So maybe regulation is the only choice left. It will not limit personal freedoms...just delay them...Get the # of jumps you need to jump that Velocity 90, and you can jump it all day. Ron"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
This Site Is For Sale
