Basejumper.com - archive

Lots of cliff strikes and a few hospital trips.

https://m.facebook.com/...61&id=1210093773

Here's one.

You performed very well on that one. If you had not been so quick with turning the canopy away from the wall, you might have smacked the wall and then when you hit the ledge you landed on you would likely have backflip bounced off of it.

Good job.

Packed in shallow brakes.

Wasn't me. I'm way too much of a pussy to jump that exit.

Here is another one I just saw.

https://www.youtube.com/...amp;feature=youtu.be

No kneepads?

I guess next year they will have to advise all jumpers to pack properly and wear protective gear.

So many people wear skydiving helmets now, if you dont think your head is important why would you worry about your legs?

who the fuck is "they?"

I'm still convinced the tombstone dislikes me... only off heading I had the whole trip. Sucks there were a few injuries, but the numbers were high with this year's great weather.

Really great turkey boogie, I'm content

I was one of the cliff strikes, and i can attribute the lack of ability to avoid collision to shallow brakes, trying to go to risers in a twist and grabbing a front. i didnt feel i had the time to let go and reach for a rear so i burried harder trying to get around in time, i did avoid the immediate strike, but i hit an outcropping at full fucking speed, That being said Armor has been brought up in this thread. I advocate for FULL SUPPORT ankle boots 100% which i had on as well as a FULL FACE proper helmet (BMX?) in any case, shin guards or anything else wouldnt have changed my outcome at all. maybe hockey shorts... but i dont have any.

FYI-
EXIT 100%
Delay- Weakish not go and throw but not 2 sec.
Wind- minimal
not really sure why i ended up in a 180. but the 180 whipped me around into about 1 and 1/4 twist which resulted in a misgrab of risers.
only things i can question as far as reasoning, super staticky pack job?
slider down not off? opening in dirty air from following jumper?

I'd attribute all of that that shallow brakes. The purpose of deep brake settings is to park your canopy near stall in case of object strike. Shallow brakes being the polar opposite of that, the end result is no surprise. Who was it who suggested it would be a good idea??

You don't think lack of experience had anything to do with it?

Experienced or not. A 180 off a cliff in shallow brakes is gonna fuck you right up.

I feel like this has come up a few times lately. Who is teaching people to jump solid objects with shallow brakes? That's kind of the reason there are multiple brake settings.

You know what the Blueys are like bruz. If someone came up here and said they had packed shallow, id drop their pack job on the exit as a favour.

 

And what, there were 2 cliff strikes at the last Turkey Boogie from people in shallow brakes?
Good luck with the next one.

He is definitely saying he has super duper skillz, but im not sure he is saying the shallow breaks helped?

https://vimeo.com/195891620

Maybe one should not exit so powerful with shallows on low speed solids. That way, since one is close to the solid object, the canopy hasn´t time to pick up much speed. But is more responsive on risers and toggles.
The deeper the brake settings, the slower the response to input. This may not be optimal for certain jumps.
Going shallow, also may not be optimal for certain jumps.
Wrap your brain around the idea that object, winds, airfoil characteristics, flight parameters, wingloading, pilot experience etc. all affect the outcome.
Example; A jumper lost a lot of weight and the DBS opens in a stall so he goes shallow.
You would unpack him or her on the exit point?
It would be better to discuss the reason why they chose this method (Shallow vs DBS) IMHO. I wouldn´t accept answers as "It always worked before" or "That´s the way I was taught". I want to hear their hypothesis.
Think about it.
Take care,
space

For someone as experienced as you, your response really surprised me. 'Maybe one should not exit so powerful with shallows on slow speed solids? What does that mean? Pack shallow brakes, give a weak push and take a short delay? Fuck me, hope you don't take students.

Basic physics if you ask me, but if your canopy is flying towards a cliff in shallow brakes, it will be flying faster than a canopy in deep brakes. I think hope we can both agree on that? Yeah? So, according to this theory, the time from opening to impact on shallow brakes would be faster. Now, if the desired outcome is to perform a turn before hitting the cliff, wouldn't you prefer to be going slower, in turn, giving yourself MORE TIME? The other factors just seem like a way for people to make a basic principal complicated for the purpose of conversation. Wrap your head around that.

If your brake settings still involve a hypothesis, you shouldn't be jumping them off a solid object. I prefer to have already done the testing of the hypothesis on a much more forgiving object. Does no one adjust their own brake settings anymore? If I was on an exit in Moab with someone that said they'd lost a ton of weight since they last jumped, so they decided to pack in shallow brakes, I'd encourage hypothesis testing to be done elsewhere.

He is?

I saw a video of him where he was talking about how shallow brakes were a bad idea, showing himself having a near cliff strike in shallow brakes. I'll see if I can find it and link it.



FWIW, just calling them "deep" and "shallow" can be very misleading. Variances between manufacturers are pretty wide, which means that the "shallow" factory setting on one canopy can actually be deeper than the "deep" factory setting on another.

You should _always_ test any brake setting (even a manufacturer setting) from a safe-ish object like a bridge before trusting it for a solid, slider down object. I've seen manufacturer settings from three different manufacturers at different points that had canopies stalling at opening.

I've also seen several people try to "customize" their brakes and overshoot, giving themselves a back-surge and stall at opening, which is clearly worse than even the shallowest manufacturer setting.

Quoted for emphasis.

So what if the shallow canopy has not the distance to achieve the velocity to surpass the speed of a deep canopy? How would this effect the out come?
Responding to your physics statement. If both canopies were flying at the same speed when it connects with the object straight on, for example. The shallow canopy will respond quicker than the deep canopy, assuming all else is equal.

If I was on a SD sheer jump and a jumper told me that he had Shallow and asked for my advice, Then yes, I would tell him he should probably exit weak and explain the pros and cons assuming we had enough of a time window. Or do a walkdown so he can reevaluate his options.

What I am trying to get through to you is that there are many variables. ie Keep your mind open.
I only mentor students to make their own decisions from the most knowledge available and not to follow popular (mis?) conceptions. Question everything (why?) ;-)
Take care,
space

Maybe my bad about Hypothetical vs Theory. To me, The latest theory is only a more advanced hypothesis than the last one. Theories are being proved wrong often, same with hypothesis´.
So it is all one hypothetical question to me.
If some would be so kind to enlighten me, I would appreciate it.
Thanks in advance.
take care,
space

i would do the same.
But if they had tested it and found that shallow prevented an opening stall, i wouldn´t dump their rig on the exit point.
take care,
space

How could both of the hypothetical canopies be flying at the same speed, if they were identical with regard to canopy type and wing loading, but packed in different brake settings?


What do you mean by "respond quicker" in this context?

Is that a canopy that turns in;

a) fewer feet of forward travel,
b) fewer feet of altitude lost,
c) fewer seconds of time?

I'd argue that the important metric for turn response is (a) feet of forward travel.

I don't really care if it takes 2 seconds or 20 minutes to complete the turn if I'm not moving toward the cliff during that time, so (c) is really unimportant to me.

I do care about altitude loss, but in general I care about striking the cliff more, because (a) I expect to have more distance between myself and the ground than between myself and the cliff, and (b) the chance that I will strike the ground in a manner that injures me is greatly increased by striking the cliff first.

If both canopies were flying at the same speed when it connects with the object straight on, for example. The shallow canopy will respond quicker than the deep canopy, assuming all else is equal except for distance from object.
Sorry about that.

Both canopies must accelerate and there will be a point where the acceleration curves intersect. This is the point I write about.

A,B,C.
"Quicker" to me infers time so C would be applicable. A and B infer distance.
take care,
space

Shallow brakes have been my preference for more than 20 years, just a personal preference that I don't recommend to people I mentor. I guess I've seen enough people in deep brakes, loaded up a little too heavy to get a decent response' when they overreact on rear risers, also why going to toggles and not risers is my preference to correct off headings.
You can be adamantly opposed to my preferring to pack my gear in the manner I choose, but you wouldn't be doing me or yourself any favours by dumping me out on an exit point.
Regards, B.

With your experience, I'd respect your judgement. 26 years is a long time to form opinions so no, I probably wouldn't be doing either of us any favours. You not recommending it to your potential students is telling in itself. Why offer more speed after opening when it would only add to the horror of a 180 in a low environment. That is my point. In my view, it's called conventional wisdom for a reason.

Thanks for posting and this video is a "must see" -
The way he turns the canopy needs to be put in everyones bag of tricks ( or at least mine ) - after the strike he releases the left brake toggle allowing the canopy to turn to the right due to the brake setting and still stowed right toggle - genius ! ( one handed passive canopy control )

Part of being experienced is developing a better understanding of how your gear works though, right?

For instance, after they've experienced how hard you hit the cliff in shallow brakes I doubt many people would do it again.

You'd hope so!

It means you'd have significantly less time to react and try turning it around before you hit the rock. Pretty much none at all really, which means you're in a situation where a 180 will absolutely guarantee a cliff strike.

Why be in that situation if you don't have to be?

http://base-book.com/...about-brake-settings

Good input from everyone, especially Hjumper33's link to "The Great Book of BASE " which I consider a "must read " for novices or experienced jumpers.
Like any so called "Bible " you can always read into it what you would like to support your own beliefs.
I find much in there to support my position that just because I choose a method different than your die hard belief ( DBS MANDATORY for slider down/ off ), it is no reason to be so closed minded that you would disable my gear at an exit point. BigfcknG, your response to my post was polite and appreciated, but the reason that I don't tell people to go shallow is not because conventional wisdom supports DBS ( it doesn't in my interpretation of TGBOB ),it is because what I feel works best for me in most situations might not be best for a less experienced jumper.
There was a time when BASE canopies were not coming from the manufacturer with a DBS, or people were converting Skydiving 7cells to BASE and having to add their own setting through trial and error, and factory installed DBS didn't take into account potential high wing loading. The resulting stalled canopy can create unforeseen problems when trying heading correction with rear riser input.
TGBOB notes that super short delays such as PCA or S/l offer inherently more reliable on heading performance ( even more reliable would be Direct Bag ). I have always felt that this was true of Slider down in general although I understand how 180s might happen, but as arrogant as it might sound I think they are largely due to complacency with gear and packing, and body position and almost completely avoidable.
Regards, B.

Conventional wisdom is following the herd of sheep.
One making the jump is the Safety guy now in BASE. Make your own decisions based upon the knowledge that one haves.
For example; If the before situation was encountered, happens that I spoke of. The jumper that I mentor will question this. You can give me Kudos if you wish. I will have 30yrs of BASE on 31.05.2017.
I have witnessed easily 10,000 base jumps. ground crewing would be about 6000 jumps all over the world. Bla bla.
I recommend nothing other to my students than making a decision based on knowledge. If I propose this scenario to my student. He or she will question this and maybe they understand that there are consequences to pay for. And then maybe they see that they are not ready for such a technical jump. Win Win situ.

Why would one offer more speed to a 180? The situations I described was that the point where Shallow reached the same speed as the deep upon striking the wall. And yes, in the impact to the wall that both canopies have, one has more control in shallow. The only thing (IMHO) is that this applies to more speed is the radius of the turn and speed of impact at the radial. better to me that a 180° is the best scenario in in the wcs. Backup quickly and turn away like backing out of a parking place. I am not sure if your canopy can do this with custom dialed in Brakes or the flight envelope of your canopy.
Did you accept the Brake settings installed by the Manu and not try to do it it custom?
Think, experiment in a safe area. Practice line twist recovery, PLFing on a wall etc. You should know this from martial arts and plfing in your jump course IMHO.
Correct me if I and mislead.
Take care,
space

Come on, all canopies have to get gain speed after opening. Why should a 180 be a horror? To me it is part of the game. Can you not learn from your martial arts training how to take a fall? Maybe you should. doing a PLF against a wall should not be a prob IMHO whilst turning away. So you take a hit while controlling your flight.
Where is the prob?.
The less than 180° to more than 90° is maybe more problematic. but just stall away and turn out into the clear.
Do you really think your pack job and brake settings will guarantee an on heading opening? I don´t need an answer from you on this. you need to ask yourself and answer it your self.
If one needs an on heading opening from a jump because they can´t deal with an off heading in the flightplan It is imperative to me why Take such a risk. There are reasons to throw the dice and say "Fxxk it. I go. but always listen to intuition is my contribution to the world of life. If all is seemingly perfect, The intuition should win over Logic and Fear.
We can mssg about the Holy trinity of Logic, Fear and Intuition and maybe we can add to the communal knowledge of the psychological side of decision making in the sport.
I personally don´t jump when intuition tells me not to. When logic gives a go, Fear got kicked in the ass by logic and then Intuition says No. I simply do a walk down. Because that 10 peep jump before me successfully, does not base my decision to jump. I do not want to freak on the exit. One take this fear into FF. and for me it is not nice. I want my jumps to be like a walk in the park. Not puking up Adrenalin on my gear because I almost died. But that is just me being me. The feeling which I have on the exit continues with me in FF. It is not worth it to me to do a jump whilst freaked out by the psychology. I have enuff experience that I know when to back off. Intuition for me is the key. Nicola Tesla (I hope you know his history and how he said something similar. "Go with the first thought and and don´t give your brain time to screw things up.
I am not arguing with you. I just want you to know that there are differing Hypos out there.
Easy example; "This is my favorite, I go no where else. I am satisfied with life."
Then no progress is being made by the one.
I am a progressor, I am quite certain that I had input to the gear you jump now.
So please don´t diss me.
Take care,
space

That is a clear example of an asymmetric PC changing the opening direction. Duh.
Take care,
space

this thread is a stellar example of why no one should ever expect to learn anything from this forum.

if you're new and reading this... the TL;DR version:

get a mentor, maybe a second or third while you're at it.

I totally agree with you. The theme of asymmetrical pc is what I pushed since 1996.
All the crap you see from this time, They were warned. But they didn´t believe until they experienced it.
I am not a hero in any way but I only can advise. They didn´t listen and some died because of not listening to the characteristics of an oribiting PC and the best construction of a PC.
So I sit sit back and watch the stoopid youtube vids of peeps not knowing how to even connect a pc to the bridle. over and over and again. No one is listening me to it feels some times.
Take care, space.

In my opinion the pilot chute does not change you're heading. Asymmetric wobbling back and forth doesn't matter. I've had a pilot chute that was all over the place and had nothing but on heading openings.

Been there.... Now I jump this canopy in the "shallow" factory brake setting. Works fine like this.

Ronald

Watching this video a few times it looks to me that his pilot chute wasn't blown back from the wind - but from the running exit , short delay and natural arc of his falling body ?

I can't continue this conversation with you. Experienced or not, you are rambling.

Point taken. Knee injuries can play havoc on the mind ;-)
Take care,
space