3ringheathen

I jumped one version of Capewells that required that you: 1) Look/locate 2) Flip up the dust cover to expose the cable loops. 3) Stick your thumbs through the loops and pull downwards. You have to do this for each side. Definitely a lot harder and slower than 3 rings. All of that stuff was before my time and only jumped as a novelty. It's hard to believe that the above system was actually an improvement over some others that were used. I'd like to see and learn about more release systems. Look for a new thread to post pics on if you've got them. -Josh If you have time to panic, you have time to do something more productive. -Me* *Ron has accused me of plagiarizing this quote. He attributes it to Douglas Adams.

Quote The one I described was a non-vented Fox, which makes it that much more amazing that he wasn't hurt. Another cliff strike at the same object involved a Blackjack, that jumper was adamant that the vents saved him, he was able to rear riser stall away from the cliff and turn around. Both incidents were almost certainly due to body position on deployment. -Josh If you have time to panic, you have time to do something more productive. -Me* *Ron has accused me of plagiarizing this quote. He attributes it to Douglas Adams.

We had a similar experience a couple of days ago: 400'+ cliff, several inches of fresh snow covering the exit point, the landing area, and everything in between. We were stoked because for the first time since the four of us opened the object a few years ago, we were all there as a group again. We'd all jumped it a bunch since, but never as a complete crew. Anyway, we get to the top, start gearing up, and discussing the exit and whether or not to go stowed or handheld. I was a bit sketched by the snow and ice at the exit point, so I chose to go handheld. I figured that if I slip on exit, I can pitch immediately. The trade off is that it was sketchier *getting* poised on the exit point with a PC in my right hand. The next couple of jumpers chose to go stowed. This made it easier to get poised for exit, but could be sketchier if your launch isn't good. So neither choice was clearly better, they just presented different risks and benefits. Off I go, clean exit, good jump. 2nd jumper has a good jump, too. Unfortunately, as he's coming in to land, he's yelling down that there's been a cliff strike. The 3rd jumper (we'll call him OLSOB), as Murphy's law dictates, was the only one that forgot his protective gear. We scrounged up a pair of kneepads for him, but nothing else. *No helmet*. The first base jumper I ever met died from head injuries suffered on a cliff strike. Jumper #2 lands and tells me that it looked like OLSOB slipped on exit, pitched unstable, had a 180 and struck the cliff immediately. No one could see him after that. Every one of us both on top and at the bottom thought he was dead or critically injured. 911 was called, jumper #2 and #4 ran up the trail towards the base of the cliff with a firstaid kit and a blanket. I stayed below to guide in the SAR guys. To make long story a little shorter, it turns out that jumper #3 is One Lucky Son Of a Bitch. He slipped on exit, had a 180 with line twists, and struck the cliff four times. All the while, he's reaching above the twists, pulling on his rear line groups and pushing off of the cliff with his feet. He managed to steer away from the cliff and into a snow drift at the very bottom of the cliff. There are trees pretty much everywhere down there. Incredible luck, skill, and a refusal to panic or give up allowed my bud to walk away from the accident with nothing more than a sore ass. Talk about ghost stories Lessons learned: 1) Always wear a helmet and protective gear. I'm pretty sure that a few sets of body armor are going to be purchased around here pretty quickly. 2) Everyone should have a radio. If he had been seriously hurt, communicating with us could have saved his life. Since he somehow managed to land unscathed, knowing that would have saved us the embarassment, possible legal troubles, and bad PR of calling 911. 3) If you're gonna jump in the snow, bring something to prepare the exit point with: A mini wisk broom, some rock salt, a small propane torch, *something*! 4) Don't panic 5) Practice canopy control and mentally rehearse emergency procedures regularly. -Josh If you have time to panic, you have time to do something more productive. -Me* *Ron has accused me of plagiarizing this quote. He attributes it to Douglas Adams.

You must be a slacker then Quote If I'm expending more than 80% of my potential effort, it's probably a life or death emergency. I still work as hard or harder than any of the clowns that have used that phrase on me. Not to mention that I'm obviously better at math than they are. If you have time to panic, you have time to do something more productive. -Me* *Ron has accused me of plagiarizing this quote. He attributes it to Douglas Adams.

I can't stand it when someone asks me to give 110%. -Josh If you have time to panic, you have time to do something more productive. -Me* *Ron has accused me of plagiarizing this quote. He attributes it to Douglas Adams.

Oops. That was a typo. I meant a smaller *pilot chute*. A smaller slider would, of course, make openings faster. -Josh If you have time to panic, you have time to do something more productive. -Me* *Ron has accused me of plagiarizing this quote. He attributes it to Douglas Adams.

You must be confusing me with someone else. I never had any significant problems. I simply found the openings to be much better with the smaller slider. They were never bad to begin with. -Josh If you have time to panic, you have time to do something more productive. -Me* *Ron has accused me of plagiarizing this quote. He attributes it to Douglas Adams.

This I agree with. It's what I've been saying since someone made the blatantly false assertion that pilot chute size does not affect parachute openings. -Josh

I'll be sure to tell my father how evil he was for getting me a degree. Are you admitting that you didn't earn your degree or did you miss his point? -Josh If you have time to panic, you have time to do something more productive. -Me* *Ron has accused me of plagiarizing this quote. He attributes it to Douglas Adams.

OK, in keeping with Tom's wishes, I won't beat the dead horse. What is a good first base canopy? I'd avoid using a modified skydiving canopy and get a BASE specific canopy. I haven't noticed any kind of trend towards any one manufacturers products being better than anothers. The single most important factor is your wingloading. In BASE, unlike skydiving, bigger tends to be better. Figure out your exit weight including *everything* you might be jumping with ie: your rig, body armor, helmet, pads, any hiking gear, clothing, etcetera. You'll want a wingloading of roughly .7 to 1. Believe me, trying to sink an overloaded base canopy into a ghetto landing area at 5000' MSL sucks. I literally bounced off of the ground figuring that one out. -Josh If you have time to panic, you have time to do something more productive. -Me* *Ron has accused me of plagiarizing this quote. He attributes it to Douglas Adams.

All I can tell you is that it would be bad karma to jump a reserve called the predator. -Josh If you have time to panic, you have time to do something more productive. -Me* *Ron has accused me of plagiarizing this quote. He attributes it to Douglas Adams.

Your original statement also included the following: "I have been jumping a main D-bag with just 2 locking stows and the rest of the lines in a pouch for several years. I find there is no difference in the opening when using this bag or a bag with all lines stowed...." Your choice of main doesn't prevent you from understanding canopy deployment, but it is likely to influence it. However, you cited your experience with the limited stow d-bag as some sort of proof that line stows don't effect openings. Maybe I assumed too much, and if so I aplogize, but I gathered that you've been jumping this d-bag on your primary canopy. Your experiences with a large, seven cell accuracy canopy do not prove anything at all about general factors involved in openings. Further, as Rob pointed out, you still have the most critical stows on that kind of bag. That would be the locking stows, which help to insure that the slider stays against the pack job until line stretch. The error in logic that those of you in the stows-and-PCs-don't-effect-openings camp seem to be making is at least two fold: 1) Assuming that the deceleration provided by tight line stows is what's important, and 2) Assuming that your experiences with a small sample of canopies can be extrapolated to all canopies. -Josh If you have time to panic, you have time to do something more productive. -Me* *Ron has accused me of plagiarizing this quote. He attributes it to Douglas Adams.

A single canopy design, let alone a single version of it, proves absolutely nothing about general factors in parachute openings. From the Icarus Canopy owners manual: We recommend making a double turn with all stow bands, to help prevent line dump. Maybe you should ask him yourself. He seems to think that PC size can affect openings: "...pilot chute size vs. the weight of your main canopy affects seperation velocity, snatch force, opening shock, and malfunction rate. More about these another time.Bill Booth..." -Josh If you have time to panic, you have time to do something more productive. -Me* *Ron has accused me of plagiarizing this quote. He attributes it to Douglas Adams.

What kind of canopies are they jumping? As I've stated, line stows are *one* factor. If a 4 way team is jumping a canopy that is less effected than most by stow tension, it doesn't follow that stow tension is not a factor in hard openings. I used the automotive analogy in the thread that this spun off of. You were there, didn't you read my posts before you replied to them? I never said tight line stows were *necessary* for soft openings. Only that they are a factor. As I stated previously, a reserve is a different animal than a main. The goal is to get it open as fast as possible. There's no reason to put a smaller PC on a reserve. That doesn't mean that a smaller PC wouldn't work, but why bother? What would you hope to gain? It's beginning to look like your confusion comes from failing to head the advice that appears in your sig file. No flames or insult intended, but you've been arguing things that I have not said, and ignored or overlooked things that I have stated. It's hard to reach any sort of understanding under those circumstances. No. It might open harder, but probably not significantly so. A reserve is designed to open fast to begin with. They have large, wide open noses, seven cells, small or ported sliders, and free bags. One of the reasons a large PC can cause harder openings is because of the canopy distortion associated with excessive snatch force/center cell stripping. Since a freebag isn't attached to a the canopy, much if not all, of this force is eliminated. A lot more than that! I agree, that was the point I was trying to make when Aggie Dave suggested that Rig manufacturers opinions are definitive. -Josh If you have time to panic, you have time to do something more productive. -Me* *Ron has accused me of plagiarizing this quote. He attributes it to Douglas Adams.

I have spent over 20 years involved in the testing and development of parachutes and parachute systems. Is that relevant to understanding the function and relationship of the various component parts of a parachute system? Apparently not. I don't know how many different ways I have to state this: Pilot chute size is *one* factor that effects openings. It's not the only factor, and certainly not the single most important factor. Never the less, it is a factor. Period. For some canopies, it's minor factor, for others it plays a more significant role. Canopy design is a delicate balance of a bunch of different factors and desired performance characteristics. It's safe to say that the Sharpchuter is not a high performance canopy, so it's no surprise that it's more tolerant of different PC sizes. The canopy is heavy enough that any pilot chute that will extract it from the bag will be satisfactory. Many crossbraced canopies are also tolerant of different PC sizes. This shouldn't be surprising as the nose is mostly closed off, so it's going to take longer to inflate. For such canopies, PC size is *less* of an issue, but there are trade offs. They tend to be trimmed very steeply and are ground hungry, the front riser pressure becomes extremely high once a turn is induced, and pack volume and purchase price are higher. In my experience, the canopy that most closely matches the Cobalt is the Crossfire. Trade offs: Cobalt is more sensitive to PC size. Crossfire control stroke starts much lower, and it snivels a great deal. This can be inappropriate for low hop and pops, many owners opt to install larger sliders. How is that different than installing a smaller PC? -Josh If you have time to panic, you have time to do something more productive. -Me* *Ron has accused me of plagiarizing this quote. He attributes it to Douglas Adams.

AFAIK, the smaller pilot chute has always been recomended. -Josh If you have time to panic, you have time to do something more productive. -Me* *Ron has accused me of plagiarizing this quote. He attributes it to Douglas Adams.

I'm assuming you did this on the same canopy, right? If that's the case, there are other things that could have caused the change besides just the P/C. Changes in trim come immediately to mind. As well as one or two others... Yes, the same canopy. The only variable was the pilot chute, therefore it's unlikely that the improvement was due to anything other than the smaller pilot chute. This is why the scientific method is so valuable. If it were line trim, it would have been a gradual change. It was not. What are your other hypothetical causes? -Josh If you have time to panic, you have time to do something more productive. -Me* *Ron has accused me of plagiarizing this quote. He attributes it to Douglas Adams.

According to your profile, you are jumping a Sharpchuter 245. Hardly a high performance canopy, and therefore, completely irrelevant to to my point. -Josh If you have time to panic, you have time to do something more productive. -Me* *Ron has accused me of plagiarizing this quote. He attributes it to Douglas Adams.

I'm not familiar with rubber band less Dbags on skydiving mains. Since you say they are "being developed" I'd imagine that it's new technology. As such it doesn't prove or disprove anything relative to the designs that are currently common place. Sticking with the automotive analogy, just because some newer cars don't have distributors, doesn't mean that those that rely on them aren't susceptible to problems from water in the distributor cap. You can't compare apples and oranges. A wide variety? Not compared to what exists today. Differing opinions on what constitutes a wide variety not withstanding, reserves are dramatically different in design and function than high performance mains. Yes, you are confused. I didn't say that reserves aren't affected by PC size. I said that you want a reserve to open as fast as possible, so you naturally put a large pilot chute on it. With a reserve, the last thing you want is a nice, soft, slow opening. It's far better to get slammed on a reserve deployment than to snivel into the ground. I'm not saying that a PD 106R wouldn't open hard with a large reserve. I'm saying exactly the opposite. It's just that when your reserve slams you, you're still grateful. When your main slams you, you spend the rest of the day bitching about it. Fair enough, but your anecdotal and limited experience pail in comparison to the rigorous experimentation that companies such as PD perform. No insult intended, but a typical PD test pilot has far more jumps under far more strictly controlled circumstances than you and I combined are ever likely to accumulate, and they've reached different conclusions than you have. If you know anything about the scientific method, you know that anecdotal evidence doesn't mean all that much. It's not collapsible. How about this: Jump it while wearing a camera, take at least a 10 second delay, if it impairs the flight characteristics too much, chop it. I'll give you a $100 to cover the repack and excitement, but only if you still get a nice opening without packing it any differently than normal. Don't be sorry. Some people don't believe we landed on the moon either. Good plan, but no one is recomending a 20" pilot chute, so I'm not certain what your point is? -Josh If you have time to panic, you have time to do something more productive. -Me* *Ron has accused me of plagiarizing this quote. He attributes it to Douglas Adams.

Somtimes they do. Sometimes they don't. Line stows are but one of many factors that effect openings. One can have high blood pressure without experiencing any cardiac problems, but it doesn't follow that high blood pressure is not a significant factor in heart disease. Perhaps an industry insider can shed some light on the TSO process as it relates to this question. I suspect that the gear is tested and approved with a specific configuration. I wonder if it varies for different size containers? In the old days, there wasn't all that much variability in parachute sizes. Perhaps the TSO rules haven't changed to reflect the wider spectrum of canopy sizes now available? Of course the above is purely speculation on my part. What I'm more certain of is that reserves and mains, particularly high performance mains are entirely different animals. With a reserve, you generally want it to open as fast as possible without suffering personal injury or equipment damage. Reserves are almost exclusively seven cell parachutes with relatively conservative flight characteristics and are usually F-111 material. Thus a reserve isn't likely to be as sensitive to pilot chute size in the first place, and the idea is to get an open parachute in a hurry. You absolutely can't risk a PC in tow with a reserve. However, with a high performance main, soft openings are generally desirable and the wing form that gives the extraordinary flight characteristics both tend to require a bit more specialized a deployment system. Put another way, a reserve will probably work just fine with a significantly smaller pilot chute, but if you want to experiment with it, you're probably violating a law or two, and you better pull a little higher. That is a question better addressed to Performance Designs or one of the other key players in the industry. I don't claim to know all the answers. Just like the line stows, PC size is but one of many variables. Why don't you throw my 38 on your canopy and see how that works? Yes, those are all factors, too. So are deployment altitude MSL, temperature, and humidity to name a few. -Josh If you have time to panic, you have time to do something more productive. -Me* *Ron has accused me of plagiarizing this quote. He attributes it to Douglas Adams.

http://www.performancedesigns.com/docs/hrdopn.pdf Selected exerpt, read it yourself for more details!: PILOT CHUTE The pilot chute has a big effect on canopy deployments. The size, type of fabric, length of bridle, apex length, mesh size, and aerodynamic shape all affect the deployment of the parachute. Some pilot chutes have too much drag at terminal velocity. This can cause these problems: 1. They slow the bagged canopy down so quickly that the chance of line dump is increased. 2. When reaching line stretch, the jumper instantly accelerates the canopy back to his speed, since it is attached to him by the fully deployed lines.... ...A pilot chute with more moderate drag will get the canopy to line stretch with less severe shock to the jumper and the canopy. The line dump problem is also less likely to occur, and the pack job is more likely to be released from the bag in an orderly fashion. Although a pilot chute with more moderate drag will produce more consistent openings, a pilot chute can have too little drag.... http://www.skydivingmagazine.com/ques26.htm#How%20tight%20should%20my%20closing%20pin%20be%20secured? And lastly: Here are my rough calculations on relative surface area of common PC sizes. I don't know exactly how this correlates with the amount of drag generated. Anyone have solid info? Also, could someone that's done math in the last decade verify my numbers? PC -- Surface area 20" = 314 22" = 380 24" = 452 28" = 615 Therefore, a 28" PC has about 36% more surface area than a 24" The difference between a 20" and a 28" is about 96% more surface area for the 28"! I'd guess that the 20" is too small for most applications. Thus, if you are having hard openings and jumping a 28" PC, you might want to consider going down a size or two and see if that helps. -Josh If you have time to panic, you have time to do something more productive. -Me* *Ron has accused me of plagiarizing this quote. He attributes it to Douglas Adams.

You haven't talked to enough people in the industry. I'm going to start another thread with some links to relevant industry leader websites so that people can do their own research and decide for themselves. It's true that too small of a PC will result in the problems you mention, but it's also true that too large a PC will result in hard openings, and not just on Cobalts. It's pretty common that as performance increases, so does the amount of finickyness, attention to detail, and/or customized accessories. A good analogy is sports cars: they tend to need high octane gas, speed rated tires, stiffer suspensions and so on. With rigs, it's more secure risers covers and flaps. With canopies it's trending towards a narrower range of pilot chutes for a given canopy, more frequent line replacement, specialized risers and more carefully maintained cutaway systems. Maybe. As I said, too small and too large can be problematic. I tend to single stow the last couple of bites of line, and double all the others. It's worth mentioning that John Sherman once said something to the effect of "There's a reason the military spent a bunch of money researching parachute bands. They are supposed to break fairly easily." This is why those new black rubber bands, bungy cord, and to a lesser degree, tube stows aren't such a good idea. I already acknowledged that there are problems with some of them. That's not in dispute. It's also true ATAIR isn't at all unique for having these problems. However, it's *not* true that all other canopies work great with factory PCs and single wraps on the line stows. On average, it's less of a problem for some of the others, but a problem nonetheless. No, that's a snivel. Similar, but not the same. The barrier you call the realm of one type of manufacturer Vs another is somewhat arbitrary. Again we'll use the car analogy. Ford has specific parameters for tire size and inflation for it's vehicles. Yet know one freeks out when an aftermarket tire company throws larger or smaller tires on the vehicle, changes the rims, etcetera. Whether or not the Stiletto or the Heatwave is better based upon our personal experiences is kind of silly to argue about. My Stiletto 120 was markedly better than the Heatwave 120 I borrowed for a while, and come to think of it, it opened a lot softer, too. Canopies of the same make and size have widely varying flight characteristics. It's the nature of a fabric wing. I don't doubt your experience was different, I just take exception to the implication that I'm wrong to have had a different experience. As for your 450' figure, unless you were jumping specialized testing equipment, you can't possibly have figured out your altitude with that sort of precision. Neither eyeballs, nor altimeters give anything more than rough approximations. Thus you are left with a highly subjective estimate. -Josh If you have time to panic, you have time to do something more productive. -Me* *Ron has accused me of plagiarizing this quote. He attributes it to Douglas Adams.

That's surprising, but then I wasn't actually recomending a 20" pilot chute, I recomend a 24" preferably F-111, and replacing it sooner than you would a ZP. Remember, diameter is linear, but surface area is not. A 24" pc has roughly 44% more surface area than a 20" pc, if I did my math correctly. (I'm rusty) I haven't been able to find any hard numbers on the actuall amount of drag produced, but it stands to reason that it would be significantly more. Along the same lines, a 28" pc has about 36% more surface area than a 24" does. If you've got a larger and therefore heavier canopy, you'll need a larger pilot chute to extract it reliably. I suspect that average pilot chute size from the rig manufacturers is going to start decreasing in response to the trend towards smaller canopies. It's well documented that oversized pilot chutes can cause hard openings. The trick is figuring out what is oversized for a particular set up. -Josh If you have time to panic, you have time to do something more productive. -Me* *Ron has accused me of plagiarizing this quote. He attributes it to Douglas Adams.

What kind of rubber bands were you using?! I can't imagine that it's possible for the standard skydiving rubber bands, i.e.: the light brown ones, to withstand the pull force that a tandem drogue produces. My money is on some other cause: drogue not cocked completely, line half hitched around a stow, etc. -Josh If you have time to panic, you have time to do something more productive. -Me* *Ron has accused me of plagiarizing this quote. He attributes it to Douglas Adams.

What kind and how old of a container? Kill line or bungy? What brand of PC? How many jumps on the PC? -Josh If you have time to panic, you have time to do something more productive. -Me* *Ron has accused me of plagiarizing this quote. He attributes it to Douglas Adams.