rigging65

I have a Havoc (that I no longer wear). It's a beautiful purple and grey helmet, but when I'd put the visor up during landing it really cuts down on your vision above the eye line...something I think is very dangerous. Also, if I took a hard step on landing the visor would close partially, again cutting down vision...again, a dangerous situation. my $.02... "...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward. For there you have been, and there you long to return..."

Most people I talk to who don't like blocks don't like them because they're bulky when you pack...although I've seen some very low profile designs. Then there's always the ever present "they don't look cool" argument...which I've heard more than once. I use them on my CRW rig. They're just Vet-Wrap, but they work like a champ! One note- they do require more hand strength than loops do...but you're not going to get caught up in them. "...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward. For there you have been, and there you long to return..."

Ah, well I'm sure they were just busy when you tried to call them. I talk to them several times a week and never have any problems getting through...but to answer your question...Yes! Both canopies are out and available.

If you've tried all the normal remedies, you may want to consider the fact that there are no two canopies exactly alike out there. Human interface during production can cause small, non-visible changes to the canopy that might just make it do things a little different than others like it. You tend to find this more commonly on canopies that are more extreme and complicated in design and performance. "...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward. For there you have been, and there you long to return..."

Do you really want to land down-wind, unconscience, under a 113? "...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward. For there you have been, and there you long to return..."

Maybe a call to Precision would clear this up for you. "...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward. For there you have been, and there you long to return..."

Manufacturer recommendations are there for a reason...just because the canopy passed the tests at the FAA's max loadings doesn't mean you have any business jumping anywhere near those loadings. Mfgs are notoriously conservative with loadings, and for good reason. Just keep this stuff in mind when you decide to over-load the last chance you've got in the world! "...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward. For there you have been, and there you long to return..."

Experience level doesn't really have much to do with it. And, for most jumpers, you're really only going to see marginal changes in performance based on line type. If you're a super high-speed swoop God, it's going to make a difference, but for most people line type is a bigger issue with pack volume than with performance. "...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward. For there you have been, and there you long to return..."

Who/How would make it mandatory?? Remember, we're trying not to get the government involved here. The problem, as has been noted in this thread, it that USPA really has no teeth. They can't do anything but pull your membership and maybe tattle on you to the Feds. This is where the rubber meets the road, guys: If you want some sort of real regulation, a regulatory body with a hammer needs to be involved. That means the Feds. "...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward. For there you have been, and there you long to return..."

Why would you want to? "...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward. For there you have been, and there you long to return..."

I'd agree with most of that. there are certainly GM DZs that don't follow all the rules, but at least there is the "idea" that they're supposed to follow the rules. I can think of a few non-USPA DZs that follow the rules they want to follow, but not one (in our area) GM DZ that routinely plays outside the rules. Of course there are always exception, but I agree with you, it'd be great if USPA actually had a hammer to drop...but it'll never happen. The long and the short of it is, IMO, GM DZs tend to have a reason to stay in line where non-USPA DZs simply don't...and they prove that as they see fit. To that end, I think more GM DZs play by the rules... "...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward. For there you have been, and there you long to return..."

5 cell technology is quite a bit older. As you would expect, a 5 cell has a much lower aspect ratio, so it's glide slope is even steeper than a 7 cell. It's pretty much one step above a round. As far as flight characteristics, I haven't been around that long to know many people who ever flew them. I'm sure there's one or two folks on the newsgroup who have, but not me. I've packed a handful of them as reserves, but not in a long while. Pack volume is probably a bit less than a comparable sized 7 cell, although I don't know for sure. Larger cell mouth, longer cord measurement, etc. The old swifts had a very interesting break-line configuration too. It was designed similar to the way big Sabres have two break-line per side. Bottom line is that it's old technology. There's a reason why they're not around anymore...there are better alternatives. "...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward. For there you have been, and there you long to return..."

All good points. The problem here, as I see it, is that we're dealing with the less of two evils. Certainly no one wants the FAA to get involved. They're not familiar with the sport, and they don't want to be. USPA is supposed to be a nice buffer between the FAA and chaos. I certainly think there are issues that USPA has fallen down on, but they're still a better alternative than the FAA. What kills me are non-USPA drop zones. They operate with very few restrictions at all. As long as they aren't befouling FAA rules (which aren't all that extensive) they're in the clear because they don't have to answer to USPA. It's places like these that teeter on the edge of giving skydiving a bad name. If they want to be a good DZ they can, but they can also do pretty much whatever "bandito" stuff they want and get away with it because the FAA is looking at USPA and USPA is looking the other way because the DZ hasn't paid them any dues. It's a frustrating situation, especially when you're a good, USPA DZ that's business is suffering because a non-USPA DZ can cut corners on cost and get away with it. The moral high ground...it's not a very profitable place to be. "...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward. For there you have been, and there you long to return..."

This is how the USPA reporting system was supposed to be set up...and for years it functioned that way...but when someone violated the rules on using the information, very little was done to the individual who did it. As a result, many DZOs and S&TAs won't write reports now for fear of getting caught in a lawsuit using what was supposed to be "anonymous" information. If you have rules in place, you must enforce them with penalties, or they're useless. When you don't, stuff like this happens...you loose a vital, voluntary resource because you're too chickenshit to take someone to the mat when they violate the rules. "...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward. For there you have been, and there you long to return..."

You're totally correct, and I agree with you...I'm just one of those guys that likes to put the info out there and then qualify it. I hate it when people learn something, but it's based of incomplete information. Like I said, you're totally right in saying it doesn't make too much difference, but the fact is that it will change the shape of the canopy some. Sorry, I'm one of those anal Master Rigger types when it comes to technical descriptions. "...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward. For there you have been, and there you long to return..."

Canopies are like people...no two are exactly alike. Some models are more prone to certain "personalities" than others (ie - hard/soft openings, spinning, light/heavy toggle pressure, etc.) but the fact is, until they are cut and sewn by machines, there will always be variances between any two of them. Some of these may be major, some so minor you can't tell they're there. When mfgs. changed over to automated cutting systems, there was a large leap in the standardization of "personalities" for a given model, but there is still a lot of human input into the sewing process...and anything done by humans will be different from one instance to the next...even if only slightly. What this means to all of us, is that any canopy can be a slammer or a creampuff...you simply won't know until you jump it a few dozen times and see what it does. "...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward. For there you have been, and there you long to return..."

That's not quite true. Longer or shorter risers will change the angle at which the lines extend off the links as they go up to the canopy, which will change the overall shape of the canopy...especially what's happening spanwise with it. True, an inch difference in riser length isn't going to change much, but going from 22 in. risers to 16s is going to change things a bit. "...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward. For there you have been, and there you long to return..."

Most container mfgs. have a "standard" length for their risers (somewhere between 20-22 inches, generally). Shorter risers help those with shorter arms get to the toggles/slider/etc.. In theory, each canopy has an optimum riser length that allows it to open up into the proper shape as the mfg. intended it to fly in. In practice, an inch or two either way doesn't make much difference. Risers that are too short will have a tendency to create bulk against the side of your reserve tray or the riser covers (depending on container type), as the toggle/links/etc. lay in there. It's also important, regardless of riser length, that you make sure to route the riser/lines down the outside of the main tray when packing, keeping them away from the corner of the reserve tray. If not, as the bag comes off your back, it may snag and tear the reserve container loose (at worst) or cause funky line twists. Just something to be aware of, ask your rigger about it. "...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward. For there you have been, and there you long to return..."

Maybe yes, and maybe no. If the protocals are actually followed at USPA and the reports are sanitized, it shouldn't matter if a DZO is sending in a report about their own DZ. The reports are supposed to be used to find trends in the sport and educate the masses. A quality DZO would want to send in reports, as the information can be used to make their DZ (and all DZs) a better, safer place to be. I know this is a bit touchy-feely, but most DZOs (at least the ones I know) want their jumpers to see the quarterly reports. It reminds them that they're not bullet-proof. "...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward. For there you have been, and there you long to return..."

Flite Suit Company built black and white suits for some freeflyers at Empuirabrava a while back, I'm not sure if those are the ones you're talking about, but there you go... "...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward. For there you have been, and there you long to return..."

The intent of the USPA system is great, and I don't think many people would refute that, but in practice it's been marred and failing. Currently, our (USPA) DZ does not actively send in reports, although we always have in the past. This is specifically because of the incident already mentioned with lawyers and the such. If we do send it a report, it has been so thoroughly sanitized that it really isn't worth reading anyway. IMO, it's up to USPA to either step up and mend the broken fence (including heavy sanctions against anyone breaching the trust) or totally change their reporting system to control for this sort of problem. I don't think you can set up a system that is anonymous and expect to get accurate data, so I guess that means UPSA needs to drop the hammer, publicly, if they hope to get a reporting system back in place...something I think this sport desperately needs. "...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward. For there you have been, and there you long to return..."

Flite Suit Company is working on some soft body armor, specifically for swooping. Any input on what you guys would like to see implemented will make it a better product... "...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward. For there you have been, and there you long to return..."

There are a couple of guys out here that jump the Suunto wrist alti. They say that it's pretty accurate, and low profile. They range from $200+ ...I guess it's all about style....

It's always a great idea to know what kind of penetration you're getting, and like you said, it can vary depending on altitude. It's also important, like you said, to look directly between your feet when determining penetration, else you'll end up with a false reading. All this will certainly help you set up your approach. Of course, you won't always have this opportunity, so being heads-up on the ground before you get on the plane and checking wind speed and direction is always a good idea as well. While it can change whilst in the plane, it's generally a pretty good guide to start with. The only caution I would lend to this practice of pre-determining penetration is not to become dependent on it. There will be landings where you simply don't have the time/altitude/whatever to make this work. When that happens, you want to be able to move on without needing penetration information and be comfortable enough without it not to waste the time trying to get it when in a pinch. "...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward. For there you have been, and there you long to return..."

EVERYONE is supposed to be working on accuracy on EVERY jump. Of course, EVERYONE is supposed to do gear checks before every jump, protect their handles when they get into the plane, keep up on current ADs on their equipment, keep their rigs in date, be aware of weather conditions and keep themselves out of harms way, the list goes on...how many of these things are done on EVERY jump??? For some jumpers, the answer is "all", however for many others, the answer is "a few". The fact is, MOST jumpers don't know how to actually work on accuracy, other than just going out and staying current. And there is a difference between traditional accuracy and sport or swoop accuracy...does everyone know the difference? What I was trying to get across is that there are actual procedures that can help you learn faster. If you honestly think that EVERYONE is working on accuracy on EVERY jump, you should get out more. Complacency kills...and it does it to our friends at least a few times a year. "...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward. For there you have been, and there you long to return..."