sarge

How much research coulad have been done if some stranger shows up to your door offering you a 23 hundred dollar canopy for $400' and nobody even called pd with the serial number ??? Especially a master rigger!!?? Waayyyy too fishy? . -- I'm done with the personally meaningful and philosophical sigs!!

I have a 12' octagon screen room (not the cheesy K-mart screen tent type) I may/may not be jumping but I'll be there. so what, should I haul it along? . -- I'm done with the personally meaningful and philosophical sigs!!

OMG!! No shit! Getting a new (longer) chest strap was the first thing I planned to do when I first got this container!! And I just put it off... until now. Hey, thanks, I appreciate the heads-up bro. -- I'm done with the personally meaningful and philosophical sigs!!

Actually, I took that as meaning the smaller canopy becomes more twitchy and smooth clean inputs become that much more critical. The larger canopy will flutter more and remain in turbulance longer but it will be more resiliant and recover better in bad ju-ju. The larger end cells also have better chances of reinflating than smaller ones. The smaller canopy demands more skill to maintain control. -- I'm done with the personally meaningful and philosophical sigs!!

I think that is a universally true and accepted principle. I guess its the 'confidence-inspiring' aspect of this canopy I'm referring to. So far, I would prefer the stability of a samurai (same size) in turbulance to this Cf2. Thats all: and note its my only complaint, and a relatively minor one. Maybe someone else has a similar opinion/experience? I'm just wondering if bumping up my wingload (not downsizing) might smooth it out a bit. I had good results on my stiletto using this technique (adding weights.) -- I'm done with the personally meaningful and philosophical sigs!!

Well Dave, my Cf2 is 1.6; therefore an opion from the light side. I enjoy all its flight characteristics (including openings) over any other canopy I've flown in the HP class under similar wingloads. I've got 20lbs that I have yet to strap on. That will put me close to 1.8 (I'll let you know with my comparison) . As it is for me, the flares are very positive even when coming in with the brakes on with low/no headwind. Carves are clean from harness to toggle. Stalls are comfortably predictable with rears and toggles. I find it to be a very versatile HP canopy. My only complaint, which I'm still investigating, is gusty crosswinds and turbulance. My suspicion is that a heavier loading would mitigate these more demanding landings. So in that regard I'm still working on getting acquainted with this canopy under these various conditions at this wingload for the time being. BTW, My intention is as yours sounds like about having this be a transitional canopy. I opted out of a Velocity for similar reasons. I sure am happy I made that decision. Best bang for the buck of any non-x in the whole industry IMO. Very good investment +++++ (five stars.) -- I'm done with the personally meaningful and philosophical sigs!!

Hey New Guy, Here's a thread from a while back where I presented some information I recalled from a popular aviation magazine. The statistics erupted a discussion about the method used for arriving at the conclusions presented. Nonetheless... good luck -- I'm done with the personally meaningful and philosophical sigs!!

JT I totally remember that one!! LMAO!!!! As I recall it immediately followed the "Where did the Moderators go" thread - True classic!! -- I'm done with the personally meaningful and philosophical sigs!!

My sign is right [url "http://www.richstevens.com/NAKED.swf"]here[url] on the calendar.... -- I'm done with the personally meaningful and philosophical sigs!!

What D-lightful news Bro!!! Congrats -- I'm done with the personally meaningful and philosophical sigs!!

When I get to know a packer and prefer one or another, yes definately. Not only tip but I generally befriend him/her. Which means Me casa~Su casa, ergo, when the beer light comes on, "your money is no good!" It is completly ironic that with some help/packing tips etc from a couple of "THE BEST" packers I've ever seen, that I still suck at packing myself... Ya know what might be a well kept secret, but was a tip to me from a pro. packer, was that negotiating pack fees is "absolutely" acceptable as well. As in my case where I'll make 15 jumps on two rigs in a day. The packer is guaranteed 15 or so pack jobs at a set price. I have on some occasions traded jump tickets and even let one guy jump one of my rigs for a few jumps for a couple pack-jobs. Tipping is good, no argument. But tipping is not a requirement! Especially if you're missing loads and getting weird openings!! -- I'm done with the personally meaningful and philosophical sigs!!

Quote 17 packed for myself every one of them. *** Oh Yeah! Real tough... packing a well-jumped 74, 17 times for H&P's LOL!!!!!! 6-myself - (ugh my best ever) 3-5 average 19-packers both rigs, (a lot less than some people spend at the boat in one day) -- I'm done with the personally meaningful and philosophical sigs!!

I gotta side w/Quade on one part, that is: Goal attainment. Setting and (hopefully) accomplishing infinite goals in whatever time we have allotted as the journey moves us though the seasons of life. Happiness is optional however... All that you want, I want, anybody wants is rather simple. Listening for the answer and paying attention to what your heart is telling you is the tough part... LISTEN UP!! You already 'know' what you "want" you just haven't reconciled with 'how' to get it! -- I'm done with the personally meaningful and philosophical sigs!!

Happy Day Bro!! -- I'm done with the personally meaningful and philosophical sigs!!

That the BSRs could be more specific to recommend wingloadings/canopy design related to assessed skill level achievements. Additionally, based on yours and my observation that education is not a sole solution to heal this 'canopy epidemic.' That furthermore, Dzos could be 'influenced' to support the BSRs. Such as what I have already suggested and in one way you have reiterated: "500 jumps seems like a logical cut off point." ~SkyBytch Geez!? where do I sound like I don't wish we could stop bytching and moaning and make something happen? I said before, I think its a pandoras box. Our friendly local Dz seems like the most logical and direct source to throw a tourniquet on this gushing artery! But for some reason, theres a lot of them that are just winging-it, yes? or maybe not? All I'm saying in effect is, there is no substitute for experience and training can make the learning experience a lot less painful or fatal. I always say its not what you know; its what you don't know thats going to kill you! Your doing your part, I'm doing what I can, Ron his, et al, and there you have it... Just talk... opinions... so what? For now, I'm gonna watch my ass. I'm gonna keep on trying to keep an open mind and be grateful for the freedoms that we all enjoy until the rules change, then I'll adapt to those. No worries. If its about trying to keep you or me or that other jumper from becoming a statistic; I'll go along with it. Those a lot wiser and more experienced than you and I can't impliment a workable/practical solution to this problem yet... -- I'm done with the personally meaningful and philosophical sigs!!

>USPA and the BSR's are how we police ourselves, >especially when the problem in question goes >beyond what is happening at one or two dz's. Perhaps... However, what I'm referring to is the lack of consistency in DZ cultures that results from less clearly defined standards set by by the USPA in BSRs. I'm suggesting a more harmonious acquaintence between the the entities that is less likely open to interpretation and loopholes. > Right. How many more broken femurs, broken >hips, broken faces and deaths will there be >between now and the time that skilled >pilots/teachers are available at every dz in the US? My suggestion on that point is intended that, it will do nothing to prevent those things but that it will further force the issue to be brought more into focus if something isn't done. I agree a solution is needed now, not later, but the solution appears elusive, yes? This is only a prediction, as is yours... Also, what I was trying to suggest to the entrepeneurs in our viewing audience is that it could be a strategy used by the most skilled and industrious canopy pilots to persuade their Dzo to institute madatory canopy skills courses or canopy skill check-outs as a way of avoiding mandatory minimum canopy sizes or types at their DZ. The insurance industry will figure out theres a hell of a lot of $$ they can still get out of the DZos yet!!! -- I'm done with the personally meaningful and philosophical sigs!!

Or why not call it AFP, and use that format? As long as we're just talking about adressing the issues of the 3-500 jumper at the training level. The AFP program is vastly superior to AFF in developing not only free-fall basic skills but canopy skills as well! IMO!! -- I'm done with the personally meaningful and philosophical sigs!!

Quote Sarge... Tell me why the PRO rating system will not work? *** Of course this is simply my opinion. Actually, as SIM 7.2 currently reads, I see a practical correlation between meeting only a fraction of the PRO requirements therein to owning and flying a canopy at a specified wingloading. I will comment on proficiency in canopy control skills in just a moment. First of all there is no PRO requirement for Open Field and Level 1 Demos. Since the only requirement for these catagory of jumps is a D license. It appears that many landings we perform however at most Dzs fall into the Level 2 Demo class (SIM Table 7.A) considering the size of the congested popular landing area and the distance we land from other jumpers? There appears to be an inherent contradiction, in that a student/novice *can also land in that same congested landing area. (*note, "Can also land" because why? -- we make a subjective / objective determination of that jumpers canopy skills / behavior / attitude and decide whether this is acceptable) -Self Policing Of course like I've said before Dzs make their own rules such as having a designated 'D' license landing area, which has been established at this or that DZ. (the rest I can think of specify 'Experienced Jumpers') -Self Policing Secondly, the new D license requirements (ie:500 jumps) should satisfy the bare minimum jump numbers that I tend to agree with and as we have discussed. Considering only jump numbers as a critereon, the jump number PRO requirement does not exempt people like me who still only have an A license. But in this scenario it is jump numbers we are strictly assessing, not canopy skills. -Regulation Which brings me to Canopy Skill demonstration. Yes, by all means, and what I have agreed with you and many all along is that there should be a mechanism in place to clarify strictly 'canopy control skills.' Now, the 'D' requires a jumper to make 25 landings within 2 meters of center. Easy enough. So with 500 accumulated jumps and 25 aforementioned landings... I think that should suffice. The reason the PRO swoopers are crashing less, I believe, is because organizers have become more discriminating about who they admit as competitors. It's their show, and they wanna look good- crashes are spectacular but they don't glamorize swooping. ---- You don't have to be PRO Rated to compete (although I am aware the FAA requires this for some beach competitions) My point is that the competitors have proven their skills and saftey consciousness to organizers and fellow competitors. -self policing Or even better yet, find the compromise between the USPA regulation and self policing. Each of us has a voice. Voice it to the DZO / S&TA, geez, a few years ago people started getting the idea to formalize free-fly training, found out there was a demand and that there was $$ in it. Whoola! Maybe this will come to pass as more people become highly skilled and share with their friends, and then they with theirs... etc ad infinitum. I believe the same is true in the canopy disciplines, CRW, swooping, accuracy. The more skilled pilots become abundant, the more available and accessible training and advice will be shared. In closing, (finally) I do not see a PRO rating as a panacea or band-aid for canopy incidents. I propose that a measure of self policing and USPA regulation 'should' find acceptance with Dzos to establish policies that work in concert with safety consciousness and skill assessment. The new D license requirement sounds like a good starting point, designated landing areas and finally some local system of skills assessment as appropriate. -- I'm done with the personally meaningful and philosophical sigs!!

Its the highlight of my day!! I always look forward to checking out the latest from the greatest Post-whore DZ Com has ever known!! -- I'm done with the personally meaningful and philosophical sigs!!

Dude, that rocks! BEER!!! -- I'm done with the personally meaningful and philosophical sigs!!

Yeah, Spectres posts are gone but there is hours of entertaining reading from replies and comments to his posts. Such as: How if he had a bad mal, and was getting real close to the ground, that he would roll over so the last thing he would see was the sky before he slammed in... or... the multiple seaplane jumps he had over niagra falls... or... talking about how somebody should put nailpolish on their slinks to measure stretch... he seems to have been pretty proud of post-whoredom too... buyer beware. and I aint eatin at subway no more! -- I'm done with the personally meaningful and philosophical sigs!!

We've got Dzs that have "No Hook Turn" rules others that have minimum canopy sizes (no matter what the experience level) and types/locations of jumps that require minimum license requirements. >Education is the best answer... I whole-heartedly agree!!! -with proficiency demonstrations- But the PRO rating system to qualify for downsizing doesn't seem practical or realistic for at least a few reasons! On a day-to-day basis at most Dzs, the resident culture of that DZ generally dictates the type and style of canopy used and how it is flown. It seems that somebody wanting to fit in to the 'cool' crowd is going to have more issues at a DZ where swooping is popular. But then again, vast exposure to skilled and experienced swoopers that are there to identify these issues. Because what are we really talking about here? Swooping. >Remember some people don't ever want to swoop...Should we make them learn to pass a course? -Yes- ... why not? Non-swoopers are not interested in heavy wingloading, (none that I know anyway...) but they'll have a reserve 10-30' smaller than their main? ...._what_about_them... Yes, now do we just ignore reserve size if somebody opts out of the heavier wingloading catagory? I read recently about how (was it Eloy) got a bunch of reserves for people to demo, very few of the smaller ones got jumped because jumpers felt they were too small- even though they had the very same reserve locked up in their rig??? WTF?? > A jump # to wingload plan is easy to use... >It is easy to understand... >It will reduce injuries/fatalities.... And you can't just say, "Well this pilot has over 10,000 hours flying planes like 747s,767s etc, sure he shouldn't have to check out on this Cherokee he's never flown before..." True story, the guy crashed, killing himself and his three passengers... cause he ran out of gas!!! Geez! -- I'm done with the personally meaningful and philosophical sigs!!

> Dutch Regs Hey Ron, You may also remember the lengthy discussion we had on this [related] subject in "Dead Man Walking?" In that dialoge we were debating at length the idea of imposing training regs.ie:canopy courses as requirements for canopy downsizing. et al If I recall, your comments on that subject had something to do with that the USPA would unlikely not being willing to go to the extra effort of imposing such regulations [even if they could be enforced] ... so your newest proposal kind of seems like the same flavor with a different twist. ie:canopy regs based on some modus of experience. But still stuck on trying to oversimplify it by imposing minimum jump numbers... I believe its a pandoras box. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with either idea if it is well thought-out and implemented and enforced. I applaud your continued enthusiasm and interest in improving canopy safety. However, in yet another discussion, we talked about self-policing and being 'Anti-regulations' of any sort. How the heck are we ever going to find any agreement on these questions?

What an odd coincidence... Quote I lost my $1000 wedding ring today! *** Liz just got a $1,000 repair bill on her car today.... -- I'm done with the personally meaningful and philosophical sigs!!

HMmmmm...? This image of a glowing meteorite entering the atmosphere just pops into my mind... -- I'm done with the personally meaningful and philosophical sigs!!