eames

That's the idea... I agree. But I'm wondering how Rhino was able to definitively determine, in two jumps, that the Xaos-21 is an unstable canopy. With enough confidence to state it on a public forum. Rhino: Did it lose pressure? Collapse? Did you lose controllability? Or were you just feeling the rigity of a cross-braced canopy? Did the whole thing seem to bounce around over your head in turbulence? Is that what you're talking about? Have you ever jumped any other cross-braced canopies? Jason

Are you talking about a new record for Atair canopies? It's not the highest wingloading ever jumped and landed, and it's surely not the most weight ever suspended under a ram-air parachute. Was it the first terminal opening with that much weight? Which part is the new record? Jason

It really did sound like I was grillin' you, I apologize, but I swear all those questions popped into my head.... If you had answered "yes", I was going to ask you for some war stories. Hadn't really considered the "no" reaction. This thread caught my interest 'cause I have a custom sized Xaos-27 coming and I was wondering how they determined the line lengths for custom sized canopies. Chris informed me that the lengths scale, to a point, with the canopy size. Meaning that an extremely small canopy or an extremely large canopy may not scale, but generally, canopies of a given design are in proportion. But how do they come up with that scale? Trial and error? Pick the sweet spot between too long and too short? Jason

Tell me, in your opinion, what does an unstable canopy feel like? I have quite a few jumps on a Velocity as well, and neither felt more or less "stable" than the other. Jason

Calm down.... I wasn't flaming. I really wanted to know the answers to those questions.... The fact that short line sets causes buffetting is not some piece of trivia I see thrown around a lot and I wanted to know how you would know that. Even though it probably doesn't always cause buffetting... but who cares? Jim said it does. Oh, and thanks for the "welcome to canopy flight." I really know nothing about it, and I'm glad that a knowledgeable person such as yourself is here to set me strait. Jason

I'm curious as to how you know this. Have you flown a canopy with a non-standard lineset? Do you test fly canopies? Are you intimately familiar with the design and testing process of a certain manufacturer? Please provide more information. I know that happens on certain canopies with short brake lines, because I've seen it and experienced it. But how do you know that's what happens with an entirely different lineset? Jason

I have ~300 jumps on my Xaos-21s 98 (2.39 lbs/sq ft). I haven't had a problem yet: no collapsing, nothing unpredictable, I've found them stable in every mode of flight. I've jumped in bad turbulence, I've jumped in winds of 15 gusting to 25 (stupid on any canopy), I've jumped in Perris next to dust devils (not intentionally, of course), I've flown through many a canopy wake playing with friends. It was a wake-up call when Bob died at Louisa though. He was jumping a Xaos-21 68. It goes to show that any canopy can collapse in the right conditions. I mean, these are just pieces of nylon above our heads. I spoke with a lady whose Triathalon collapsed in the same spot. Scary. As for those who believe that a canopy collapsing on a wind ridden ski slope between two walls of evergreen trees is some kind of surprise... well, wake up. If you're really worried about it, and anyone who relies on a pressurized piece of nylon to save his ass should be (airlocks, cross-braces, double-diamonds, or otherwise), then don't jump in bad turbulence. Don't jump in high winds. Don't swoop down a mountain face between the tree lines. Ground yourself when you see dust devils. Use some common sense. Jason

Look, I don't really care. Stand-up rule or no stand-up rule, I'm going to compete and have fun. You and "hook" can talk on this internet forum until your fingers callus over, but why should anyone believe what either of you say with no baseline for comparison. Stop typing and start producing results. Get out there and compete. Follow your convictions, stand up your landings, but man, one of you should start walking the walk. I'm done posting on this thread.... Jason

You know what Rhino, I think you're absolutely right. That rule should apply in other sports too! Oh yeah, and the golf analogy fits perfectly! If a world class long-jumper doesn't stand up his 29 ft jump, it shouldn't count damnit! And for that matter, high jumpers and pole-vaulters should have to stand up too. Everytime! Baseball players shouldn't be allowed to slide into base either, it's kinda cheating. I mean, they're professional athletes! My point is: a swoop competition is about testing how well a person can fly his/her canopy. Everybody likes to stand up, and we all do most of the time. But that isn't the challenge, that isn't what's being tested-- it's how far you can fly your parachute, and how fast, and with how much precision. Furthermore, you don't have to slide in your landings, you can land any way you want to. Shannon stood up his 418 ft swoop, so it's definitely not a requirement. There's no point in posting here anymore... Is there some way that I can avoid seeing certain user's posts? That would be a nice feature. Jason

Do you really think the way they're stopping is uncontrolled or unintentional? They stop the way they do intentionally, either for added distance or because it's safer. If there was a stand-up rule in the PPPB, the same people would still win. Go to the Ranch this year. You get more points at the PSNs for stand-up landings. Compare the names on the top ten list at the Ranch with the names of the top ten on the PPPB. Coincidence? Are you suggesting that the pros always slide in? I think you're the one under the wrong impression.... Why don't you take a field trip just to watch 'em land and tell us how many slide in on 10/10 jumps... or 100/100... or 1000/1000.... Jason

BTW, I meant with a 10 mph downwind on a course.... especially at Perris. The result would be some road rash and a big dust cloud. Jason

I agree with that... the pilot matters more. Absolutely. So really, it's all subjective. Which canopy is the best? The one you like the most. That's not a really helpful answer, but it ends up being the only true one. Jason

Look, I don't doubt your ability, but just for your information: Shannon Pilcher swooped 418 ft starting on five foot entry gates with, at most, a 5mph downwind... and he stood it up. No crater, no injury. In fact, the winners in these events last weekend, mostly stood up their landings, and the ones that weren't standup were slid in... very safely. There were some minor crashes, but that'll happen anyway. Overall, it was some of the safest skydiving I've seen. I think you have some ego thing going on with stand-up landings. Do you criticize your AFF students for doing a PLF? Which competition was run in 40+ mph winds? None. Who made a crater? Nobody. Maybe you're talking about some competition that I wasn't at.... If you think you could break any record easily, in any wind... why don't you come out and try. I want to see it. You're not shy are you? Just jump when the winds are light-- nobody will give you shit for not negotiating a course with too much downwind. Safety is paramount. Yes, we have to be careful out there. Jason

Do you really think that any of the Pro competitiors has trouble with standup landings? Many don't even try. A lot of the time it's safer to slide it in. There were very few crashes. It's just like for the rest of the skydiving world... PLF (or equivalent) unless it's safe to stand up. Why do you ask? Do you think a person is safer because he stands up every landing? Sometimes the wind goes with the course (they don't intentionally set it up downwind, but they don't change the direction of the course just because the wind changes). They'll stop competition if the winds get above 12 mph or so, but you might end up coming in on a 10 mph downwind. I'd like to see you do your fastest landing on your VX 60 loaded at 3.1 and stand up your landing. I'm sure everyone would get a good laugh out of that one. Jason

Hmmm... I've seen a Velocity out perform a VX... by about 70 ft! At a wing loading of ~2.1. Let me know how that 4.0 wing loading works out for you! I know you do it for the fun, but you should come out and get your performance measured on a course... it's quite an eye opener and really helps hone skills. Jason

Standard? As standard as they get at a swoop meet I guess.... Shanon had something sewn on to hold his slider, but that's all I noticed. Jay has a pretty interesting setup, but you'd have to ask him about it directly.... Jason

Whew.... yeah, it's a whole different level, man! Other than tyeing for sixth in target accuracy, I didn't make much of a mark. But I think I did well being the newbie and all. The distance was run in a slight downwind (maybe 5mph), maybe even a touch of crosswind. Like I said in another post, it felt like we were also getting some lift from some thermal action (although I didn't take advantage). 418, totally legit, no gimmicks, no quirks. THAT will be a hard record to beat.... I believe he did it with the Velocity 103 with weights (somewhere in the 2.1 range). Jason

Actually Josh, the winds were very light... maybe 5ish. I came in right after Shanon set the record. I must say though, the conditions were perfect: the morning had been foggy and it was really beginning to heat up, I swear we were catching thermals off the ground. But Shanon just hit the gate right in the power band and really milked it. I couldn't believe it when I saw him come out of the course from up above. Hard act to follow. Jason

5 foot entry gates, yes. Yep, it was a mad swoop. I saw it from under canopy as I was coming in... I saw Shanon fly out the back of the course and thought, "He must have gotten a vertical!" Crossfire XXX... sorry, didn't catch the size. ???? Jason

That's correct, I was there... and... I Pro qualified! Woohoo! The competition was surprisingly tight. I was impressed at how well everyone did. Only two or three people crashed (out of 32), and nobody got seriously hurt (someone sprained an ankle during a downwind practice run, but I think he's fine). I got 5th in distance with a 212, a 210, and a 186 (blah) and 9th in speed with a (~=If I remember correctly) ~2.67, ~2.89 and a ~4.4 (blah). My two crappy runs cost me, but I learned so much in the process that I'm really stoked about it. I can't wait for the meet this weekend. Josh Hill did very well, taking first in speed and second in distance. I can't remember his scores though... Josh? He also Pro qualified, and I'm hoping he can find the time to come out this weekend. I don't think there were any qualifications to compete in the intermediates, but they were watching and filming practice runs, and it was obvious if someone needed a little more time before actually competing. I highly recommend trying an intermediate competition if swooping is your thing. You're guaranteed to learn something, and it would be worth it even if you didn't (or didn't want to) Pro qualify. Now I just have to come up with a way to pay for all my travel expenses! Anybody know where I can get free tickets to Norway? Jason

The truth of this concept is dependent on perspective. It would be a very dangerous for someone with 200 jumps that wants to get into high performance landings to read that and think, "well, I guess I should downsize 'cause that'll make me even safer." That mentality was wrong for me when I was at that point, and I still don't completely agree with it. You have to see it from the eyes of a jumper that's just finally fine tuning his basic landing skills and is now interested in high performance landings. He doesn't yet have the timing and skill necessary to start a given speed building turn within 10% of the optimum altitude. He probably doesn't even know what the optimum altitude is, for a given turn, for a given turn-rate, for a given density, etc., etc.. This doesn't mean that he can't start building speed for landing. And the fact that his canopy is lightly loaded and has a short recovery arc should be a small concern. A person definitely doesn't have to have a high wing loading to start learning to go fast. And any canopy progression that requires you to have a high wing loading and a large recovery arc to begin with, is dangerous. But you're right, if you're going to do tight, steep turns that require absolutely perfect timing, you'd better have a canopy with a long recovery arc to save your ass. But that logic is so fucked up that it pisses me off! Building speed for a swoop landing is not about cranking out a 270 as fast as you can then laying on the double fronts and relying on the recovery arc to keep you safe. I'd make a wager that you can nearly achieve the maximum attainable speed on, say a Spectre 190 loaded at 1.2:1, with no more than a 90 degree turn and with creative use of double front risers. A canopy control student could work up to that under supervision in X jumps and have an awesome background to start bigger, faster things on smaller canopies. I wouldn't recommend for anyone to try low turns, precisely timed to the recovery arc of a big canopy; it's too dangerous. I would recommend a turn in which you are constantly capable of changing the rate of turn and the rate of dive e.g. asymmetrical double front risers throughout the entire turn. After perfecting strait in double fronts, of course. Then you can work towards the perfect the timing for using mostly one front riser and doing steeper turns to increase speed, working from smaller turns to larger turns (90 being the most you'd probably need on a larger canopy, if done correctly). You should start with small turns and a big canopy. Many jumps. By the time you're ready to jump something smaller, you should already know how to fly that canopy safely, and land it perfectly, using many inputs in a variety of conditions. And if you're downsizing to get a larger recovery arc, that's great if you're doing it because you want a canopy that's capable of building more speed, but if you're doing it because it's "safer" then you're already in way over your head. A person can be taught to do safe, high performance landings, on almost any modern parachute, regardless of size. Fast low turns are not necessary and they're dangerous. Small, heavily loaded canopies are dangerous. When you start out, you need to fabricate the large recovery arc by using both front risers. By the time you've progressed enough to be jumping the pocket rocket, your timing and skill should be such that you don't need the large recovery arc for safety purposes (though it's a great to have that buffer, nobody's perfect). Sorry this is so long, and sorry if I sound like I'm about to snap-- I haven't eaten this morning. Jason

USPA rated coaches can already take category G and H students solo, and nowadays there is a 10 coach jump requirement on the AFF proficiency card. So it's really taken care of at a lower level. Jason

I'm sure you've never heard of me, but I'll be there! Hopefully I can learn a thing or a hundred from you and the other swoop veterans! Jason

Flat turn 180 degrees? No you can't. I seriously doubt you can turn 180 degrees without losing altitude. You could land with only rear risers if you had too? How do you know? Have you tried? Anybody can hit a runway 10 out of 10 times, can you stop on a 10 meter target? How well do you really know your canopy? So you can land uphill or downhill once again if you had to? How do you know? Being overconfident under a high performance canopy is not smart. Jason

I do rear riser swoops and toggle swoops, but front riser swoops?!? That must be some kind of advanced technique! I use them for my approaches, but for the swoops? Just kiddin' with ya' Bill, I think what you're saying makes sense. Be familiar with how your canopy flies and lands using all of the available inputs and techniques in all different conditions before changing. Jason