jimjenningsmpa

>What I "think" isn't of relevance here. Yeah, so shut the f.u.c.k. up! >Anybody who hasn't discussed the details of this fatality with me firsthand doesn't have anywhere near enough data to have a substantive opinion on this issue. Oh, I see, they need you're "self(ishly)" created data to know the "real truth?" >It is sad when something like Dwain's death is turned into a circus of argument and conflict; that's why I just stopped talking about it with other jumpers. Well...you didn't stop talking about it soon enough... and amazingly...you still keep talking about it! >Though, I'm certainly not the only one who knows what actually happened in Colorado - your unawareness of that further lays bare your relative removal from the situation. Well, I was there...you were not...and DW shared with me his thoughts about you... If anything, he convinced YOU to think if he happened to die that day (cause he knew weeks ahead of time he was going to make a do or die jump) you would live a life of self torment in the event of his death. Think about it...he played it up oh so well... Ha ha ha! how do you like them apples???!!! >However, even if a big chunk of the herd convinces itself that the sky is green, it doesn't make the sky any less blue. It's often a thankless task to work to set forth a truth that few want to hear, and quite a few would prefer to keep under wraps. Add in the emotional cost and wounds to those of us close enough to know what really happened, and nobody's really going to "argue" with the uneducated masses about it. The sky is green doug! >So, "believe" what you will; heck, believe that gravity doesn't work, for all I care. That won't change gravity from working, and it won't change the facts of Dwain's death. Gee, I hope not! Never thought I would post again on this retarded forum...but I couldn't help myself...like I could give a shit anyway... and gee Nick...where do you fit into the "three types" and where would I fit in??? JJ

Thanks for the compliments guys...you were practically already BASE jumpers when you arrived. JJ

No don't do it Avery, don't bring up the "DEATH MONGER!" I still stand behind my beliefs. IMHO, there's a big difference between using death footage with the intention to teach/scare wanna be BASErs into being safe and helping them realize what they are getting into, or trying to make BASErs be more safe, and trying to use humor/cliches to catch the eye onlookers. Especially when the poster is assumedly a non-BASEr. Enough said. JJ

>Now if this comment came from JJ, I wouldn't even flinch. Folks that have been there can use black humor, folks that haven't..... Jesus Christ! Even I have a little more class than that. I flinched when I read that title today and hoped the moderator would either change the title or erase the thread. I knew Gabbi pretty well, hanging out with her in the red bus and jumping with her in the valley. My sincere condolences to her family and friends. Reading the title of this thread pissed me off and my first thought was the guy who wrote this sensationalist titled crap must NOT be a BASE jumper. I used to sort of like this site because it brings in the "not so serious BASErs" and "wanna be BASErs" but after spending some time here, reading the replys (like on this thread), my dislike for most dropzones and skydivers, and seeing the lame shite some people use to represent themselves when they post, I'm beginning to think I'll stick to the "BASE only" sites - Cause skydiving aint BASE jumping! Skydiving is soft and squishy...but BASE is (for the most part) HARD. MD #4

Yo! Ok, here's the correct info for the board - we cannot post from here :( It's probably for base forum, edit and post it for us! :) Robert and i had some sweeet flights in the last 3 days. About the same glide, Robert covers it a bit faster. We decided the time is really meaningless by itself, but still a number is a number :) Anyway, raw data: 3.2km flight from a new 1730m spot, time is presently unknown, video loses it at 1:38 mark but may be visible on a big screen. Average glide ratio is 2.1 Today, 4.3km flight from a known mushroom spot, 1950m altitude gained (lots of room to work on :) exact time is presently unknown but is about 2min. Video loses it early, will check a big screen later. Average glide is 2.45 An important note from the last flight - my arm got so tired holding a wingtip that i had a very weak pull. Something to watch on those long flights! Robert says after a minute and half he couldn't hold it at all. Let's get strong! :) We will play a couple more days and then off to Norway! :) bsbd! Yuri.

I am trying to reduce the chance of my friends and myself hitting the object on subterminal slider up jumps by reducing the probablility of severe off heading openings and/or openings with line twists. In light of some new evidence... I have a few theories bubbling up in my head. In order to develop and test modified equipment I could use your help. To confirm these SLIDER-UP theories and move forward in the testing phases, I would appreciate some feedback on the following severe off-heading and/or line twist questions: I. EQUIPMENT CONFIGURATION (slider up only) - 1.) Slider size (was it a larger/smaller than recommended by the manufacturer slider) and type (small/large hole mesh, sail/modified sail)? 2.) Slider Control? (single/double rubberband direct control, indirect control)? 3.) Canopy brand and type (vented/unvented/ZP/F111)? 4.) Pilot chute size and type (ZP/F111/Vented/Unvented)? II. MALFUNCTION (slider up only) - 1.) Malufunction (Severity of off-heading, number of line twists)? 2.) Outcome (Object Strike? How was the sitution dealt with?) III. WIND CONDITIONS AND OBJECT SHAPE - the goal here is to try to determine the effect of wind during the opening i.e. were rotors or turbelence a significant factor by figuring the... 1.) Strength of wind (mph)? 2.) Quality of wind (turbulent/clean/consistent)? 3.) Direction as it relates to the object? IV. THE JUMP 1.) Length of delay/useable altitude ? 2.) Stability, or body attitude, at deployment? For instance...A few years ago I jumped a nice little 800' cliff in the AZ desert. I was jumping a vented 265 FOX test canopy outfitted with a multi and a normal size (for 265) large hole mesh slider directly controlled on the C lines - each doubly wrapped. I had a 38 inch zp pilot chute. The constant 10 mph wind was from the NE hitting the cliff face at a 45 degree angle coming from my left. The cliff formation has a buttress jutting out about half way down on the right hand side that continues to the bottom. After sitting up top for nearly two hours, the wind appeared to be declining,and wanting to get on with the trip, I decided to jump. I chose to do a shorter delay to avoid being pushed downwind into the buttress on my right in the event of an off heading in that direction. I did a 3 second delay flat and stable, deployed and looked up at my canopy as it opened into a 450 degree off heading to the left. My body coninued to spin as I was heading directly toward the buttress downwind. I impacted the top of the buttress with one full line twist about 4 or 5 seconds after inflation, pulling on the brake lines through the twist to lessen my inevitable impact. I continued over the top of the buttress and into another cliff area, unspinning, bumping and scraping my down the sheer cliff, landing at the top of the talus without serious injury. After studying the cliff shape, the winds, and my experience. I determined a "whirlwind" was created by a combination of the shape of the object and the winds from that angle, causing the severe offheading with line twists. In hindsight (as pointed out to me by some more expereinced jumpers), I should have taken a longer delay to avoid the whirlwind, or not jumped at all. Equipment configuration may have played a part in the severity of the off-heading. Ironically, about five minutes after I jumped my partner up top reported that the winds had died down to nothing. The canopy suffered three cells and the stabilizer ruined and three lines broken just below where it attaches to the canopy. I landed with only one bump on my foot from the initial impact on the top of the buttress. Helmet, knee, and elbow pads definately helped reduce injuries. By investigating malfunctions we can hope to reduce their occurence. Please take a few minutes to tell us about your sub-terminal slider up malfunction experience. At the very least, please list canopy size, brand, and configuration. Thanks, JJ

Yuri Kuznetsov breaks two minutes from the Eiger... Atta boy!

Damn straight! He had a nice clean exit, near onheading opening and a loooong canopy flight. Nice jump! It's always good to feel the fear of a friend. Took a seven as the low man on a two way... FYI, this E is capable of a shallow eight, in the right weather conditions... without a wingsuit. JJ

QuoteIt can't hurt nor for W/S jumps nor for any other type of BASE jumps. Definately agree! >Opening is slightly faster but so what!! Benefits of having the vents may help in serious situation always. Very good point. Let's take this discussion in a different direction. Thus far we have been speaking of the benefits, or not, of bottom skin vents in an ideal situation - flying the suit as it should be flown with no critical problems. What about someone flying the suit for the first time in BASE and experiencing flight issues i.e. flying in a stall or not able to fly straight, or openings that are low and next to a hillside, or whatever object, where a 90 degree opening could be ugly, or unstable exits that spiral headdown? Last summer I saw all of these situations and for sure vtec helped Rob Tompkins when he opened extremely low and parallel to a steep hillside, had a one/two second canopy ride, and flared into a tree. Without vtec his canopy likely would have taken longer to inflate and he very well could have hit that rocky hillside much harder. What if someone opens very close to the object with line twists and bounces down to the bottom? With vents the canopy will be more inflated as it descends straight down. Food for thought...Because we all know BASE jumps don't always go as planned JJ

>Yes, my openings are usually hard, but I rather live w this than with hesitation of my PC or canopy. Yes, hesitations of PC or canopy suck! While jumping Kjerag last summer with my S1 I had a few low pulls mixed with pc or canopy hezi's and they scared the shit out of me! I was doulbe stowing, doulbe masking taping the steering lines, using small hole mesh slider, 36" F111 pc, and rolling the nose - and collapsing the wings and then reinflating as quickly as possible. This was making for some very comfortable openings, but the hezis were frightening! So after the hezis, I switched back to large hole mesh sliders, 38" zp, collapsed the wings for a second more, became a strong proponent of vtec for wingsuit BASE and lived with the harder openings. Actually, I have never used a non-vented canopy for wingsuit BASE, so I am not to voice my opinion on that matter... Logically, I assumed vtec was good for inflation purposes, but that's coming from someone who flys the suit in a horizontal fashion, poorly (I've actually stalled out my classic on a couple of BASE jumps and basically fell straight down at about 45 mph average), but the S1 was better but still not that great in terms of forward speed. So with a vertical decent speed of about 50mph mixed with a forward speed of about 50...isn't that about 75mph fall rate or 5 to 6 second delay speed (I'm not much of a physicist or mathmatician)? Looking forward to the S3 on a BASE jump this weekend...since the forward speed is unbelieveably faster! Speaking of hezis...has anyone seen the vhs tape at the white house of a nasty hezi at Kjerag (somone once told me it was Jari). The guy was kicking and flailing and when he turned to his side the canopy eventually came out - great video of a wingsuit jump almost turned fatal! be safe jj

>I have to disagree here - while the speed will vary quite a bit depending on a pilot and a suit, the average is quite faster that 3..4sec delay. Yeah, you're right right to disagree...for you. I was only speaking of myself. I flew my S1 and Classic so poorly I hardly had any forward movement so I didn't count that - only the vertical speed - and when I deploy my parachute, I collapse my wings for at least a couple seconds so I actually reach about 5 to 6 seconds equivalent vertical speed. I liken it to a sub-term slider up opening. >I usually fly slow, and my Classic opening were comparable to 6..8sec delays. Most people (and Skyflyer suit variations) fly faster. My skydiving opening on the S4 prototype feel almost terminal. To quantify this: on a reasonable flight (40mph vertical, 80mph horizontal) your total airspeed is about 90mph. You can flare a suit, but it won't slow down much. You are not the norm in wingsuit flying... >If anybody has developed such balls, they will stretch to a watermelon size by the very first slider-down wingsuit opening ;-) This is going to hurt more than landing a wingsuit without a parachute. Well...at least you would likely live if you opened slider off/down. >On the question itself: i believe that vents are irrelevant in case of wingsuit deployments. They don't cause any problems nor do they have any benefits here. I disagree. The canopy does open quicker because it inflates quicker. If you're opening low - like in the basement - IMHO vents could be of benefit. At any rate, regardless of canopy brand, vents are nice to have. JJ

I discarded my non-vtec canopies about 4 years ago. I prefer vtec because no matter what you are jumping - wingsuit, static, super low go and throw, 1,2,3 second, sub-term slider up, terminal - vtec will inflate quicker (so the openings may be a little harder) and give a better wing in less time. To answer the question... Wingsuit airspeed at deployment is equivalent to a 3 to 4 second delay slider up (depending on how long you collapse your wings to deploy) and therefore vtec will help to inflate the canopy quicker, providing a steerable wing in less time (but ideally you are not close to any objects when deploying). I prefer large hole slider up for wingsuit BASE (seems to inflate a hair faster) although the difference is hardly noticeable and may only be my imagination. Very curious to know if anyone out there has developed the balls to wingsuit BASE slider off/down? And if you have, please give a full report... Could you imagine the possibilities of deploying out of a wingsuit slider off/down? Who's gonna be or has been the first??? JJ

Tom the Alabama man, >When BR was testing the first Vtec canopies, we tried several locations and sizes before the final design was decided upon. I was there when BR was testing the vents...I guess that makes us "we" because we were at the test site at the same time, I videoed the initial test drops, and I threw in my 2 cents on where I thought the vents should be located. I way in no way compensated for being there... Does that make us "we" or not? Slight grammatical error and thank you for pointing it out. I really should re-read these things before I post them... JJ

Adam, Thanks for the compliments, although I feel the article was rather hastily written and should have had a tougher edit before I posted it. I've heard about CR's claim to a vent in the late 90's. Maybe I should have been a bit more specific by saying "BR was the first to offer vents in the marketplace." With the obvious improvments to canopy inflation, one has to wonder why CR did not offer the vents after testing them. Again, maybe I should have been more specific by saying something like "the blackjack and troll came out with vents of slightly different design and location than the FOX vtec, but are essentially the same in regards to performance." BR's products are not my products. BR does not pay me for testing, only instruction. I am "loaned" a canopy to test and report feedback and eventually I have to return the canopy. I wrote the article because I like the FLiK and see it's design as an improvement of the FOX canopy and a superior design in regards to BASE specific canopies. This is only my opinion after jumping the FLiK, FOX, Dagger, Ace, BlackJack, Mojo and Troll. >To clarify: BR certainly popularized the concept of lower surface vents. When we decided to answer the market's desire for such a feature we did not copy anyone. We built on our own knowledge and then completed the concept with a (patent pending) valve. BR popularized vents in BASE specific canopies, that I can agree with (since they were first introduced and used for accuracy in skydiving), and thankfully somebody did. Again, sorry, my mistake, I was not aware that the BlackJack bottom skin vents, so similarily sized and located to the Vtec FOX, were not copied. As I said, I did hear well after the Vtec was introduced into the marketplace that CR, at one time (I am relatively young in the sport of BASE - only 5 years), developed and tested some bottom skin venting, but "scrapped" the idea due to undesireable performance. But, for all I know that could have only been rumor. Did CR discard the original idea because the venting was improperly placed? Just speculation - I don't know. When BR was testing the first Vtec canopies, we tried several locations and sizes before the final design was decided upon. >We built on our own knowledge and then completed the concept with a (patent pending) valve. Help me understand why a BASE specific manufacturer would ever want to patent a life saving/injury preventing innovation. !!!TO ALL BASE JUMPERS AND THOSE INTENDING TO BASE JUMP!!! Any life saving or injury preventing device or design should be shared and people should not care who came up with what or when - INMO (In My Humble Opinion). We should thank those who came up with/introduced into the marketplace new ideas that minimize BASE related injuries/fatalities, and we should continue to try and understand how canopies work and how they might be improved - I know BR is always open to suggestions and theories (but be ready to fully explain your theory with evidence) - and all other manufacturers should be too...IMHO. >A vent with out a valve is like a seatbelt without a buckle. That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. I flew the Vtec without vents for nearly 400 jumps and did not experience any problems fitting to the analogy "a vent without a valve is like a seatbelt without a buckle." I did however notice an improvement in performance in glide ratio with the Vtec covers. JJ

What does the 'mpa' in your username stand for? I have a master's degree in public administration JJ

>I thought that the vents helped with canopy "pressurization" not "inflation" time. From what I have seen the vented canopies open in the same amount of time as the non-vented ones, they are just ready for control inputs faster. A canopy that pressurizes faster can fly faster. Please clarify this point for me. With quicker pressurization of the cells, comes faster inflation time. When you have a slow to pressurize canopy, you have a canopy that is not fully inflated - it waffles and is concertinering - not flying efficiently. When the canopy is not fully inflated, you have a faster descent rate, therefore it is not fully inflated. >Whyt not list the other canopies you have jumped and the number of jumps you put on them in your report? Let's just say that after being the first jump instructor in Lysebotn for two seasons, I was able to jump all the BASE canopies on the market - multiple times each - enough to make a GENERAL statement about the overall main characteristics as compared to the FLiK. >As a very active BASE jumper and as one who is currently in the market for a new canopy, I think this information would help to "sell" your choice. Without this data your report doesn't hold as much water and it seems more like you are kissing BR's ass. This is just a test jumpers review - not entirely specific - and should be taken as that. This was supposed to be an article to speak of the research processes and the building processes at BR with regard to the FLiK. It was not meant to be a way of "kissing BR's ass." I truly believe they have a better design with regard to the FLiK and have the capability to better serve their customers with an all "in-house" production - providing complete control of every aspect of the production and beyond. >In no way am I saying that the Flik is not a great canopy and BR is not a good company (hell I own 2 Fox's right now and love them) all I'm saying is direct comparisons will win more customers than just stating that it outperforms other canopies. (in your opinion) You're absolutely right! >So how about the openings at terminal? How exactly are they? The openings at terminal are brisk - very brisk. Therefore control measures are necessary. Do you own vented FOX's? It's about the same. I roll the nose cells on either side of the center cell in three or more times, directly control the slider by using black rubberbands on both center C's - double wrapping both to the center of a small hole mesh slider, double wrapping the tail lines and D's with masking tape for a line over control, and then indirectly stowing the lines under the tail pocket - doulbe wrapped by a normal size rubber tan colored rubberband. That's just me though... I'm totally satisfied with this setup after a few hundred terminal BASE jumps. >Thanks for the article, it has provided me with more info so I can make an informed decision on my next canopy purchase. NO worries. Can I answer any more questions? JJ - BASE 573

Title: "Building and Flying the FLiK - Basic Research's latest BASE specific canopy" by Jim Jennings Article: Designing and Building a BASE canopy today requires a great amount of testing, imagination, and canopy knowledge. As part of their ongoing research and development process, Basic Research goes to great lengths to seek out the most advanced BASE jumpers today, provide them with a range of test canopies and capture their feedback in order to develop superior products. The input used to design and develop new technology is backed by jumpers who are currently pushing the envelopes in BASE, jumpers who's talent has been proven at BASE competitions, and pilots with thousands of skydives and BASE jumps who have experience with multitudes of different canopy types. Also highly regarded by Basic Research are the contributions and viewpoints from the average, everyday jumper. The end result of this extensive and continuous development, testing and feedback is the FLiK, Basic Research's newest BASE specific canopy. Aside from the development of the Tail Gate several years ago to prevent slider down line overs, another major safety enhancing technology in BASE jumping canopies has been the introduction of bottom skin vents or Vent Technology, Vtec for short. Three years ago Basic Research introduced Vtec on the FOX canopy to improve slider down canopy inflation. Vtec has markedly improved inflation time during slider down or slider off BASE jumping, providing a steerable wing immediately to help avoid object strikes. Moreover, the past three years has provided plenty of occasions when this innovation has saved jumpers from serious injury or death by maintaining a rigid and steerable wing during an object strike. This occurs because air is rammed up through the bottom surface of the canopy, keeping it inflated while it is in a descending direction instead of flying in a more horizontal direction requiring forward speed to keep the canopy inflated, as with a conventional BASE canopy. Additionally, with faster inflation times Vtec has safely helped bring BASE jumping to a new level, more specifically a lower one, opening up a new range of objects previously thought too low to safely jump. Vent Technology has been proven to make BASE jumping a safer activity, regardless of the experience or skill level of the jumper. As with the Tail Gate, the success of Vent Technology has been so great that almost every other BASE canopy manufacturer has chosen to copy the Vtec without varying the size, location, or number of bottom skin vents; a tribute to the innovation and success of Basic Research. After three years of Vtec in the field on the FOX canopy, Basic Research accumulated the feedback they needed to develop "vent covers" that restrict the outward flow of air during flight thus improving the glide angle and enhancing the flaring characteristics. As a participant of the test jumping, I flew fly several different designs of vent covers. The major concern in the design of the vent covers was the impact they may have on the opening characteristics, possibly slowing down inflation. Another concern is the efficiency with which it actually covers the vent to improve glide angle. After an extensive number of prototypes, the desired cover was found. The covers on the FLIK evolved into a design that does not change the opening as compared to a Vtec without covers, and they cover the vent completely when the canopy is in full flight when air would otherwise be escaping out of the vent. In my opinion, it is the ultimate vent cover design. Often BASE jumping exits are far removed from optimal landing areas so a need to cover long distances is sometimes required, therefore the glide angle of a BASE canopy should be flattened. Improving the glide ratio or glide angle of the canopy has not only been achieved by adding covers to the vents, but also by slightly increasing the aspect ratio from 1.97 on the FOX to 2.04 on the FLiK. Basically this has made the canopy a more efficient wing in terms of glide ratio and flare. The aspect ratio is a sensitive variable to change because it can negatively change the on-heading opening performance. In addition for the need to land in often tight areas, this is one of the main reason why BASE canopies have seven cells instead of nine. The FLiK has an aspect ratio that improves the glide angle and flight characteristics, however testing has proven that the on heading performance has not been affected. Another feature of the FLiK has been an increase in the size of the stabilizers as compared to the FOX canopy. Larger stabilizers improve the turning characteristics by reducing side sliding and making for a tighter turning radius. This is a desired feature in BASE jumping in order to avoid object strikes through quicker response to riser or toggle input, or when flying in restricted spaces (such as in a narrow canyon). Several stabilizer sizes and where the line attaches to it were tested to formulate the most efficient wing while increasing the performance level. The testing also established that the larger stabilizers did not affect heading performance. The line length of a BASE specific canopy can also affect on heading performance and the risk and severity of line twists. Add a slider into the equation, and the potential for offheading openings and line twists is increased because the slider has more distance to travel and the time it takes for the slider to reach its final resting place is increased as well as the time to full inflation. These considerations were a factor in the invention of the FOX by minimizing the line length. Compared to the FOX canopy, the length of the FLiK's lines were further decreased to provide, in my opinion, a BASE canopy that has superior on heading openings and more consistent opening speeds compared to anything else on the market. The other change of the lines on the FLiK has been the addition of a fifth upper control line. This line was added to pull down more of the tail during the flare. The line is located inboard of the existing upper control lines and makes a substantial difference in the flare characteristics and turn response. This added upper control line in addition to the larger stabilizers results in a "sportier canopy" from the words of the parachute's creator Anne Helliwell, co-owner of Basic Research. The fifth upper control line has made such a significant improvement on the FOX and FLIK in the testing phases that Basic Research is now offering the fifth upper control line as a retrofit option to all existing FOX canopies. Another feature of the FLIK is reduced pack volume to help make handling during packing easier and to counter the addition of bulk from the added vent covers. The FOX canopy was built with extra reinforcement, beyond the forces that could be achieved in BASE jumping. The sport of BASE jumping is always being redefined and it has been determined that some of the reinforcements on the FOX were in excess. To reduce the size and pack volume of the FLIK, some of the overkill reinforcement has been reduced resulting in a tighter, smaller, easier to pack canopy. Production of canopies has been streamlined at Basic Research by the installation of a computerized hot knife cutting machine. This machine, provided and installed by Jyro (Paul Martin) from New Zealand Aero Sports, cuts a canopy out piece by piece with a computer controlled mechanical arm mounted with a hot knife – Jyro uses the same machine to cut out the Icarus canopies he produces. The computer software allows any pattern specifications to be entered into the system, allowing for easy alterations during the development of the FLIK test canopies, expediting the process. After cutting out the canopy, the pieces are handed over to the Basic Research sewing staff with ninety-three years of combined canopy sewing experience. This streamlined production process allows for test canopies to be produced immediately after the idea has been conceived, and it provides for an unparalleled turnaround time for custom orders. Basic research is now the only all in-house BASE gear producer, lending to the best customer service in the business, because the production timeline can be easily predicted and the manufacturer has complete control of the entire production process from taking the order to shipping. During testing I personally performed nearly one hundred jumps on the FLIK, covering the complete delay spectrum from low freefalls and static line jumps to an array of delays up to terminal velocity, while often landing in small undesirable locations. I can now say that the FLIK out performs any canopy I have jumped by a wide margin. It has a reliably consistent and crisp opening with instantaneous inflation providing an immediate, rigid, and steerable wing, maintaining unsurpassed on heading performance. The response to riser pressure in stowed or unstowed brakes or via the toggles, is very quick, reliable, and predictable. Responsiveness to toggle pressure during the flare is also reliable and consistent, and the FLIK has an explicitly positive flare that holds deep until touchdown. This canopy has been nothing but a pleasure to fly, and to improve upon this canopy design in the future will require pioneering imagination extensive and testing. However I am confident that Basic Research's R&D team will be there mulling through the process.

I have used the multi on over 700 jumps and it has never been the reason for a critical off heading opening although there ahve been many other resons I've hit the wall three times and had line twists at least 10 times on a BASE jump...

use riers if altitude permits and toggles when it doesn't...you will sink a lot more with risers

One day I was packing in front of a guy who has a bit of experience rigging. I was directly stowing the slider using a rubberband on one center C attachment point. He suggested it would be just another way to keep everything symmetrical if I had a rubberband on BOTH center C line attachment points for stowing the slider. It sounded like a good idea theoretically so I did from then on. I packed this way for about a hundred jumps or so on my FOX. When packing this way it is sometimes difficult to get an even bite on each side of the slider, so I began to take one bite and double wrap both center C lines. It worked so I began to do it on all my slider up jumps and have been ever since - at least 200 slider up jumps - even lower airspeed slider up jumps - 3 to 4 seconds. The results have been good so far... I don't know who fly my sky is...this was posted by JJ

>{since I didn't take 7.5 from Menara KL I didn't have that problem myself JJ!} it wasn't 7.5, it was 7.1. Well, it depends where you stop the clock... >Direct control scares me. More broadly, sliders scare the piss out of me. They are designed (as DW says) to prevent canopies from opening. They are designed to for "in sequence" canopy deployments. Not to stop a canopy from opening but only to slow the openings down. Who wants a slider down/off type opening at or near terminal? I agree with you Doug regarding the "more prone to offheadings" the longer the slider stays up, but out of sequence deployments and tension knots scare me as well. Therefore, I am trying to limit my chances of ALL possible malfunctions AND be able to safely take it low...cause that's what it's all about....isn't it? >I don't like snively openings as I firmly believe snivels slider-up make off-headings much more likely - the canopy up there at line stretch, not expanded but flapping in the breeze. That's why I jump a FLIK! >So this is my "250 jump wonder" plea for folks to think about the impact of direct control on opening performance. I thought you did your 202nd the other night??? You guys must have been jumping a lot that night. How many rigs did you have? I guess with the right number of rigs, like say 45 or 46, and a driver...you could get that many jumps off that nice backyard S of yours.... >I did (by most folks' assessment) the most consistently sloppy packjobs of anyone at the event. Not sloppy in the sense of reckless, but rather in the sense of not taking alot of time to "tidy" then; mostly in the 10 minute range, some faster. A true BASE jumpers pack job...well, one who doesn't care all that much anyway... cya! JJ

I was in Norway last summer and a friend of mine had his brand new ACE - jumping it for the first time. He did three jumps in a row and all jumps were a 180 off heading. He was scared to jump it and asked me to give it a jump to see if it was his body positioning that was causing the off heading. He bet me a bottle of Whiskey I would have a 180. I obliged and packed it the same as I pack my FOX. Slider up - two wraps from a small black rubberband on each center C line for direct control of slider - a double wrap indirect control of the slider for backup in the event the direct control failed, and a double wrap of the upper control lines with masking tape. The jump was good up until opening. The canopy seemed to have a two stage opening. In the first stage the canopy pulled hard to the left as I was propped upright and instantly pulled the right riser to correct the offheading as it opened. The second stage of the opening was more the inflation and it opened slowly (IMHO) but on heading since I was yanking on the right rear riser. I did another jump and it opened fine - in 2 stages and too lsow for my taste. This canopy had excessive forward speed (IMHO) during flight and I would not want this if I was facing a wall. It did have a very nice deep flare. The canopy opened to the left - same as the 180 openings my friend had. Another friend was jumping his ACE for the first time in Norway and he had an offheading with two line twists - to the left. Since then he has also had a terminal snivel jump. He is selling his ACE and test jumping the FLIK. Those are my ACE/off heading stories. I don't believe direct control of the slider has any substantial effect on the opening direction. Mnay people have been doing direct control of the slider for years... JJ

YO! And possibly have "slammer" slider down looking openings like you had at KL ddog? What if you got a camera on your head? Those super hard openings will give you wiplash and a sore neck for a few days minimum. You need direct control of the slider to stop the slider form racing down the lines prematurely, and indirect control as a backup for out of sequence deployment. I would suggest testing this in CH when you have ample slider up jumps if I were you ddog. Prevention is better than cure for a line over... but both prevention and cure is better than just prevention. Does anyone know if WLO type toggles have had a save/cured a line over yet in a real-life situation? When they have a reported save, I will think about buying some... as for the hook knife...you must be a dirty high puller to have effectively have time to use it : ) Istead of using only indirect or direct control I've been using two wraps with masking tape around my upper control lines just above my slider for about a year now on sub terminal slider up jumps - tested on over 180 jumps so far. Nowadays, when I do terminal jumps with a SMALL HOLE MESH (the tailgate could possibly get caught in the large hole mesh, cause a lock-off configuration where the tailgate is anchored on the C-line AND in the large hole mesh, and possibly cause a slider hangup) slider I use a tailgate - with two wraps of a small black rubber band - to lessen the potential of a line over - tested on only a few jumps so far. The question seems to be..."is this effective given the slider is choking off the opening canopy and even a small separation (when the slider begins to descend the lines) of the upper control lines breaks the tape/opens the tailgate... so is the masking tape/tailgate really helping to prevent a lineover? Video analysis shows that the nose and tail open at approximately the same time - sometimes the nose begins to open first - but the tail never begins to inflate before the nose, therefore it seems to be helping. But, more testing is needed to conclude that it is really effective. It is psychologically effective for me now, and I don't like jumping unless some sort of restriction is put on the upper control lines, so it does have some value. What are your thoughts/results? JJ