Falko

Bwahaaha Yes they did... but that's because I'm half dutch (see last name) and that's a No-No in Germany. You know we love the netherlands because they're friendly, open minded, have coffee shops etc but they're so easy to tease. I am dutch/german and I'd rather be 100% dutch than be AUSTRIAN. Thanks everyone for their helpful replies, I feel very welcomed. Hope we can pull a few nice winter bigways out of the Caravan. Ich betrachte die Religion als Krankheit, als Quelle unnennbaren Elends für die menschliche Rasse. (Bertrand Russell, engl. Philosoph, 1872-1970)

Where's that located?? You wouldn't believe me if I told you that I never drink beer, even though I'm a skydiver AND a german I just don't like the taste. But I want to be there anyway.

Thanks for the info I'll try! At my sisters family in Sandy Springs. That's +/- 50 miles to the Farm or to Monroe. Will see if I can also make it to Thomaston since I'm only staying 2 weeks. Thanks everyone, see "y'all" in February Ich betrachte die Religion als Krankheit, als Quelle unnennbaren Elends für die menschliche Rasse. (Bertrand Russell, engl. Philosoph, 1872-1970)

Thanks everyone for their answers

hey all, I'll be visiting my sister in Atlanta to see my new-born niece

If you're near Brussels you might want to check out the Paraclub Flandern, they run 3 Dropzones with Grand Caravans and reasonable pricing. Very nice people also, I jumped there a few times when the weather at my home DZ Skydive Center Spa was bad.

OK here's a few quotes from emails I received from John at Performance Designs. I asked a few detail questions on their measuring method. But the most interesting is part 2 where he goes on about the factors that make up the performance of a canopy. Published with permission, his one concern is that the context not be lost so I haven't cut out anything. John LeBlanc on the measuring methods of PD canopies: and more detail: May I say that a detailled answer like that is great customer service! John LeBlanc on the factors that make up the performance of a canopy: ... the do indeed. Thanks a lot Ich betrachte die Religion als Krankheit, als Quelle unnennbaren Elends für die menschliche Rasse. (Bertrand Russell, engl. Philosoph, 1872-1970)

I'm not adressed but I bet you like to hear that I jump a Nitro 120 for 150 jumps now. I especially love its responsiveness and the feeling that you're "one" with the canopy due to the short uncascaded HMA lines. The flare is amazing... whenever I finish the flare I have my hands down all the way beside my thighs, and I know my steering lines are not too long ! Personally I like the very short recovery arc (many people don't). I start my frontriser 90s at +/-350ft and it works well with me. I like being able to dig out of a misjudged low turn in a split second, already had to do that a few times. When you pull down the toggles the Nitro is wings level immediately (now please noone tear that statement apart, I'm not suggesting having a false sense of security with that canopy) When going in deep brakes after opening (thank's to Brian's course) I can stay up "forever" and watch the crowd rush for the landing zone. I remember just recently at a Pink Boogie when I shared a jump with a big guy who had a Sabre 210, he landed before me and had already picked up his canopy when I came in to final. He was like "Where have you been?". Question: Beezy do you know how HiPer measures the sqf of the Nitro? If yes would you post it in this thread please? Thanks. Ich betrachte die Religion als Krankheit, als Quelle unnennbaren Elends für die menschliche Rasse. (Bertrand Russell, engl. Philosoph, 1872-1970)

Well I was tempted for a second to just answer "are you kidding me" but then I remembered that we need to be "nice" in the forums and answer questions to the best of our knowledge so the moderators don't have to chew our asses... Agreed, but learning from the mfgs about the different standards and why they use them can't be bad. At least it gives food for thought the next time someone get's bashed for having a 1.4 instead of 1.3 wingloading. Uh well, yes it's slightly tapered. I own a Spectre150 as a second canopy and it does look () rectangular from below. Since I never actually measured it (har har ) I didn't know it was tapered until I read the ad just now. Ich betrachte die Religion als Krankheit, als Quelle unnennbaren Elends für die menschliche Rasse. (Bertrand Russell, engl. Philosoph, 1872-1970)

>What is the sqf of a HP canopy ? >Do you mean area? Yes, Planform area or Projected area as defined in this document: PIA TS100 - Standardized Nomenclature for Ram-Air Inflated Gliding Parachutes >What kind of area? Depends on the measuring method. I've learned about quite a few different ones now. For example Paratec Germany measures both top and bottom area and calculates the square footage by using a relation of 2 (top) to 1 (bottom) to describe the "effective area". Thus they account for the amount of lift that is generated by each side of the parachute. I remember some aerodynamics class where the rule of thumb was "the top of an airfoil creates 2/3 of the lift, the bottom of an airfoil creates 1/3 of the lift" (aviators correct me there?). Simple example: 100sqf top, 90 sqf bottom = (2x100 + 1x90) / 3 = 96,7sqf They also measure the projected area instead of the planform area, thus coming closer to describing the "effective surface" rather than the size of the fabric. I've never seen any numbers but it makes sense to me. edit: hp statement deleted Ich betrachte die Religion als Krankheit, als Quelle unnennbaren Elends für die menschliche Rasse. (Bertrand Russell, engl. Philosoph, 1872-1970)

I've played with that thought. That is of course not putting that together (impossible for a single person) but inviting people to measure their canopies by the same standard. It would have to be a joint effort and it must be easy to accomplish. The compromise is having a fool-proof way of measuring while getting exact values that describe something meaningful. The more detailed you'd get, the more useful the values would be. But more detailed also means less fool-proof. Anyway, without detailed manufacturers input I suspect the measured values could be moot. Don't think they have anything to hide. I think it's just different philosophies, different technical backgrounds and design histories. No conspiracy there. Ich betrachte die Religion als Krankheit, als Quelle unnennbaren Elends für die menschliche Rasse. (Bertrand Russell, engl. Philosoph, 1872-1970)

I totally agree and just for the record: We're on the same side, what you write is my point exactly. Seems you read some "intention" of mine into the subject line that is not there? I am NOT trying to have mfgs alter their measuring methods or pushing a dead discussion. Just learning here. How do you know when you don't know in which way these methods differ? From what I've learned these differences may result in 10%-20% (or even more?) of size difference, resulting in WL value that has no significance. Would like to paste a part of a recent email conversation with John LeBlanc that does fit in here. I asked him a few detailled question regarding their measuring methods & why's. A quote of my answer: Now there's 2 things bothering me about the whole WL regulation discussion: 1) One calculation base of WL is square footage, but noone seems to be interested in where that value comes from and what it actually describes. People compare apples and oranges from different manufacturers here but still get hysterical about WL differences in the 0.1 range! 2) Noone talks about the other factors that determine responsiveness/agility etc of a canopy, like ellipticity, line trim etc. That's my subject, and this thread is about point 1)

You might want to check out this document from Aerodyne about the "Planform factor". It describes ellipticity in numbers rather than terms like "semi-elliptical" etc. Ich betrachte die Religion als Krankheit, als Quelle unnennbaren Elends für die menschliche Rasse. (Bertrand Russell, engl. Philosoph, 1872-1970)

Thanks for the constructive input. We need more one-liners like that in Gear&Rigging, really helps put things into perspective Ich betrachte die Religion als Krankheit, als Quelle unnennbaren Elends für die menschliche Rasse. (Bertrand Russell, engl. Philosoph, 1872-1970)

... that's what I'm trying to show with this thread. Thanks a lot for the info! Ich betrachte die Religion als Krankheit, als Quelle unnennbaren Elends für die menschliche Rasse. (Bertrand Russell, engl. Philosoph, 1872-1970)

Sounds logical to me, since PIA measures span at the top skin vs PD measuring span at the bottom skin. In response to my request on the Icarus Website I received a call yesterday from Martin in Barcelona, briefly describing the measuring method of Icarus. It sounded similar as what is described on the PD Homepage. (mean chord multiplied with span of bottom skin) Duh! Well, I sent cobaltdan a PM yesterday with a link to this thread. Maybe he'll chime in... Ich betrachte die Religion als Krankheit, als Quelle unnennbaren Elends für die menschliche Rasse. (Bertrand Russell, engl. Philosoph, 1872-1970)

I'm trying to collect all possible measurement "standards" of how to measure the square footage of a high performance elliptical canopy. So if both manufacturers and riggers would answer here about the different ways they measure, that'd be great! What I've found so far: 1) On the PIA website I found the old TS-104 document (from 1987) which describes measuring a rectangular canopy. 2) The FAQ on the PD website says: 3) Aerodyne offers a document worth reading about the Planform factor, but doesn't tell how exactly the sqf is measured on Aerodyne canopies. I will email them these days. Question to the riggers: What else is possible, and what's your preference and why? Any info is appreciated!

Last weekend I visited this years Safety Day of the DFV (German Parachuting Association). I'm not a TI but I remember some of the tandem cutaway statistics. The DFV highly recommends flat packing EZ's, as they received a significant amount of lineover cutaway reports of EZ canopies that were pro packed. These reports don't mean that german TI's can't pro pack so don't even try a joke ! Ich betrachte die Religion als Krankheit, als Quelle unnennbaren Elends für die menschliche Rasse. (Bertrand Russell, engl. Philosoph, 1872-1970)

Well since there is a TSO-Label on each of my PdF reversed risers ("TSO C23d") I believe they have been certified as part of the harness indeed. That would comply with the answers I've received from the PdF support stating that using third party risers would void the TSO of the Atom Legend. I don't know but maybe in the USA some/all manufacturers don't include the risers in the TSO? Can someone here give an answer to this please? No it doesn't, but we're comparing apples and oranges. It seems there is no "general" answer to this question. Best is to always ask the manufacturer! Ich betrachte die Religion als Krankheit, als Quelle unnennbaren Elends für die menschliche Rasse. (Bertrand Russell, engl. Philosoph, 1872-1970)

How can that be? I assume we're looking at different situations then, take the Bellyflyer with customized non-articulated harness or the freestylist with used gear that doesn't fit 100% OR a tandem passenger? I think we need to look at those separately to assign them a risk value. As for the "standard" skydiver, I'd say it's on the lowest end of 1E, otherwise we would be hearing about people falling out of their rigs on a regular basis wouldn't we? Maybe for tandem harnesses and rides it's more of the upper end of 1E, maybe even 1D. THAT then would need to be adressed by _all_ tandem harness manufacturers. Maybe I'm seeing ghosts and the poster is right wo said this thread is lame... anyway, what do I know. Am off to DFV safety day

Well then from what I know, you would have to sell the whole rig. I've emailed PdF in July already, asking if I may replace the reversed risers with standard risers (my favorite are Aerodynes) Answer was "no" because it would void the TSO. They don't even offer updating an "old" (mine is DOM 2002) Atom Legend with a Freefly handle (requires sewing a little plug pouch on the container). Note: Noone from PdF said it's not recommended because of technical incompatibility (compatibility which of course has to be confirmed by a rigger anyway), the argument was certification. edit2add: ... my "dream" riser would be one that had Aerodynes Miniforce 3-rings and Parachutes-de-France Toggle attachment system (1 Pin upwards, 2 fabric sockets downwards). No break fires ever, and least cutaway force. Ich betrachte die Religion als Krankheit, als Quelle unnennbaren Elends für die menschliche Rasse. (Bertrand Russell, engl. Philosoph, 1872-1970)

Given the Risk Matrix #1 I'd assign a 1E (that is hazard category "Catastrophic" and "Improbable" frequence of occurence) to the issue of falling out of a rig through "the hole" in the back. IMHO, it does not call for a mandatory change in design, but since containers are getting smaller (thus opening "the hole" more) rig manufacturers should think about offering an option like the upside-down-V band or a load-bearing leg strap connector. (See example with the Mirage, mouse over the picture for the "V"-Strap) I can imagine that falling out backwards could be an issue especially with freestylists (think: bendy girls, tight pants with low friction, acrobatic movements , and now add a premie at 150mph ) Love these forums, I learn something new every day... thanks Ich betrachte die Religion als Krankheit, als Quelle unnennbaren Elends für die menschliche Rasse. (Bertrand Russell, engl. Philosoph, 1872-1970)

Sorry for picking on semantics, but it obviously is existing. The probability seems to be small, but still. What I don't like about some of the potential problems with "small probability" is that if they occur in reality, they inevitably result in death. The way I see it, the only task of a harness is to keep my body attached to my parachute, or to my TI under all circumstances! If I can manage to slip out of a properly sized and properly fastened harness, it calls for a change in design. Maybe only a minor change, but still. Well, would be fine, wouldn't it? Ich betrachte die Religion als Krankheit, als Quelle unnennbaren Elends für die menschliche Rasse. (Bertrand Russell, engl. Philosoph, 1872-1970)

That sounds very cool. Can you post pics/specs/dimensions? Yes please post the pics! BTW, I tried it with my articulated Atom Legend rig. I was amazed at how easily you can take off the rig even though all the straps were tightly fastened. Everyone try it: 1) Put your rig on, make the leg & chest straps extra tight so you don't fool yourself 2) Sit on the couch, pull the leg straps in the direction of your knees, to more than half the length of your femur. If you have a rubber band or other leg strap connector in place, disconnect it. 3) Stretch your legs and bend over as if you were trying to touch your toes. 4) Breathe out, slide off the couch and have the couch seat push your rig upwards, now you can pull it over your head like "taking off a shirt". I did, and there I sat looking at my rig in front of me with all straps closed . And that was with the main still in, it would have been even easier if it were out! I have to add that I'm (still) bendy but pull force doesn't care if you are. If body position was "right", leg straps were in a bad position and one had a premature opening in a sitfly position, I think it's a possible scenario that one could have their rig yanked off of them. Now is there a need to do something about this, or do we ridicule the scenario and put it in the 1-in-a-million folder and forget about it? I don't think so... Ich betrachte die Religion als Krankheit, als Quelle unnennbaren Elends für die menschliche Rasse. (Bertrand Russell, engl. Philosoph, 1872-1970)

As a former student I second that. (It's been 3 years ago but I still remember being a student quite well). In our FJC class (6 or 7 men) the instructor verbally and physically simulated the situation. For example twisting and turning you around in the harness while telling you the altitude. Even the students who were just sitting in a circle started sweating. In between the simulations the instructor assured us he wasn't abusing us but trying to create stress, which we would surely have up in the sky on our own. Another example: One student didn't look left when simulating his canopy controllability check. So the FJI took 2 firm steps and slammed into his left side, then twisting him madly and shouting "COLLISION, you flew into someone, your canopy is not working any more, going DOWN... 600meters... 500meters... 400meters... DO SOMETHING!". The guy cutaway and pulled reserve, the "simulation" continued until he landed his reserve. Instructor: "Well, nice, you survived. But the guy that you hit because you didn't look is now dead." The mistake of "not looking before turning" has not been committed a second time during the course. It may sound "macho" but I totally approve of this type of instruction. The FJI found the right mix, well, at least for me. Now guess what, on my AFF Level 1 i had to cutaway and pull reserve. Tension knot on the right side, pumping toggles didn't help. I was more relaxed cutting away & pulling reserve than I was in the training harness. As for the "horror pictures": There's absolutely no need for that. IMHO a good Instructor can do without. Ich betrachte die Religion als Krankheit, als Quelle unnennbaren Elends für die menschliche Rasse. (Bertrand Russell, engl. Philosoph, 1872-1970)