teason

here we get into an area of contention. A smooth controled flat 90 to avoid an obstacle under a 290 manta is not as hazzardous as hitting a harvester. I'd rather break a leg than be impaled on a big metal hook 14 feet up with internal injuries and a reinflating canopy. As for low turns to face into the wind, however, I've lost one friend to it and seen lots of other injuries. Not worth it. We've all eaten the downwind, there's no shame. I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

I believe it was actually lake erie. Some jumper were treated to a skydive from an old B22 bomber. In those days, there were no rules prohibiting jumping through clouds. ATC was contacted by the pilot for it's position and a controller mistook a Cessna for the bomber and told the pilot he was over the DZ. The bomber, however, was over Lake Erie. Out of the 16 jumpers who got out, only 2 survived and the rest drowned. As for those who have gone through cloud, you were mistaken, it was industrial haze I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

You need ratings? no prob. I'll get you all the ratings you need! PLEASE SEND HELP! I've got 38 coming this Saturday I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

****sniff***** Your mom looks so proud, her little boy's all grown up! ****sniff**** Congrats!, wish I could've been there to help pie the snot out of you .. er... I mean y'all. I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

I just mean the spandex channel is attached to the flap. cutters are always placed on the reserve side of the flap or tray. I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

I believe it was Airtec that origionally determined where the cutter should be and the manufacturers had to follow their directions. A few years ago, I was a RWS having a conversation over the placement of the cutter in a Vector I vs. a Vector II. Airtec wanted the cutter on the 1 flap if it was a VectorI with a Vector II PC and on the #3 flap if it was a VectorI PC. A Vector II with either PC had to be on the #1 flap. They didn't get it, neither do I, but Airtec must have had a reason. I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

1000ft isn't alot is you are at an old airforce base. I used to jump at one that had a 6000' runway. A plane could get quite high and still be over the runway! I've seen pilots do two touch and goes in one run. I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

I gave the address to Vinnie and Luigi. They said they'd "take care of it". I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

I was in contact with Moreflex, the main supplier of deet while writing an article about modern skydiving myths a few months ago. (they produce the deet, companies like "Off" buy it and put it in theier product) According to Moreflex, deet does not damage nylon sample that they have tested. It should be noted that coated nylon like zp has not been tested by the company. Moreflex did, however, give a simple test to check for damage. Wash the affected area with soapy water (mild soap for parachutes) and feel for "stickyness" or "tackyness". It was suggested that pvc material can be used as a benchmark for this test as deet is a good solvent for this material. Just a side note from Moerflex "Since the materials of construction involved in the skydiving area are somewhat specialized, I would highly recommend testing each of these materials with DEET to determine the compatibilities." (just respecting thier disclaimer) I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

Our DZ still works that way if you either do work for the DZ or leave CC number on file. It works great with the exception of the odd instructor or packer that stops doing work and racks up his account. When it becomes a problem they stop showing up and go elsewhere with a huge debt at our DZ. last year an instructor stiffed us $300 bucks. I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

Manager of engineering at RWS, unless something has changed recently(couldn't find him on the RWS site). He's listed in the "contact the manufacturer" thread. I was getting snarky again, wasn't I Sparky Thanks for keeping me in line I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

You'll notice Mike Forsythe defends the speed bag in alot of threads. Given who he is, your thread question was answered before you even posted. I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

As I said before, I'm enjoying the debate. The reason I get worked up when I do is because sometimes people post rhetoric which skews the perspective of potential "consumers". I don't view your statements as someone "trying to understand Jumpshack's Position" Now, I call it a major change if function is affected. Your point about preventing catastorphic faliure is noted but it remains the case that the function is the same as any other freebag. It just has a flap that creates extra locking stoes. A change that some say yields no advantage over the safety stoe. Also, the Manufacturers that say they do not use anything other than standard freebags have been H/C manufacturers, not major canopy manufacturers as was orgionally put forth. p.s. thanks for clarifying your points and elaborating. I feel better now, the debate just become more intellectually satisfying I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

Sounds more like the Racer story. The Racer reserve was also very similar to the Strong Pop Top chest reserve. There was a time when Racers could go either way but I believe it is not so anymore. I don't know if Vectors shared that chest distinction but if it did, I'm sure you can't count it as a chest pack now. I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

I encourage my jumpers to "go down the road" to the other DZ. One of my instructors asked me if it was ok to go to the other DZ for a course and I supported him going 100%. I have some jumpers who have never jumped at any other DZs and I think they are missing out. Yeah it makes it hard to staff the place some weekends but it's good for the community and helps break down DZ rivalries. My core jumpers have no problem going to different DZs and I get better more well rounded jumpers in return. I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

God, this is why I get so worked up in this thread! I give you my opinion of why the design satisfies the TSO and you give the retoric What the hell is that suposed to mean? It's a statement made to obsfuscate the facts of the issue! Then you go on to say You want to talk about insulting! Besides, seeing as JS sells main and reserve speed bags, using a speedbag in testing satisfies the TSO even in the narrowest interpretation! For the most part (believe it or not) I enjoy the debate. Contrary points of view are the only ones worth listening to. But rhetoric and distortion through association belong in marketing, not in a discussion! I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

I would agree that completely if the bag had a significant design deviation. It's my opinion that it doesn't. The addition of a force attenuator not common with other bags is what would certainly qualify as a violation. The only design mod that I see is the addition of a second flap. The only function of this flap is to ensure that the bag stays closed until the lines are metered out. The safety stoe does the same thing (regardless of doing it better, worse, or just the same) With all the different bag designs on the market (true molar vs. non true molars, split bags, shaved corners, different line stoe options...etc) I believe ensuring the standarized function of the bag is the spirit of the TSO. Although it does raise, as Mick mentioned, the point that government regulations are about as clear as the bottom of a 6 year old Terry Turtle wadding pool in August I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

Regardless of what it "sounds like", mick, the special bag is not an additional attenuator. It is a deployment bag just like any other that is used with the exception that it has extra locking stoes. An additional reefing system would be a violation if it was not included. a second bag or sleeve would be a violation if it were not included. A "special bag" that has additional locking stoes to minimize the instance of faliure at high speeds is not. It meters line like any other bag, it keeps the deployment sequenced like any other bag, it works like any other bag and it even packs like any other bag. The only thing it does diferently is that the pro speed bag side says it's less likely to fail at high speeds. The pro safety stoe side says the safety stoe isn't suseptable to faliure. Logically, that means that both bags work and fail the same. ergo, it is not relevant which bag is used. The standard does not regulate the bag design but rather states that additional devices may not be used. The bag arguement is starting to get circular as this has been posted here and in other threads. I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

The statement was not refering to container manufacturers using deployment devices outside it's own design. The statement was refering to canopy manufacturers using deployment bag that do not change open forces but are rather less suseptable to faliure at hi-speed. In that case the TSO would only be violated if a bag that reduces opening forces was used or functions differently than any other deployment bag. There seems to be a great deal of confusion. The speedbag only corrects a faliure mode with the origional bag design that occurs generally at high speed. As drop testing canopies often involves high speed, a "specialbag" that is less likely to obscure the data by failing will give more reliable data regarding the canopy. Freebags are the domain of the container manufacturer. As long as the test bag functions the same as any other bag on the market, there is no reason it should invalidate the testing. I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

And you wonder why no one responded, and I was just trying help ... sheesh I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

I did a test jump a few months ago with a data-logger. We exited at 13500 and went drogueless until 10000. Goggles buffeting all the way. The Data logger read a max speed of 173 mph with our exit wieght of 450lbs. If memory serves, our speed in drogue fall was about 120 or so, I can't quite remember. They were using all sorts of math to calculate the amount of force exerting by the drogue (2gs or so on drogue deployment) and my eyes must have glazed over! I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

I found this post on incidents http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2109354;#2109354 The Student Harness faliure cited, I believe, were the two Jav incidents involving hard openings and comprimised webbing. As for the canopy manufacturers that use special bags, beside Jumpshack own deployment bag, I only know about one other companies test bag and it's "special" and speedbag-like. That's all I know so far. I believe they have been addressed in other posts but don't quote me on that. I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

I know John and I think his main motivation is that he does what he feels is the safest and best. What John will never ever ever do is use a system that he feels is unsafe because public opinion thinks otherwise. Say what you want about speedbags, two pins and pop tops, John believes in them passionately through researching these systems and won't comprimise the integrity of his container. John has the patent on a one pin but uses the two pin design origionally by Ted Strong because he feels the two pin is superior. I respect that type of conviction and belief in his product. I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

Hmm, so far almost a third think that it's a good idea. What makes it a good idea to put this canopy on this jumper? I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

my point was that we as riggers are hard-wired to be opposed to sewing anything to a pack rig. shortly after I posted that, you exclaimed that you didn't like the idea of sewing anything to a packed rig.(I'm paraphrasing) but it made my origional point so clear, I thought I'd mention it. That's all, I seal everything FAA style and never use scissor to cut seal thread. Works fine for me. I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.