teason

I don't think that's really fair. The debate here should be what are the pro an cons of each not the suspected motivations of the choices made. When I bought my student gear some years ago, I had a choice with no additional cost. I went with rounds because that was what I was used to and was what I felt comfortable with. (I had seen a main reserve deployment that resulted in a Damaged round reserve. I felt that a square in the same position would not have been survivable. That's my perspective and one that is really hard to shake. When I opened a new DZ and felt that with all to stuff I needed to concentrate on, exploring changes to my FJC would not be a safe option. Changing the FJC takes more than a quick glance. You may feel that choice to be wrong and that's great. people with opposing views are the only people worth listening to. My motivations are always in the interests of safety and that's why I put up this post. Not to say rounds are safer but to get both views and opinions. I'll change reserves if I feel it's safer but calling me cheap doesn't present that argument. I know there can be emotion involved in safety so I understand but let's keep our focus. I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

The three magic words in rigging Call the manufacturure. It's probably either a typo or they changed their closing sequence sometime after they had the pretty pictures. Only they know for sure. I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

Doesn't turn you from being an obstacle to being a moving obstacle? If you zig and he zigs, your Zag becomes scarier I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

ahh Ron, to put it simply they don't even know enough to know that they don't know. My DZ is a constant battle. We lost 4 of our 6 instructors over the winter to new jobs and injuries. Now there's only 2 of us with 1000+ jumps and everyone else has under 250 jumps. Why would they listen to us say CRW is not a good idea trying for the first time with mismatched hp canopies when their other 8 friends don't see a problem. At that point I'm a voice in the wilderness, yanking my hair and asking back up in forums so that they can read others more experienced than they telling them they're dumb asses (sorry Kev) It's a constant struggle for safety! By the way, the comments in the wingloading poll help some gain new perspective!

Brian Burke once told me there are two types of good skydives one where did everything right and ones where you learned. Looks like you had a great skydive. Everyone makes mistakes, it's part of learning. If you refuse to take responsability for the error (sun was in my eyes, guy ran infront of me) then it will happen again and you are powerless to prevent it. If you take responsability for it, then you have the power. You are in control and have the power to ensure it never happens again. There was no need to chew you out, you had done the heavy lifting and taught yourself the lesson. I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

The same can be said of any rig however Racers can be a real acid test for bad rigging DANGER LET"S STAY FROSTY The statement above does not mean that if you don't know or aren't familiar with a racer then you must suck. It means that a rigger who does poor work can really F*** up a racer. I have seen a few sketchy rigs but Racers seem the be the rig where you see the most ... er ... creativity in rigging. Hell I once saw a quick loop tacked to the hat with 5cord, it was pulling the hat itself through the grommet! A good rigger, even if he hates and takes hours closing a Racer will still do a good job. A bad rigger will butcher the hell out of it. These same riggers are probably butchering other rigs to a lesser degree, Racers just stand out more cause they're different. Remember good riggers try everything to educate themselves Bad riggers guess and hope. I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

I think in the early nineties it was right left for a while and then changed back.(Sunpath would know for sure) We did IADs on javalins closing them right left and found that the bridle sometimes caught the flap and caused a pilotchute hesitation. When simulated on the ground with a tight closing loop, you could pick up a 40lbs student rig by the PC. I know of one DZO who refused to believe this citing stacked grommets and symetrical closing flaps. He still does left right even though it contradicts the manual. As for the lines, I've never heard of lines going against your back. I just don't think it's designed for that! I would imagine you would get excessive wear. talk about a square peg in a round hole... I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

Now that's what I'm talking about! That's a rigger!

I actually agree with that statement completely, you don't have to be proficient in all back rigs.Riggers who believe that they know all and can just guess the rest really boil my cookies.Being a rigger must mean that you follow manufacturures directions and ask questions if you don't know. GUESS WORK IS NOT OK IN RIGGING! WE DO NOT HAVE THE LUXURY OF LEARNING FROM OUR MISTAKES! I will never criticize anyone for refusing to pack a rig they're unfamiliar with. If I'm unfamiliar with a rig and there is no manual, I will not pack it. I'm not even allowed to if I wanted to. If I do pack it (with the manual of course) and I'm unsure of something, I'll call the manufacturer. Having a back rating should imply that a jumper can trust you with his repack to either do it right or not do it at all. I'm sorry if my point was weak on the earlier post. As for the principal of charging more for a rig that takes longer; I won't do it. I a rig takes longer because I'm taking my time with unfamiliar gear, I'm not going to charge him for my slowness. They shouldn't pay for my lack of familiarity. It's just how I feel. As for racers, it's the same price no matter if it has a square reserve, cypres, or microchip brain implant. I don't want a jumper regretting a gear choice because of MY short comings. I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

Unfortunately we're both talking anacdotal evidence. My region and your region may be far apart. We have the knickname "Wholesale City" because of our consumer mentality (which I dispise!!!!!) and I don't think we are unique. My contention is that their research often seems to be for the purpose of jusitfying a choice, not making the choice to begin with. The latter is educational the former is not. How can you make a choice when you only reserch one rig? How do you weigh the options if you only fill one side of the scale? Good point and certainly adds credence to the longer cycle which I actually agree with. My point was that if left to thier own devices, there may (I believe would) be abuse going unchecked. By the way, our DZ has an on site Hangliding school. I've seen chutes go without a repack for years and they are ok. I have also seen e-chutes that send a chill down my spine! I also have a rigger friend with an old set of gear who decided to see if a 5yr old pack would work(yes he had a terch) all it did was snivel. My opinion on a regulation is that it's like an AAD. We should have the common sense not to need it but sometimes... you get the picture I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

There is lots of resource out there if you call Jumpshack. They can give tips galore. Also, shouldn't a "back" rating mean that you're qualified to pack any and all back reserves? If a rigger knows that he has trouble with a rig he should probably not pack it (as some do) or be pro-active and learn how, not charge extra and then butcher it. Any "Racer Rigger" will be happy to show what they know. I would like it known that there are competant riggers who do charge more and do a good job and that they charge more because it is an accepted going rate. I also know for a fact that there are some who charge extra for their own ignorance (lernt that first hand!) Any other Racer horror stories? Did that rigger charge extra? I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

sound like you have a "Racer Rigger" there! I know I've paid a rigger extra to butcher my Racer and then it cost me extra to replace the quick loops he broke and the the reserve pins he bent! (saying nothing about the 50lbs+ of pull on the reserve. Reading the manual would have prevented that problem. p.s. don't be a shit disturber! I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

People DO make gear choices based solely on maintenance cycles and if you do believe me, then I'll sell you a one of three cypres' I have with that need 8 yr checks and batteries. The owners have abandoned them! Many jumpers at my DZ are opting for Astra BECAUSE of their lack of mandatory maintenance and eternal life span. One of my customers wants to bang a nail through his cypres and send it back to airtec! It doesn't matter to them how well it works, they're just pissed over the costs of maintenance and life cycle. Also, if you think that the average jumper researches his gear to figure out what he wants then you've been sucked in by the Sprite ads that say "image is nothing..." Image is everything. Some jumpers I know will see an ad for gear and the only research they do involves finding people to justify their choice. Once they've decided what gear they want, they research the manufacturer's site to determine why they want it. Ask them about any other set of gear and they are clueless... but they know all the options on the one with the cool ad. Finally if you think that cycles shouldn't regulated, go to a hang gliding air park and offer someone a free repack at random. God only knows what you'll find or how long it's been there. In a perfect world we would all make the right choices. I the real world we require regulation. P.S. don't tell Transport Canada I said that! They'll F*** it up! I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

Your points are well made and well taken Thanks

I don't think it's about the quality of training or the stupidity of students. It's about managing a situation and being aware that some react differently than others. Fatality reports are full of people that made a poor choice, both student and experienced jumper alike. CAUTION EXTREME EXAMPLE I knew a DZO in Canada who dropped students on rounds with fused Capewells up until he retired in 2002. His arguement was that his high rate of injuries (lots of breaks every time he dropped students!!) was justified by the low fatality rate ... and he had the stats to prove it! Now that is an extreme point of view and one that I do not agree with. The basis of the theory, however shouldn't be ignored. Is the pro square arguement a "better performance=better for the student" arguement Or is it that the high risk of hazardous and injurious landings under a round outweigh the low risk of problems that can result from botched dual canopy procedures. The first arguement is supportted by the adoption of squares for students decades ago but is also weakened by the fact that we don't drop students on hp canopies for the better flare. There is a balance and that's what I'm hoping to find; what's the balance with reserve choice for students The second is valid in my mind but needs justification. I have anecdotal evidence that supports rounds but that is a limited perspective. The arguments against students jumping square reserves are however unique to students and have nothing to do with experienced jumpers Your experience with your students does ,however, lend lots of creedance to square reserves

good point but the opposing veiw may be that a rattled first jumper may fly thier square poorley where as the round will treat that jumper like cargo, they can't get to far away from where they are supposed to be(good spotting is, of course, critical). I also have never, ever seen an FJ student try to flare a round canopy(I know that's anecdotal) I have however seen someone with about 10 jump try it.... er .... it didn't work to well....go figure. I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

Which AADs have you used and what's your experience with dualies? I used to instruct at a DZ with squares and they seemed so snug that often they stayed in the container with the reserve PC trailing behind (Javs with Tempo reserves) Any square on square grey hairs? With rounds, I've probably seen just almost as many dual descents as single reserve rides (IADs and a classic progression) I've even seen a student land their main with a round lying on top of the canopy, and one student who melted panels on thier reserve when it deployed through the main lines. (by the way, I've seen a good 10000-11000 first jumpers in my day and it still isn't a regular thing) just looking for thoughts out there as I'm debating on new student gear.

Interesting but wasn't anti inversion netting more for T-10s going out of Hercs at high speed? The combination of the speed and gravity put the T-10 at an angle and therefore puts the inversion stage at an angle increasing the risk of partial inversion. Some out there from the days of rounds could probably give stats on the likelihood of partial inversions in a regular freefall situation. Also the point on having a freebag/sleeve on the round may cause more harm than good. I have seen a round reserve pilotchute get wrapped in a main canopy in a dual situation and still inflate, a sleeve may keep the reserve contained while fouling the main and considering that it was most likely a student error that cause the situation, would he have the presence of mind to take corrective action? That's very true, Squares prevent off DZ and obstacle landings. Spotting considerations are much more important for rounds and you have far less injuries under squares. The question kinda becomes are the benefits of the square worth the risks when it all hits the fan. I've seen at least half a dozen scenarios where a square reserve could have been an extreme hazard. At the same time I know there are round canopy horror stories. It has been my experience that rounds are safer in the long run but my experience is meager compared to the collective! I crave external input! empirical or even anecdotal evidence. I'm also wondering if some feel (as I do) AAD choice would also play a role seeing that FXC12000 are more prone to dual descents than a student cypres. *** I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

I'm curious, with all the new advancements and approaches to student training, which is better to use as a reserve canopy; round or square? We all know which is a better canopy but when it all hits the fan with an FJC student and two canopies deploy at the same time which is safer? Has training at your DZ changed if you has replaced your rounds with squares? Love to hear the opinions out there!

ARRRRGH!! KILL IT KILL IT !!!!!! before it gets to the children! I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

The paradox is that you have no idea the state of the cat when it is in the box. Just as you have no idea of telling wether on not your reserve will work when it's packed up. You can unpack it to tell if it WOULD have worked but as soon as it's packed up again, you have the exacte problem you had before you unpacked it. Therefore a new cat has been placed in the box, the box is closed and you have no idea of it's state. I wasn't saying anything about superpositioning although the repack is in a state of superposition; it both works and does not work under Quantum law. I think I just broke my brain on that one I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

Just a few points. 1.) Inspection cycles were origionally determined by the material used in parachute construction and although materials have changed radically, cycles haven't. 2.)120 day Ispections to catch mistakes is a bit irrelivant seeing that as soon as you close the rig it becomes a Schrodinger's cat paradox! see uncertainty principle 3.)A lazy rigger who does a poor inspection on the first repack will probably be the same rigger on the next repack who will once again do a poor inspection. We seldom go from rigger to rigger and a poor inspection is almost as bad as pencil packing. Just some thoughts

Agreed, perhaps a new post should be started on how we can get get canopy skills into the ratings. Canopies have changed a lot in the last 10-12 yrs. heims had a great post which was swallowed up by the emotion of the other posts. Hey Bill, can you get us back on track? Maybe move heims to a thread of her own for better focus. I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

It's been my experience that rigging errors come from lazy riggers. I see lots of uneven toggles which show an incomplete inspection. I've also seen more butchered Racers than I care to remember. The worst was my own Racer Tandem. It had 50+ lbs of pull force on the reserve handle (even after the seal thread was removed), Broken quick loops, and Bent reserve pins. What really ticked me off is that we paid extra for the pack because the rigger didn't like to pack Racers. If this rigger took the time to read the manual, he would not only of prevented the damage and unrealistic pull force but also would have seen how easy it is to pack the racer reserve. He was lazy and charged us extra for his ignorance. The more rigs I repack, the more bothered I become by lazy rigging. By the way, your rigger is required to have the manufacturer's manual within reach for refferance! And the only reason we have to repack a reserve is because we have to unpack it to INSPECT it. 20-30 min. repacks are a riggers way of ripping you off. You're paying for an inspection first and a repack last! Lazy riggers are one of my hot buttons! I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

Holy crap. I have 1000 jumps and there is no way I could jump a Stilleto 107 as safely as my Sabre 170. It's like saying I'm as safe driving my car as I am riding my Suzuki GS750. It makes no sense. To say that you are as safe under the Stilletto proves you do not understand how a smaller canopy can reduce your margin for error. They are less forgiving and therefore can't be as safe. I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.