Reginald

Why not discuss it with your instructors and tell them the SIM says one thing and you thought you were taught to do another. You may find you misunderstood your instructors or that your instructors made a mistake. Alternatively, they will explain to you why they feel they are right and the SIM is wrong. In any case you will learn something. Don’t’ ever be afraid to ask questions! "We've been looking for the enemy for some time now. We've finally found him. We're surrounded. That simplifies things." CP

You do sound defensive. I’m not questioning your downsizing, I’ve never seen you fly a canopy, and I’m not trying to give you canopy advice. In fact I think a 190 for someone with an exit weight of 165 at your jumps numbers is perfectly reasonable. That is not the issue I am addressing at all. The point is that there is NO minimum recommended wing loading for any canopy, which is something you said you based part of your decision on. If someone told you there is and you made a decision to downsize based on inaccurate information that is an issue. And if it were only an issue for you I might not be concerned. However, I am making the point because I think there is something other people can learn here. There is a little bit of an urban myth about “under-loading” canopies, which others have tired to address above, which appears to have fallen on deaf ears with you. That is the point. However, I am open to the possibility that I am wrong, so I asked if you could point me to the reference material you are using to support the “minimum loading” argument you based part of your decision on. I’m guessing it does not exist but if you could point to some support for it I would be open minded enough to take it into consideration and say that I might be wrong. Apparently though instead of supporting your prior statement and the facts you said you made your decision on you choose to be defensive and argue about things I did not question. Honestly, based on your posts, it sounds like you misunderstand the issues of canopy WL in general and more specifically how they apply to you. Unfortunately, instead of being civil and trying to learn something, which people have been trying to help you with here BTW, you simply lash out. "We've been looking for the enemy for some time now. We've finally found him. We're surrounded. That simplifies things." CP

I would like to know what resource you were looking at or who told you that told you there is a minimum weight recommendation for any given canopy? "We've been looking for the enemy for some time now. We've finally found him. We're surrounded. That simplifies things." CP

It may be but I tend to believe that 90% of hard openings are simple bad pack jobs related to the slider not being properly positioned. It's the simplest explanation... "We've been looking for the enemy for some time now. We've finally found him. We're surrounded. That simplifies things." CP

At 700 jumps I fly a Saber2 loaded at 1.2. I can stand up my landings it in any conditions, upwind, downwind, on the DZ, off the DZ, you name it. I can consistently put it down within 10 feet of where I want to land anytime in any conditions. It’s been 350 jumps since I landed on anything other than my feet, regardless of the conditions. I’ve been flying it for 400 jumps and plan on putting another 200 or 300 jumps on it, at least. Then I’ll downsize to a 1.35 WL for another 700 or more jumps. I know plenty of people flying canopies loaded below 1.2 with thousands of jumps. One of them I have a lot of respect for told me, when I had about 150 jumps, that one of the reasons he has 2,000 jumps is because he flies a conservative canopy. An instructor friend of mine (featured in this months parachutist) said she never flew a canopy loaded beyond 1.2 until she had more than 1,000 jumps! She has 5,000 jumps now and flies an elliptical at probably a 1.7. I know too many people that think WL start a 1.1 and go to 2.0ish. My personal opinion is that 1.0 is a good place to start and 1.5 is as high as most people will ever need to go. 1.5 is a VERY HIGH WL! Beyond 1.5 is an area for true experts with thousands of jumps and overconfident fools trying to hurt themselves. Just my opinion and I’m sure plenty of people will disagree with me. You will eventually have to make your own choices, choose wisely it’s your life. "We've been looking for the enemy for some time now. We've finally found him. We're surrounded. That simplifies things." CP

I’ve heard the countdown theory too. I personally can find no evidence to support it (I've done a LOT of research on how a cypres works) and it does not make sense to me anyway. The “computer” is doing the calculations fast enough there is no need for a “countdown”. What purpose does a countdown serve? None that makes any sense to me. I personally believe it is a skydiver myth… "We've been looking for the enemy for some time now. We've finally found him. We're surrounded. That simplifies things." CP

I had the same thought. The original poster can't trust them to answer a simple question that they probably have published spec sheets on anyway, but he trusts them with his life by jumping their rig? "We've been looking for the enemy for some time now. We've finally found him. We're surrounded. That simplifies things." CP

I’ve never heard anyone say they didn’t enjoy the tunnel. I have seen people that were humbled by the tunnel come out complaining about it. In my opinion those were people with pretty bad flying skills that were seriously over confident in themselves. In fact one time I remember a guy from a small DZ with 800 jumps, telling the tunnel rat that he didn’t need any help and wanted to start right away with 2 ways with his girl friend. Suffice it to say after 15 minutes he was able to avoid the walls…most of the time. "We've been looking for the enemy for some time now. We've finally found him. We're surrounded. That simplifies things." CP

As a part time atheist I’m offended that you seem to think religion and marriage have anything to do with each other? WTF??? "We've been looking for the enemy for some time now. We've finally found him. We're surrounded. That simplifies things." CP

An interesting discussion. In my opinion the answer is “It depends.” I personally respect both jump numbers and time in sport. In addition I feel that some people are “students” of the sport and others are not. All of these factors play into my final evaluation of a person. And Ron is right (did I say that with my out loud voice??? ); some people are good at one or two aspects of the sport, because they specialize in them but not other areas. I know people with 4 years in the sport that literally jump every weekend, study skydiving every day watching airspeed video, reading canopy control and mental training books, attending all the educational courses that are available, etc. I also know people with 10 years in the sport that show up every few weekends and do a couple of fun jumps, flail around in the air a little, and then go home. Say they both have the same number of jumps? Who do you trust with your life? "We've been looking for the enemy for some time now. We've finally found him. We're surrounded. That simplifies things." CP

You will find that many jumpers are in their mid thirties plus and settled into good careers. It’s an expensive sport and personally, I could have never afforded it in any way, shape or form until after I was out of school. I’m sure there are plenty of enterprising people that can give you some advice like, “move into a trailer and pack for jump money”. Best of luck to you.

Well, stop enjoying it! The air right out the door is just a little slower than at terminal, and from a different direction. You can fly your body 0.0001 seconds out the door. Don't think of it as any different. All of your control surfaces still work the same!

LOL! I did the same thing at Perris a while back. That was the moment I decided I would specialize in belly flying!

Sorry, but this is bad advice. You aren’t addressing if the lines are too short, which tends to cause many more problems than the lines being a hair too long. Most canopies, particularly larger ones, won’t do a full stall without a rap or two…even with the brakes lines set at a correct length. There is rarely a need to stall a canopy for landing. There is a constant need to avoid the canopy being in partial brakes in “full flight” because the lines are too short. Trying to land a canopy that is in partial brakes because the lines are too short will make landing more difficult. How much slack is in your brake lines in full flight? How far do you have to pull a toggle down before it deflects the tail? "We've been looking for the enemy for some time now. We've finally found him. We're surrounded. That simplifies things." CP

So at 200 jumps loading your canopy at a 1.5 is “sensible” "We've been looking for the enemy for some time now. We've finally found him. We're surrounded. That simplifies things." CP

Why don't you ask your S&TA or whomever heads the instructional staff at you DZ if they think you are ready? In part because even if you get the rating your DZ may not be interested in using your services for a multitude of reasons...or they may be interested. "We've been looking for the enemy for some time now. We've finally found him. We're surrounded. That simplifies things." CP

Just because a person gets the rating doesn’t mean they get a job doing coaching. At my DZ, plenty of people have both USPA and SDU coaches ratings. Only a few are allowed to work with students, the ones that have proved themselves capable. "We've been looking for the enemy for some time now. We've finally found him. We're surrounded. That simplifies things." CP

I have 800-foot snivels every time on my Sabre2. I throw my PC at 3,000 and saddle out at 2,200 plus or minus 100 feet. I have almost 600 jumps on Sabre2 canopies and that is my experience almost every time. It’s called a soft opening. It’s part of what the Sabre2 is designed to do. I can shorten the opening by about 200 feet by leaving the nose out, as opposed to pushing it in. But why would I want to do that. I like the soft openings of my Sabre2. I guess I don’t quite understand your problem. "We've been looking for the enemy for some time now. We've finally found him. We're surrounded. That simplifies things." CP

First of all, 9 jumps for 6 levels is not bad at all. I spent 4 tries on level 4 alone and then 3 on level 5 before I spent a few minutes in the tunnel. After that I never repeated any AFF or SDU jumps. If you live in FL GO TO THE TUNNEL! "We've been looking for the enemy for some time now. We've finally found him. We're surrounded. That simplifies things." CP

Honestly, in my two short years in this sport I’ve never even heard a suggestion of someone saying or thinking that they will do a skydive they otherwise don’t think is safe simple because they have an AAD. Is there a huge rash of this somewhere I don’t know about? Why do so many people think this is occurring? I just have never seen it. Call it inexperience, but if it’s really a problem I would think after two years I would have at least heard rumor of it, other than on the internet. I fully agree that people should never participate in a dive in which they feel the risk is too high only because of the mitigating factor of an AAD. That would IMHO be stupid. I also however, believe it is wise to wear an AAD on every jump. "We've been looking for the enemy for some time now. We've finally found him. We're surrounded. That simplifies things." CP

Fully agreed. What do you believe the original “intended purpose” of an AAD is? "We've been looking for the enemy for some time now. We've finally found him. We're surrounded. That simplifies things." CP

In the US students are required to use AAD's. "We've been looking for the enemy for some time now. We've finally found him. We're surrounded. That simplifies things." CP

Having been on a few raft dives and knowing the person who wrote the article (hell, I’m even in one of the pics!), I’ve got to say that raft dives ARE extraordinary skydives. There are unique risks that many people are not accustom to and sadly don’t even understand. For example, recently a raft dive went bad out the door and someone got trapped on “top” of an inverted raft (the bottom of the raft was up) and it was in a flat spin. The skydiver that was trapped on top struggled to get off but the g-forces were causing him all sorts of problems, both in simply getting off of the raft AND with a near blackout. He managed to get off the raft eventually but lower than he would have liked and pulled his main as his vision was fading out. Is this a risk most people understand on this type of dive? The answer is probably, “No”. Another example is the slight zero-G off a tailgate plane. If the pilots give too much than people have been known to hit their heads on the top of the door on a CASA or Skyvan. A good way to get knocked out. I know a guy that this happened to also. He kept conscious but had several weeks of recovery from his injury. Using a little insurance, an AAD, is a good idea, in my opinion both for raft dives AND in general. It not there for when things go right; it’s there for when things go horribly wrong. That said I do believe people should try and fully understand the risks with this type of skydived before they do one, and decide if they are comfortable with them. Personally, I don’t do raft dives anymore. Too much to go wrong and I’ve seen too many go bad. "We've been looking for the enemy for some time now. We've finally found him. We're surrounded. That simplifies things." CP

LOL! Are you sure that's not my first year Rookie teams 4 way video? The moves look the same. the good part is my first year on an intermediate team I looked competent…well kind of. I’m hoping by my 4th year of serious 4 way to look more like the guys in the black jumpsuits. Keep it up. You WILL get there. "We've been looking for the enemy for some time now. We've finally found him. We're surrounded. That simplifies things." CP

Actually, Orlando is closer. "We've been looking for the enemy for some time now. We've finally found him. We're surrounded. That simplifies things." CP