aber_aos

Hi, I was wondering whether people had any suggestions on when a wingsuit flyer should consider upsizing to a bigger, higher performance suit, based on demonstrable skills. I guess what I'm looking for is some equivalent of Bill von Novak's list for downsizing a canopy (http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/safety/detail_page.cgi?ID=47) I'm asking really as a way of planning my progression; I'm currently thinking of selling my Phantom next spring (when I should have about 100-120 wingsuit jumps) and getting a V1 or a V2, but wouldn't want to do it if I was going to be out of my depth. I jump at a small DZ where there are only 3 wingsuiters; myself and a couple of guys with S-Fly Access suits, so I don't have anyone to compare my flying ability with. I feel 'perfectly' in control of the Phantom, and I'm getting my average vertical speed for entire jumps down to 47-52mph when I try slowfall. I don't know if that is good or bad; as I say, I have no-one to compare myself with. Exits, slowfall, fast tracking and pulls all feel fine, but maybe I don't know what levels I could be achieving. So, does anyone have suggestions on what skills I should work on to prepare to upsize? (or should I not even be considering upsizing in the spring?). Cheers!

Hi, after quite a few jumps my phantom is starting to look pretty grubby and I was wondering how best to wash it. My plans were to hand wash it using Woolite, as this seems to be a very gentle detergent. Does anyone think this would damage the suit? Obviously I'm trying to avoid damaging the fabric by using anything unsuitable. Any feedback would be appreciated. Thanks.

Really? I have 200+ jumps with a 38-40" F111 PC without any problem. I also was curious about your statement, Tom. I'm not a rigger or a parachute expert, but what you said does not make sense to me. The purpose of a pilot chute is to remove the lines from the stows. Doing that a little faster won't hurt, I wouldn't think. Can you elaborate at all? I think Tom's point is that the lines should be released from the stows in the correct sequence and that too big a pilot chute can cause the stows to dump lines out of sequence due to the higher accelerations involved. I believe that if the mouth lock stows get dumped you can get the canopy out of the bag and inflating before you get line stretch. You can then get a viciously hard opening causing damage to you and the equipment. If I'm wrong I hope someone will correct me.

The V3 has got about 130 jumps on it. Are you suggesting only a bigger PC, or a bigger PC and the cut corners that people have suggested above? Thanks

Yes, I agree with your comments about the weak throw. It's something I had started doing on normal flat-fly jumps, but got cured of quite quickly. With the wingsuit I am always very careful to throw the pc very strongly. In the rear facing videos I've taken the pc always shows full inflation instantly and stays fully inflated throughout the entire deployment sequence; it never comes near to my body. Unfortunately it sits there at full bridle extension being towed while it is fully inflated.

Thanks for your reply. Regarding the larger pilotchute, I have a couple of questions: 1) Does the larger pilotchute cause problems on non-wingsuit jumps? I seem to recall from reading the BASE forums that pilotchutes can be too large as well as too small 2) Is the larger pilotchute an attempt to overcome the problem of the main tray corners or is it to help with the lower air speed at deployment time? Presumably the deplyment problems are down to the direction of the pull from the pilotchute not being perpendicular to the rig, and a reduced air speed. Did you make all of the changes to your rig (pc, bridle, cut corners) at the same time, or did you do them incrementally? If it was incrementally could you tell me what effect each change made? Thanks

Thanks for the information (everyone). The pilotchute is the standard sized ZeroP option from RWS. Am I understanding your suggestion correctly, that I should get the corners (partially) cut AND pack grommet to pin? It's a 'do both' rather than a 'do one or the other'?

Hi, I'm jumping a 'standard' vector 3 with my wingsuit (a phantom) but have been having some serious hesitations on opening. Both the main and reserve are the correct size for the container. If I pull in a fast track and collapsing the wings I have been getting the D-bag spinning off my back and giving me lots of twists. If I collapse the wings and let myself sink out in an arch for a few seconds before the pull I get a hesitation on opening. I jumped with a rear facing camera to see what was happening and it is this: I have a fully inflated pilot chute at full bridle extension, which has pulled the pin and the flaps are slightly open, but the D-bag stays in the container for between 1 and 4 seconds. The bridle never goes slack, so it doesn't seem to be an issue of my burble affecting it. Once the bag does come out of the container it gives me a nice opening. However, a 4 second delay (and the fear that the next time it may be longer, or may stick until I have to pull my reserve) is not acceptable. So, what modifications do people recommend to stop the hesitation? I've looked on the RWS website and they don't mention anything (that I can find). I've heard that cutting the corners of the main tray can help; how far should they be cut down? Is it all the way to the tray, or only some percentage of the distance. People have mentioned longer bridles, but the fully inflated pilot chute suggests that may not help in this case. Any suggestions would be very much appreciated. If anyone can tell me what RWS do for wingsuit mods that would also be very helpful. Thanks

Yes, they are good. My Phantom is really nice; good performance and very well made. The Prodigy I saw last weekend was also very well made, and new jumpers seemed to enjoy it and found it easy to fly. You'll enjoy jumping a Phoenix-fly suit.

3000ft opening and 1800ft decision altitude/hard deck, as the other posters also seem to be using. However, that is my decision altitude for problems I already have. If I develop a problem lower than that (e.g. canopy collision, or manage to wind my canopy up with twists from turning too aggressively) I'd chop down to 800 ft with the skyhook connected.

You probably wouldn't. On the other hand it might only become snagged on your helmet once you have cut away. A released riser trapped under the camera bracket wouldn't be much fun. The standard camera-mount screws (the ones that look like tripod screws) could be a serious snag hazard on an open L-bracket, especially if they have some small washers underneath them. That said, I'm currently disconnecting my skyhook for normal camera jumps but leaving it connected for wingsuit camera jumps. I've taken steps to remove the snag points on my camera and think it's relatively clean now. I decided, after talking to my rigger and some instructors that I respect, that the benefits outweighed the risks in the two jump types.

I do, the first weekend of every month. I pull the cutaway handle, flex the 3-ring webbing, clean the cable, and reassemble.

Disclaimer: I am not an instructor, and I don't have any idea of your abilities. I also only have 175 jumps, so I don't know very much. I bought a sabre 170 at 30ish jumps. I also weigh 170 without my rig on. I was very happy with the canopy. HOWEVER... 1) I jump very close to sea-level, so the air is more dense. 2) The air is normally pretty cool where I jump in the UK; normally 0 to 18 Celcius on the ground, again making it more dense. 3) I was pretty good at standing up my landings on the canopies I had jumped before. [/modest] You don't say where you jump, so I don't know how high it is, nor how warm. If it is high, or if it is hot (even for part of the year) this canopy may be a bad choice (remember I may know nothing). Also, you really should ask people at your DZ who have experience and who you trust to give you an opinion based on your abilities. Even with the conditions listed above I still had a few 'interesting' landings which I've learned a lot from. I didn't hurt myself in any of them, but had the speed been a bit higher (air being a bit less dense) I may well have. To put it in perspective, I jumped the 170 again recently on a hot day in nil winds and it was really moving; not landing it properly would not have been fun. I'm not saying you should or you shouldn't jump this canopy. I don't have the jumps, nor the knowledge of your abilities to be giving advice like that. All I'm saying is that I had one for a while and I enjoyed it, but under certain conditions and, in hind sight, having a little luck. Listen to people you trust, listen to the little voice in your head that wants you to walk away from every jump. Please don't buy something you think will be right for you in 50 jumps. Oh and remember, luck comes in two flavours. I had some of the good kind.

As mentioned above, Symbiosis have a very good reputation as far as I am aware. If you are looking for other manufacturers in the UK then Thomas Sports make (or sell) the aircare range of jumpsuits http://www.thomas-sports.com/index.swf I'm very happy with my Symbiosis suit, but the aircare suits may also be good; I've not tried one of their recent ones.

It is B-licence and CCI's permission.

Hi. Can anyone help me out. I demo'ed a PD143R and a Smart 150 last weekend. I thought the PD reserve was very nice. (I didn't like the Smart as it felt far faster) However, I've heard lots of very good things about the design of the Techno 155, and was going to buy one before the demo jumps. (There were no Techno's available for demo). Please could someone (preferably who has jumped both, but other knowledge is also appreciated) tell me how the Techno flies compared with a similar sized PDR? Thanks in advance.

Thanks to everyone for the info so far.

I'm about to buy a vector 3 and saw that one of the colour choices for the monogram thread is "Variegated Black/Silver". Please could someone post a picture of what this looks like. Does it look any good on a black rig? It sounds like it could give quite a subtle silver effect, but might also look awful. It would be a shame to spoil the look of a new rig by getting this choice wrong. If this option doesn't look like it will work I'll stick with the plain silver on black instead. All opinions welcomed. Thanks

I don't know your ability under canopy, and I don't know the altitude of your DZ. I also have relatively few jumps and wouldn't normally comment of anything in this forum, but I notice many similarities with my canopy progression and you may find my 'advice' helpful. I am not an instructor, and as you've never met me I may be an absolute idiot. I'm a similar height and weight to you and jump at a DZ at 300 feet above sea level, and the British weather isn't normally very warm. At 35 jumps I bought my first rig it a sabre 170 loaded at 1.1:1. I had about 10 jumps on a 190 before that to help me downsize. I found a loading of 1.1 at sea level and with air temps normally below 15 celcius to be plenty fast enough for learning to fly (particularly to land) a canopy. Higher altitude and hotter air will make the canopy fly even faster. I know 9 cells and 7 cells fly differently, but this is my experience. I've made a few bad mistakes (don't we all as we learn) under that canopy which I got away with, but I'm pretty certain that at 1.2:1 I wouldn't have. After seeking advice from my instructors I've now started to put a few jumps on a sabre2 150 (1.2:1) and the landing speed is (feels) much faster. If i'd been jumping at 1.2:1 from the start I think I'd have been relying on luck a lot (and luck comes in two varieties). I've never seen you jump, and your instuctors will give you far better and more relevant advice than me, but I'd recommend you put 60 / 80 / 100+ jumps on a canopy at 1.1:1 or lower before going to this canopy. You can make all the mistakes on a 175 that you can on a 160; it's just they normally hurt less and you stand more chance of jumping again rather than being a statistic. Just my experience.

John, I think you'll recall that there are two 206s at Tilstock. Charlie Echo has been in having a service for a while, but Colin has (nearly) always managed to get a second plane in if the weather is jumpable. He also seems to have sorted out the problems that we had briefly at the start of the year. You should come back some time; it would be nice to see you again. It'll be nice to have another DZ about, but I'm not sure that you need to be quite so negative (and inaccurate) about Tilstock. It would be nice to have a big plane, but unfortunately someone would have to pay for it. Anyway, hope to jump with you soon. Andy

If you are jumping in the UK (which I guess you are, looking at your profile) once you pass the 8 AFF levels and then do the 10 consols you get your A license and will no longer need an instructor with you. You are deemed to be an intermediate skydiver. (and will need to buy beer

Please note that I've only got low jump numbers, so I may not have enough experience to comment accurately here. Personally I've done consolidation jumps with an audible and without. I don't see them as a problem for students if they are used sensibly. As has been mentioned many times on this forum, if the audible is set at or above your pull height then I think that they teach you to ignore your visual alti and lose altitude awareness. On the other hand, if you set the audible below your pull height then they become a backup warning that probably won't distract you from your visual alti. When I was doing consols I always set my audible to 500-1000 ft below my intended pull height. I knew that if it ever went off in freefall (which it didn't) I'd really screwed up, but at least I'd learn my lesson, probably without hurting myself. These days I always set my protrack to warn me a couple of hundred feet after I should have done something. If it goes off before I've started doing whatever I should be doing (break-off or pull) then I have a really good think after the jump and try to learn from my mistake. My (low experience) view is that students should be allowed to use audibles, so long as they are set to a point several seconds beyond pull time. I don't think that setting them at pull height helps though. I may be completely wrong. Most people on this forum know more than me.

I too like the ideas behind an IC2 rating, and I think your suggestion of a 'demonstrable ability' rating, rather than a requirement to attend a paid-for course is good. I do wonder what would be in an IC2 rating requirement though. The canopy control side of IC1 requires 5 designated landings within 10 metres of a target, and the ability to 'control the canopy using the risers'. I'm not sure that these can usefully be made stricter for IC2. Would landings within, say, 3metres of a target make the sport safer? Possibly, but I'm not sure that this is a major problem. (Though I'm inexperienced, and will gladly defer to a reasoned argument.) From reading this forum it seems that far too many people are killed or seriously injured by hook turns. Some of these are planned, but performed at the wrong altitude, and some are accidental as the pilot tried to avoid a perceived obstacle. What IC2 requirements could we put in place to stop people making low turns? At the BPA AGM the person giving the canopy control seminar mentioned a list of manouvers you should be able to perform on any canopy before you considered downsizing. (If anyone has this list I'd love to see a copy). Maybe these could form a large part of IC2? Maybe you should have to demonstrate these skills on a semi-elliptical before being able to jump an elliptical, and again before moving to a cross braced canopy. Then again, some argue that there are too many regulations already. However, I'm not convinced that any normal amount of skill at set manouvers would necessarily stop people making mistakes in the heat of the moment and dying under perfectly good canopies, though God knows I wish it would. What do other people think should go into an IC2 rating? Would it need repeating for different canopy tyes, or be a one off? If it was a one off I could show good skills under a 230ZP and never be tested again (except by the planet) which might not mean too much in future were I to fly a cross braced canopy. On the other hand, if we needed to repeat the rating under each new canopy we might end up with a list of IC2 ratings longer than our (combined) arms. I feel there should be an IC2, I'm just not sure what should go into it.