JohnGraham

How many reserves do you reckon get used in your average 2 years? Don't suppose there are any figures on this? Just curious.

That's a good idea about working backwards from experienced to student status and linking the risk thing in with the cost thing... It's annoying we won't be able to explain everything in detail like this to everyone who asks us stuff at things like the freshers' fair, though for the people who are genuinely interested it'll be useful! "Aim for your riggers' car"

Thanks muchly for that reply! I thought that the deployment brakes are also supposed to stop the nose of the canopy "folding under" itself on deployment? Does that just happen to be a non-issue on this particular canopy?

I'm involved in my uni's club, and not surprisingly the questions we get asked the most all concern how dangerous the sport is - how do you reply to these questions? Do you answer in a blunt, matter of fact way? Do you quote statistics about fatality/injury rates until you're blue in the face? Do you just make a big joke out of it? Just interested to know!

Right, but what makes the Icarus Tandem different from other tandem canopies in a way that a non-braked opening is prefferable to an opening in half-brakes? And like I said doesn't not having deployment brakes reduce opening "niceness"? What is different about the Icarus tandem that makes it open nicer in no-brakes? (or am I wrong in thinking this?)

I was curious: Why aren't there any? As I understand, no brake settings would result in a softer opening (am I correct here?) but would sacrifice consistency/reliability - so why does Icarus not give it's tandem canopy brake settings when most, if not all, other tandem/sport/BASE canopies do? Are there any other canopies that don't have brake settings? Thanks, John G

1) Whenever you stop, it's Hammer time. 2) You can't touch it.

Erm... this made me scared just a little - do you mean you turned the on/off knob to the on position when it was previously in the off position? Do you know for sure that it is safe to do this?

Find out what type & size of reserve canopy is being sold with the rig if you don't already know - it's "quite important".

Well, title of the thread says it all, really - I'm just curious. I've heard a couple of people attribute it solely to Bill Booth, and a couple more label it as a gradual progression helped by a few people... anybody out there know for sure the right answer? Cheers, John G

Pardon the newbie question, but what are swoop-cords and what do they do? I don't *think* I've ever seen them before.

How do you know it's a crossfire?

Hi y'all! As far as I understand, some of the lines (just 2?) on an original swift 5-cell reserve will come detatched after opening (correct me if I've got this wrong please!). Can anyone tell me some more about this? I was just wondering how this worked - do they come detatched from the riser or the canopy, how are they attatched in such a way, why is this so, etc. Can't seem to find a copy of the manual on-line. Would appreciate any information anybody can give on this!

Hmmm... given the response I just had from Trident that implied there was no such SB, I'll talk to the person who told me this and see where they got this from. Cheers all for the responses, appologies if I worried anyone!

Could one have not been issued by Trident? I know they still do replacement parts for the reflex, are you sure that a SB issued by them would be out of the question?

I've heard that there's a new SB on the reflex container but I can't seem to verify this - anyone have any info? (From what the person told me, it concerns CYPRES-cutter positioning like the recent Mirage bulletin)

What do you mean by "full line continuity check"? Do you mean checking each line-group (i.e. line groups from all four links plus brake lines) are not tangled with each other, or checking ALL individual lines from each link up to the canopy? I do the first sort every time I pack - I can't see any reason to do the second unless either a riser or links/lines have been disconnected. (I'm not a rigger, just my opinion) When you talk about this to your rigger/anybody else, make sure that when you both say "line continuity check" you're both talking about the same thing - looooooots of misunderstandings arise when people use the same words/phrases to mean two different things.

Nice one on dealing with it, Andy! What centre kit was it on? (I assume you were flat for the whole freefall, not doing back-loops or back-flying or anything, right?) Well done again, mate! John G

Depends what you're doing with it Q: If you could do one thing that had absolutely no consequences, what would it be?

*bump* Did you find a 106? Would be interested to hear the results of any "experiments" you are carying out.

I think it would make little difference, to be honest - jumpers who are new to the center have to go through Ian and be "aproved" anyway, and those that want to downsize to canopies too small for them, well, I wouldn't want to be the one to tell my mate I won't sign him off - although in reality I think I would if I really was woried about them. Anyway if I did, they'd probably just whinge about me being a low-timer and just go get someone else to sign them off. And maybe they'd be right, but I'm not putting my signature down if I'm not happy to stand up in front of an inquest and explain my actions.

Is it? Ive never been asked what canopy is in my container. Maybe it should be. I was taught that this it is supposed to be a part of the flightline check, but only really comes into effect when you're checking out someone you don't know or making sure someone who's just bought a new canopy has been approved by Ian (That's as I was taught when given a flightline cheking brief, things may have changed I'll ckeck) I disagree. You can learn to control your canopy without doing HP landings. I see myself as a safe canopy flyer and have spent lots of time learning to control it appropriately in all situations and have NEVER done or attempted a HP landing. I agree fully that you can learn to control your canopy without doing HP landings - what I meant was that if you are going to learn to do HP landings, then you are going to learn more about canopy control, but you can learn this same canopy control without swooping. That's half my original point, really - that you can learn safe canopy control without swooping.

I have read the manual and been to the BPA seminars on the subject. CP1 is a prerequisite to swooping. SKILLS are a prerequisite it obtaining CP1. Obtaining CP1 ensures you have SKILLS. SKILLS reduce the likelihood of DEATH. CP1 is ALL about learning how not to DIE. I completely agree with you. Have you read the manual? Can you point me to where in the manual the BPA require CP1 before allowing you to load your canopy above 1.4? The BPA is not forcing anyone to obtain CP1. If you want to swoop you must have CP1 first. If you never want to swoop you don't have to even know about its existence. The BPA is not linking CP1 to wing loading... if a DZ does, that's down to the individual DZ not the BPA. I know that the BPA ops manual does not require CP1 to load your canopy above a certain limit, but somebody posted before that a DZ is requiring this, and if this is true I don't see the sense in that. Granted, the person who didn't want to swoop could just keep their canopy loaded lighter than 1.4, but as Zoter said, there are plenty of people out there that fly their canopies very carefuly and in a safe maner loaded above 1.4 - if one of these people wanted to go to a DZ that is enforcing a "CP1 for >1.4 wingloadings" policy, they would not be able to jump their canopy no matter how proficient they are under it. Yes I'm fully familiar with the manual and have had guidance on the subject above and beyond the manual alone. If you don't want to get CP1 don't get it. It only allows you to perform swoop landings anyway, nothing more. If your home DZ is linking it to wingloading and you don't like that, move, but don’t blame the BPA – they didn't create that rule. BTW the first practical requirement of CH1 is 3 jumps using flat turns. Just to emphasize this point; it is NOT mandatory to swoop. It is only mandatory to swoop if you want to swoop. If you want to swoop you have to obtain CP1 which includes swooping, but that surely wouldn't bother you – you're only obtaining the qualification to enable you to swoop. If for some reason you don't want to obtain CP1 but want to learn the elements of it you believe are most associated with saving your life you can still obtain and practice those skills with coaching. I'm obviously not stressing my point since what you have written here I totally agree with! My point is purely concerned with any DZ that would implement a rule meaning you have to have CP1 to load higher than a set limit - I know the BPA is not enforcing this.

I completely agree with almost everything you just said, except that I think CP1 is definitely intended as "you must swoop to get this grade" because the pre-requisites for obtaining CP1 specifically state that you need to perform "Safe, high performance landings" to obtain the CP1 grade.

CP1 is ALL about high performance landings (read the manual and you will see this). Yes, HP landings go hand-in-hand with learning to control your canopy but CP1 is about swooping. So why not make everyone get CP1 before they get, for example their D-licence? I think you took my point a little the wrong way - the point I'm trying to emphasise is that those wanting to load higher than 1.4 will be forced to swoop in order to do so. Making it mandatory to learn more about canopy control that can, as you say, be applied to not killing yourself in a panic turn is one thing, but making it mandatory to swoop makes no sense to me at all. (btw have you read the CH manual? I'm pretty sure that flat turns as an avoidance maneuver is covered in CH2, maybe CH1 I'm not sure) Ask the instructors at your centre about this, I know that checking that a person is jumping a "suitible" canopy is (should be) a part of the flightline checks at our centre already.