LloydDobbler

+1 to this list. Demoed one when they first came out, even took it to terminal. Found that it opened quickly & positively, but didn't slam me...and that it was a fun-yet-predictable canopy to fly and land. Got to fly mine once earlier this year, and again just this past weekend under different circumstances...and remembered that thought again. Signatures are the new black.

Not using a bridle extension with mine. I'm using UPT's "accordian-style" bridle, which seems to provide enough room when bunched up on the inside to accommodate going around the side to the attachment point. However, if you're worried about it, a bridle extension probably couldn't hurt. Of course, it depends on how big the canopy is you're jumping, too. Best to just eyeball it yourself and be sure. Prior to these canopies, I packed a Sabre2-135 in a regular UPT D-bag, then moved to the semi-stowless version, and also had no problems. Haven't ever tried to psycho pack anything else in these deployment bags. Later! Signatures are the new black.

Nope. I do it, too. I have about 300 jumps psycho-packing using a UPT semi-stowless bag. No problems so far. ~half of those are on a Pilot-104; ~half are on a Crossfire2-105. Neither canopy shows any wear/damage to the center cell top skin. As far as opening characteristics go, I've also pro-packed both canopies in the same bags, and found the pro-packed openings to be similar, if slightly less-snivelly (which is the same thing I found with openings on a regular UPT d-bag). In other words, nothing to see here. Move along. Signatures are the new black.

I've had friends who've had good experiences with both of them. I load my Pilot at about 1.4, so it's not an apples-to-apples comparison - otherwise, I'd chime in. My advice? Demo the both of them. Call both PD & Aerodyne, and see which one can get you the demo fastest. Then slot in the other one for a weekend or two later. Problem solved. Signatures are the new black.

Agreed. Until the full story comes out, I can think of several different scenarios. Perhaps it's as most of this thread has posited, that Justin stole the AADs, removed the labels that said "WARNING - These AADs will fire at x000 feet," and maliciously sold them to other skydivers. That, to me, seems pretty unlikely. Perhaps it's that the labels only mentioned that they were test CYPRES devices, but mentioned nothing about the activation altitudes. That seems a little more plausible. Perhaps one of Justin's friends/acquaintances stole the AADs, removed the labels, and (knowing Justin was a skydiver) offered them up for him to fence. That also seems entirely plausible. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of anyone dealing in stolen goods. But I think the cries for Justin to be run out of town on a rail might should wait until a little more is known about exactly what happened. Personally, I have to assume that there's more here than meets the eye. I doubt Justin would be so blind as to sell a stolen CYPRES knowing that it would fire at a higher altitude, and knowing that it could be easily traced back to him. I have a hard time believing that anyone who's a skydiver wouldn't see that coming, if they knew the devices would fire high. So I'm going to hold off on grabbing my pitchfork until I get a little more info. The rest of you, do as you will. Signatures are the new black.

It's actually a V-3 Micron, though I don't know if that will make a difference. Nope, shouldn't make a difference in this case. I've had 3 Microns - 2 V310's and a V304. According to the manufacturer, all have been designed to have the grommets not aligned. (Not sure that that could be the cause, but I suppose stranger things have happened. Regardless, weird story! Congrats on the successful chops!) Signatures are the new black.

Just to be clear. The Instructor is NOT responsible for saving anyone at any time. The jumper has ultimate responsibility. Now, any I worth his salt will do everything he possibly can, short of dying, to save students lives. But if the worst happens, it's NOT the I's responsibility for the outcome. Absolutely correct. Mistaken wording on my part. Earlier in the post, I mentioned "As others have said, as a coach (& at some point as an instructor), the best thing you can do is pitch your own pilot chute." But when I reiterated, I wasn't specific enough in my wording. When you step out of an airplane, pulling a ripcord/pitching a pilot chute/saving your own life is always ultimately your responsibility. As you mentioned, as an instructor, I'll chase a student until I can do nothing else to save their life. I have no friends below 2000'. A coach is a different matter altogether. Signatures are the new black.

All of the above are great riggers. I know them all personally and would trust them each with my life. (Although the only one whose packjob I've jumped is Walt at High Performance Rigging. It opened beautifully. He's still my rigger.) Signatures are the new black.

To elaborate on what some of the other posters have said, yes, your role as a coach is not to save the student. Yes, you may be subjecting yourself to liability if you do (possibly if you don't, for that matter, but if you try to pull for them and something goes wrong, it's my thought that the paper trail will likely work against you.) As others have said, as a coach (& at some point as an instructor), the best thing you can do is pitch your own pilot chute. There's another very important reason besides just "saving yourself" and "not biting off more than you can chew" - it's because the student should know what to do if they see that happen. The best, hands-down, last-resort signal to a coach student who's not deploying is a big, open canopy coming off of their coach's back. They should have been briefed on this before the jump. And if they've locked up, that may be just the signal they need to snap out of it. Bottom line is, a coaching student knows how to save themselves. They've been cleared for self-supervision. The responsibility for saving their life has shifted from the instructor to them. That doesn't mean you don't go out of your way to make it a safe skydive - but once you hit a certain altitude, all bets are off. No one wants to see someone go in, but the best approach is to plan the dive, and dive the plan. Signatures are the new black.

Hey, Joe - Your best bet is to talk to the instructors at your DZ. Without knowing your exit weight, what type of canopies you've been flying, etc, no one online can really tell you what will help you get the most "bang for your buck" as far as downsizing goes. (Ultimately, the most bang for your buck is going to be a canopy that gets you down to the ground safely.) Re: your other question, most dealers offer prices a little below the MSRP, and some offer package deals that are even less expensive. Talk to your local dealer and they can give you more info. Signatures are the new black.

If you're only worried about cost, which requires less maintenance, etc, go for a Vigil. However, here's my take on it - I'm much more worried about an AAD working when I DON'T want it to than it not working when I want it to. I want an AAD whose fail=safe mode is "something's wrong - I'll hold off on cutting the loop" instead of "something's wrong - better safe than sorry. I'm cutting the loop." In numerous cases, the Vigil has shown itself to have the touchiest parameters of any other AAD. In many of those cases, the Vigil cutting the loop prematurely has actually presented a safety hazard, rather than increasing safety. And in numerous cases, Vigil's response to the matter has been, "The unit worked as designed." For that reason, I ruled out Vigil, as I didn't like the way it was designed. I have my concerns with Cypres, but given the current state of things with Argus, I think it's the safest AAD currently out on the market. Signatures are the new black.

It's been more than a year since this occurrence, so I can't quite remember the specific details...but I want to say it was a 5500' breakoff, with a 3000' deployment altitude. (But again, that's based on memory - don't have the logbook present at the moment. I do remember there being more than enough time for a good, solid breakoff.) Signatures are the new black.

Nice job. A good friend is the one who tells you to pull your head out of your ass. You're obviously a good friend. (And good on you for going out on a limb and calling the DZO. I'm glad to hear that was his reaction.) Signatures are the new black.

+1 to what Twardo said about being receptive to advice. Good on you for considering, instead of just getting defensive. (I think we've all done that before...it's awful hard to say "maybe I was wrong" on these forums.) That being said, I don't want to beat a dead horse, but I'd like to give you a concrete example of the barrel roll issue. Here's one reason why it's not a good idea. The background: - 23-way tracking dive. - Instructions were to stick with the dive until planned breakoff, then fan out up to 90 degrees and track. - Also, organizers wanted people to do a barrel roll before deploying to "clear your airspace." I normally disagree with this logic, but for some reason didn't this time. What happened: - I was one of the last out. - About 500 feet before breakoff altitude, another jumper caught my burble and took me out. My audible went off, and since I knew I was one of the last people getting in, I turned 90 degrees and tracked. - Right before deployment, since I knew I was one of the first ones to turn and track, I said "why not?" and did a barrel roll. You can see what happened. So, in no particular order, here's a few reasons not to do a barrel roll to "clear your airspace:" 1 - A good deal of people can't stay on-heading and keep a stable track while doing a barrel roll. 2 - If you *think* you see someone above you, what are you going to do? If you change heading to correct, how do you know they're not doing the exact same thing? How do you change heading without screwing the guy tracking to your R or L? Try and consider all these variables and make a decision what to do in the 15 seconds or so before you interface with the planet. 3 (My case, video link above) - You never know when some idiot who went low on the tracking dive will decide "Fuck it, I'm not getting back in" and decide to sitfly for the rest of the jump. Anyway, that's my take on it. If you're looking behind you, you're not looking where you're going...and thus are becoming part of the problem you're trying to avoid. Ultimately, had there been a collision, it would have been my fault. Because the low many always has the right of way. You can scan to your L and R while tracking off, looking over your shoulders and adjusting accordingly if someone seems to drift into your airspace. But barrel-rolling at the bottom end? Bad idea. Also, apologies to @shibu for the thread drift. Just wanted to clear that up, as it's something I hear a lot of newer jumpers saying, without considering the pluses and minuses of it. Signatures are the new black.

it's part of dzo's job to watch who is going into the plane and to prevent the hazards. and each and every student should be considered as hazard and deserves additional attention and checks. edit: and I never heard of assumption that the studends are able to regulate themselves. Agreed. It's also part of the DZ's instructors' jobs to know when a student is on the plane in order to give them appropriate gear checks, etc. On paper, ultimately the buck stops with any instructor/coach who's also on the load. But in my opinion, someone on manifest should be verifying that students are pulled from the load sheet when winds get above a certain level. Likewise, instructor approval should be required to downsize while still a student. That being said, this guy could be yanking the OP's chain...I agree that the best course of action is to phone up the DZO and get his/her take on the matter. Take Chuck up on his offer, above. You don't have to publicly 'out' the DZ - just call them and ask. And if the answer is unsatisfactory, maybe then it's time to call them out on the public forum. Signatures are the new black.

Not sure about the mPOD - however, I use a UPT semi-stowless bag on both of my rigs, and have psycho-packed a Sabre2-135, Safire-119, Pilot-104, and Crossfire2-105 in them with no problems. As far as sizing goes, as someone else pointed out, you just go ahead and measure your current bag, and they make you a replacement. The bagging itself is pretty much the same - its just the stows that are different. Signatures are the new black.

Bill, you & I agree on that front. Not sure how many Argus units are out there, but if they had simply responded to the latest issue with "We don't believe our unit to be defective, but in the interest of improvement, we're taking steps to engineer a new cutter. Look for it in X amount of time," at least the damage would have been minimized. I originally thought that AAD had the worst public relations advisors on the planet, but I was mistaken. That being said, it still seems a little fishy the way the whole thing went down. The Argus had been banned before they were given it to inspect. I also keep hearing that the rig had been pencil-packed, which suggests a conflict of interest on the rigger's part in the investigation of the matter. (Hearsay, admittedly, but deserves an investigation to be sure). And when Aviacom did receive it, they discovered the issue resulted not from an ineffective cutter, but from a foreign object in the cutter, which led to the malfunction. Now, I'd argue that Argus should at least find some way to close up their cutter to prevent any sort of object from getting into it. And hell, for the sake of PR, they should just find another type of cutter to work with. But banning before any of this information was released to the public OR Argus seems suspect, particularly in light of the allegations that mis-rigging may have played a part. Personally, I won't go back to Argus even if they fix it, given the way they've addressed this matter. I won't go with Vigil because of the way they've handled all issues (by saying "the unit functioned as designed, within firing parameters"), which convinces me that their firing parameters are unsafe. I'm more concerned with an AAD working when I don't want it to than I am with an AAD not working when I want it to. And I'm reluctant to go with Cypres, because in this day and age, I'm still not convinced that even the Speed Cypres' firing parameters can't be met, given the right conditions. Jumping at 5300' field elevation on a hot day, parachutes can get pretty darn fast. And while I don't jump a pocket rocket at this point in time, I'd hate to be the one that disproves their assertion sometime over the next 12 years. We all know what happened to the last person who did that. Signatures are the new black.

I made sure to tag you in a few of those photos on Facebook. Scotty managed to capture us boxing you out quite nicely. A great time, as always, people. Good to see some old friends, and great to flock with some new faces. There's a million reasons why I make sure not to miss this event every year - it was good to be reminded of them again. See you guys in the next random flock! Signatures are the new black.

Always funny to realize after the fact, 'Oh yeah - I just met that guy I've argued with online a few times.' Good meeting you, Mike (& all the other first time FnD birds who I hadn't met) - glad the insta-canopy wasn't enough to keep you down.... Signatures are the new black.

Wow. I agree with Krisanne, Ed - that's quite an accomplishment. Signatures are the new black.

I STILL have a whole box of that stuff in my teamroom in Raeford! Handing that stuff to unsuspecting people NEVER gets old. +1. It's the gift that keeps on giving. Signatures are the new black.

then why did you even post this? The whole thread is about AADs that DO "interfere with (your) ability to skydive & deploy (your) reserve on (your) own." Robin - last I checked, no one attributed the altimeter analogy to you. I simply identified a similarity. Seems like you're more set on gunning for an argument than you are on considering that the situation may not be as black and white as you paint it. That being said, we're in agreement on some things. As I said clearly - AADs that DO "interfere with (one's) ability to skydive & deploy (one's) reserve on (one's) own" are what's at issue. I suppose I was confused by your statement highlighted in orange above, in which you seem to express that all AAD's are non-essential, and that the solution is to get rid of all non-essential components (and hence, all AAD's. And by my interpretation, altimeters - also non-essential components - as well). That's where I disagreed. If I misinterpreted, my apologies. Obviously, AAD's that interfere with the functions of a container shouldn't be in service. Case closed. But if you're moving the debate to the merits of AAD's as a whole (& whether or not someone refuses to jump without one), that's another matter. Signatures are the new black.

Considering that the current problem is the cutter entraping the Locking Loop, and depending upon cutter location, that would not solve the current problem. You still would not get a canopy over your head. JerryBaumchen BINGO. Your response to me is another one of those posts predicated on the notion that AADs are an integral component of a parachute deployment system -- and literally as necessary to that system as a pilot chute, a bridle, and a ripcord. They aren't. Or to put it another way: The moment you discard the absurd notiion that an AAD is an integral and necessary component of a reserve parachute system, the easiest solution to "the current problem (of) the cutter entrapping the Locking Loop, and depending upon cutter location" becomes absurdly evident: get rid of the non-essential component, the design and/or placement of which interferes with the essential function of the system. To me, AADs are a "solution" in search of a problem and their presence in the sport has caused as many fatalities and injuries as they have prevented, and added an unnecessary level of complexity to reserve parachute systems that increases costs and the probability of error. What a great idea. Hi Robin, Not to split hairs, but by your logic, an altimeter is also something we should never jump with. Now, I agree that one shouldn't need an altimeter. Using your eyes is the best measure of altitude, and if you forget your trusty Altimaster on the ground, you should be able to jump anyway...but to suggest that we should do away with them altogether because they aren't an 'integral component' seems somewhat absurd. In my opinion, if one doesn't want to jump with an AAD, they shouldn't jump with one. But for those who want to, I don't think it hurts to accommodate it, provided it doesn't screw with the functionality of the integral components. Aside from AAD's, rigs also had to be changed to allow for ram-air reserves, which weren't necessarily integral to the system - they just improved the experience (admittedly, only in some ways). By the same token, accommodating something that a large number of jumpers may want to have as a last resort (i.e., in case of being incapacitated on exit or via a collision) doesn't seem to be a bad thing. [Full disclosure - I agree that we shouldn't be reliant on AAD's. Only one of my rigs had an AAD, until Argus was pulled out of it - I currently jump without one. But for AFF jumps (which are unpredictable by nature), I prefer to have one in the event I get clocked and knocked out by a flailing student (seen it happen). I like to have that last bit of insurance, provided it doesn't interfere with my ability to skydive & deploy my reserve on my own.] Signatures are the new black.

In case you didn't see, Argus has sent a letter to some owners who have inquired. The content and tone of which is disappointing to lots of us, to say the least. Signatures are the new black.

That is you not liking the parameter.... That does not mean it was a malfunction. The company that makes Vigil has even stated that it firing in that situation is not a malfunction. If I buy a car and the manufactor tells me that if a kid opens the back window the e-brake will lock up.... Well when it happens it is not a mal, but rather a feature that you may not like. Right. But when it's a feature I don't like that can seriously jeopardize the lives of an Otter full of skydivers, then it does make me wonder why someone isn't calling for a banning on a broader scale. (Not saying I'm in the "this is a conspiracy" camp - I think Argus's response to this whole situation has been disappointing (to understate the matter). But I DO think that the "features" of a Vigil can be dangerous, as can the "malfunctions" of an Argus.) Put another way: why does splitting these hairs matter? If the Argus was locking down reserve containers by design, and calling it a feature, should it not still be banned? Signatures are the new black.