RTB

Did you read airteckais posts in this thread, same forum? Cypres 1 status reports The way i understand it the Cypres 2's did what they where designed to do. Not fire under these circumstances because not being at the activation altitude.

The jerk of the opening can also get the toggle to move or come lose. With a velcro less toggle that is secured at both top and bottom there needs to be a small amount of slack in the toggle. If the toggle is stretched the opening may cause the riser to stretch slightly and pull the lower part of the toggle which can make the toggle com loose. Don't know if this made any sense in writing but it can easily be demonstrated with the equipment.

What is a Lodi loop?

I've found the opposite to be true, usually I will change the pile (soft part) before the hook. On the main lift web having hook velcro inside could easily wear on the opposite webbing. And people don't usually pull their handles hundreds of times.

I've never met a 130 pound tandem instructor. _Am I'm a 130 pound tandem instructor.

The steering lines have most likely shrunk. Check by looking for slack in them when no input is given or do a frontriser turn without holding the toggles, up high. Or get their line trim chart and measure the length of the steering lines.

I'm no designer of canopies but I know that really small differences between canopies in line trim, shape, the way reinforcement tapes are sewn, crossports, etc. can make a noticeable difference. Even for a manufacturer it could be difficult to describe to a layman the exact things that make one canopy behave and feel different from another.

You kind of answered it yourself, it will open to hard. Or put another way, I guess they didn't get the design to work well with normal break settings and found it better/easier to keep the design and use no breaks. I know of no other canopies without break settings.

This information comes from one of Airtecs dealers, I am just passing it on. The following text is soon to be published at Airtecs site: 20. September 2005 Over the past 15+ years we have had a continuous program of data gathering using custom instrumentation to monitor new techniques and equipment in the sport. Our previous statement that "it is not possible to safely perform such radical maneuvers below 750 feet and activate CYPRES, as even if a jumper reaches 78 mph vertical speed for a brief amount of time, it will not activate" has been superceded by new techniques involving a small handful of the best of the best canopy pilots. For them it is now possible to sustain vertical speed in excess of 78 mph for an extended period of time, and land safely. As the line between freefall speeds and vertical flight under canopy becomes less and less distinct, the statements and conclusions from the section below are still valid for the vast, vast majority of skydivers. However, additional fine-tuning of extreme vertical approach landing technique involving multiple 360's starting above 1500 feet by a handful of jumpers, has resulted in exceeding the activation design criteria of Expert CYPRES / CYPRES 2. It is important to note that: 1) it is not simply a matter of wing loading 2) For the majority of skydivers, the risk of such an occurrence is infinitesimal as compared to the risks of jumping without CYPRES. Be aware that only a handful of world class CP professionals have developed the skills to exceed the activation speed. 3) In order to cope with these new advanced canopy piloting techniques, the development of a special model of CYPRES 2 has been underway for a number of months. It was the goal to exactly evaluate what is happening at the moment and the trial to foresee a possible development of this discipline in the future. Therefore we equipped professional CP pilots (also the PD Factory Team) with data instruments and made other basic research jumps to find the best suitable way to cover also potential possible speeds. The important parameters of this special model do not only consist of the definition of a vertical speed. This model is presently in the final test phase, and currently being test-jumped - release date will be available soon 4) for most skydivers, this special CYPRES 2 will actually increase some risk: because of its more stringent activation parameters, it will not activate as soon or at all in certain circumstances as compared to the Expert model 5) specific recommendations for those skydivers who are candidates for using this special CYPRES 2 will be available soon, but for now, suffice it to say that it is a very small community of canopy pilots who presently are capable of crossing the line of Expert CYPRES under canopy while still landing safely more info soon...

No, they do not fly that big. Where did you get that information?

Repack is every 180 days. Often people can get by with one repack a year since the season is short.

The prices in the US are not that high, any of them. In my area we all charge about US$ 78 for repack, including inspection but not repack of main. Everything here is more expensive though. Compare the time spent on a reserve repack to the time spent packing a main. And the responsibility and knowhow. Why would it not be reasonable to spend $60 on a reserve if it is reasonable to spend $5 on a main that takes a fraction of the time.

A 113 should be the right size yes. (probably more tight than loose ) The 306 is one of the short models, for a vector at least.

I think it would be difficult to get the riser covers to close well. I would not recommend it. It might work but not well, IMHO.

Do you really want to put something in there that is not going to look good?

A PD113R is tight if there is a cypres in there, otherwise it's ok. A Stilletto 97, or equivalent, is a good size, larger can fit but it will be more difficult to get it to look good.

I think you got it wrong. I do spend time rigging and I do not oppose suggestions from manufacturers. Why don't you go back and read what was said by who again.

Not trying to hijack the thread but how would you view a cable, intermediate, that has been set with the cable a bit to the inside of the pin. It has never been flush with the opening. I did e-mail the manufacturer but no reply so far.

Like you said the cable is not stiff enough, it would bend. Plus some other reasons, like the end of the cable could fray eventually.

I understand that you "correct" way gives a neater result but I don't see any apparent danger with the "wrong" way. Why do you call it mis-routed? Is it not more of a different people- different style thing?

Do line overs ever happen to CRW people? I know they sometimes happen in BASE, I don't know that they happen a lot with reserves in a freebag. Just trying to figure out why there is a difference, or if there is.

Thats a surprising statement, How did you come to that conclusion? I would have thought SB's were considered equivalent to manufacturers instructions.

There was a similar incident on a Atom rig where a line was caught on the middle flap and (almost?) ripped it of the rig. There was a modification issued to sew on a deflector flap to prevent this from happening. Can't find the SB now though.

Uffe Anderzon does a lot of the master rigging in Sweden. uffe@uffeshoppshop.se There are a few others, PM me if you need more information about the Swedish ones.

Why don´t you reinstall mozilla and choose transfer bookmarks?