UDSkyJunkie

You really think so? If strength was #1, why would we have mini links at all? For that matter, why would we have slinks for mains and stronger slinks for reserves? We could all use L-bar links like they have on vector tandem reserves, and never have a link break again, but who wants to do that? This goes beyond just links. If strength was #1, why do we use type mini risers and mini 3-rings? Is there really an "advantage" to mini 3-rings? Why are small canopies frequently equipped with 425 spectra? How many people would really notice that 1/2% difference in drag, or the extra 10 cubic inches of the container that standard spectra would need? Why is the racer the only sport harness (that i know of) that uses type 13 webbing? Why do some manufacturers use a combination of type 7 and 8 webbing for reserve risers instead of all type 7? What's the advantage there? "Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."

Upon further investigation, not exactly. I failed to note the line "to lower the risk of death, serious bodily injury, canopy damage and hard openings, never exceed the following limitaitons." So no, it's not actually illegal to jump as long as you're under 254 lbs exit weight. HOWEVER, my PD reserve manual states "the FAA has given Performace Designs the authority to lower the legal weight limits from those of the TSO." It goes on to state that this is true even though they must TSO the canopy using all the standard tests, and even though all their canopies have been tested well beyond even that. So in the case of PD, some of their reserves are, in fact, illegal at an exit weight less than that of the "standard" TSO. In the case of the Raven, to my knowledge, this is not true. I guess the important thing here is that a precident has been set by PD, and other manufacturers may (or may already have...) decide to reduce their legal max weight limits. Thanks for asking, by the way... it's good to have people on DZ.com who will politely challenge a claim... especially when they are an expert in the field. "Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."

Look at the warning label on your Raven. It specifies a maximum exit weight and deployment speed... those numbers are as high as you are allowed to go "legally." And I do mean legally; as a lifesaving device, exceeding the maximum exit weight is actually against the law. That being said, a micro-raven 150 is placarded to 150 lbs exit weight, and for the longest time was considered the state of the art reserve, and TONS of people in the 200 lb range jumped them without any problems. While different size and model ravens are placarded to different exit weights, they all had to pass TSO C23c, which is 254 lbs exit weight at 150 knots. So structurally, you're theoretically fine under just about anything, although the smaller you go, the more you're pushing your luck. Whether 1.3 is too high depends on how comfortable you would be flying it. If it's a similar size or slightly larger than your main, you're probably fine. "Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."

Depends on what you want out of your links... I like slinks on my main because 1) It's easier to pull the slider past the links after opening 2) I intensly dislike installing and removing slider bumpers 3) I don't need any tools to swap out my main On the flip side, it adds a little to the maintenance cost of the system, and gives me one more thing to keep an eye on. If you never swap out canopies, and you don't care to bring the slider past the links... it's kind of "6 of one, half dozen the other." For my reserve, I lean toward rapide links. As an engineer and rigger, I understand that they aren't any "better" from a functional point of view, but I just plain feel more comfortable with metal links on my reserve. Also, I have yet to hear of rapide links failing for any reason other than neglect (loose and/or cross-threaded barrels). And I do NOT neglect my reserve! "Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."

I think anyone today would rather fly ZP than a PD 9-cell... it's just a question of budget. If you've got the cash, go for it. If not, the 9-cell will keep you in the air until you can afford a ZP. The other thing to consider is that if you sell the 9-cell, you'll likley only get $200-$300, and then have to spend at least $500 on a MUCH more well-used ZP (probably more like $600-$800 if you want something as fancy as a Spectre or Sabre 2), only to turn around in one or two hundred jumps, and probably take another loss upgrading and/or downsizing to yet another ZP. That's why I flew the 9-cell at first... it was big and slow and *cringe* pink, but it was cheap and got me through long enough to gain the skills and save the money I needed for my current Sabre 135. One cool thing about waiting a little while to spend a lot of money on a ZP canopy is that you've then got the opportunity to fly a few of them, and at least a little experience to be able to compare them yourself instead of having to rely on other people's opinions. "Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."

Hi Jeth. My first canopy was a PD 9-cell 170 loaded at right about the same 0.9 wingloading as yours. The flying charachteristics and flare technique on a PD 9-cell and a Sabre 2 are so different that it's difficult to accurately compare them. F-111 canopies don't get as much lift, and the 9-cell is an older airfoil as well, so your flare will have less "power." Basically, you will probably find that you have to execute your flare sequence more quickly, and initiate the flare a few feet higher (not too much... just a few feet). The flare will be different from what you're used to now, but I wouldn't worry too much about it... the 9-cell is probably one of the easiest, most forgiving canopies to land ever made. The canopy will turn more slowly, and won't gain as much ground against the wind. You may also find that the ride is a little "bumpier" on turbulent days... nothing scary, just different. Don't let all of this make the canopy sound like it's a bad canopy... there are advantages to F-111. It's very easy to pack, and the 9-cell opens (in my opinion) like a dream... soft, smooth, and on heading every time

Ha! So does mine... I was going to make a post much like this one, but Dave covered pretty much everything. One thing I'd like to add about the PAX... I recall reading in one of the manufacturer's ads that the plane is designed such that it can be pitched slightly down on exit, raising the tail somewhat. "Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."

Unforunately, you are right for the vast majority of "wannabee apprentices." However, as one of those rare apprentices who DID take it seriously, and got my ticket, I really wish I'd had a rigger around who was willing to spend some time teaching me... even just a single weekend in the winter. I'd say of my 20 "supervised" reserve packs, I had about 5 hours total supervision; most of the time it consisted of "my toolbox is in my locker, find me when you're done, and I'll sign it off. When I asked for help learning how to sew a patch, I was given a copy of the Poynter's Manual and told that I could learn more about sewing from my mother than I ever could from him anyway. If it weren't for the fact that by the time I started working on my ticket I had about 5000 main packjobs and a ton of background knowedge about gear and the sport in general because I was born into it, I'd have been pretty discouraged and probably wouldn't have bothered getting my ticket... paying $50 a couple times a year would be a lot easier. To be honest, I'd have been happy to cough up a couple grand for proper one-on-one training with an experienced rigger if I'd had the cash at the time, but it's pretty tough to do that when you're a 19 year old college student with a car, an apartment, and a skydiving habit. P.S: I'm not here to bash you, because as I said, you're right about nearly all apprentices. But I do think that good riggers should keep their eyes open for people with promise... there's a few of us out there, and it's hard for us to learn from your truly valuble experience when we're assumed to be wasting your time. "Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."

I got a really got deal on a Vector that was built for someone 5' 10" to 6' 2"... I'm a whopping 5' 7". A mod was done on it that was similar to the "D-ring" idea posted earlier. Jumped that for about 200 jumps (2 seasons), but I kept my eye on the harness because I was concerned about wear. Then, when I had some spare cash, I sent it to the Relative Workshop and got the main lift web shortened for $100, plus about $50 in total shipping. For that price, it makes more sense to skip the mod and just get it re-sized. For the record, the harness showed no sign of wear, but 200 jumps isn't very many. Definately make sure, as some other people have mentioned, that the only sizing issue is the harness length before investing the money... the container could be too long, or the yoke to big, or any number of things; there is a big difference between 5' 10" and 5' 2". "Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."

I notice you're from Sweden, so I'm guessing you don't get the USPA parachutist magazine... if you did, I'd tell you to check this month's incident reports. Qutoed from the conclusions: "it was confirmed that the AAD was on at the time he exited the airplane. Investigators on the accident scene also determined that the automatic activation device was still armed and activated properly in preparation for jumping. The AAD was sent to the manufacturer for testing. The manufacturer reported that the AAD funcitoned properly during testing." Cause of death was listed as "failure to deploy either main or reserve parachute." The AAD in question was a modern design (Astra). Now, this isn't to say that modern AAD's aren't EXTREMELY reliable, but this sounds (IMHO) to be a pretty clear case of AAD failure, though it surely would be nice to know why. As for your actual question (and I won't claim to be an expert, this is just my $0.02), I think it's better to teach students, who are not particularly likely to be able to tell the difference between a malfunction that is landable and one that isn't or, for that matter, how to go about safely landing it to go strait for the reserve. To give a real-life example: I knew a girl who was just off student status (25th jump), and got tension knots on one side of her canopy, inducing a slow turn and rendering one of the toggles useless. It was a big, docile 7-cell, and so it wasn't doing anything radical. She was able to steer it with the opposite toggle and decided to land it instead of cutting away. Everything was fine until about 20 feet when she went to flare... canopy went into a dive, and the result was a broken ankle. Now, nearly every experienced jumper who saw this or heard about it said they would have done the same thing (tried to land it), except for one difference: they would have taken the canopy strait in, not flared, and done a PLF. Most of those same people also said that at 25 jumps, it would probably have been a better idea to cut away. Why? Because 1) a lot of people at that level wouldn't know for sure wether it was landable and 2) a lot of people at that level would have made the same mistake, and tried to flare, simply because they don't know any other way to land. I think if you ask around, you'll find a lot more people who have seen someone hurt trying to land something they thought was "quite landable" than getting rid of it and dumping the reserve... assuming, of course, that the reserve was within load limits and deployed at a reasonable altitude. "Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."

I believe that, it reminds me of a kid at my DZ about 8 or 9 years ago. There was an old-school jumper from way back who hadn't jumped in like 15 years, and his 16 year old son was getting into a lot of trouble with drugs (bad grades, a couple run-ins with the cops, you know... the usual). Anyway, he talked to the DZO about the situation, and brought his son out to do the AFF program in hopes that it would give him something other than drugs to do. Worked perfectly... the guy turned out to be a natural, and cleaned up his act in like a month, and now has about 1000 jumps and 500 BASE jumps. Funny how life works, eh? For myself, I was born into the sport. Dad's been actively jumping since 1973 I think, and on my 18th birthday I finally got to join him... loved it! ('course, it's hard not to when your first jump is a 10-way) My sister just did her first jump in september, and it looks like she's hooked too.

You make a valid point, and I can't say I have an absolute answer for you. I disagree, however, about seeing a difference: the difference is 20 years. Is it possible that a 5-year-old rig would be so misused and abused that it would be unsafe to jump? yes. But when was the last time you heard about someone going in under their 5 year old rig, jumped within weight and speed limits, because of catastrophic failure? (that is, other than the recent issues with adjustable main lift webs...) Furthermore, the kind of abuse that would be necessary to make a 5 year old rig unairworthy would surely be apparent upon inspection, no? Over 25 years, it just seems to me that the laws of entropy start to take over unless you are very careful. Problems might not be apparent to the backyard rigger. Ultimately, all riggers have the right to draw a line wherever they want, and well... this particular example is past my line. As you said, that doesn't make either party wrong. If I refuse, the jumper can simply find another rigger who is willing. Or, they can avoid the whole situation, and become a rigger themself (interesting that I haven't seen anyone suggest this yet...) Actually, the difference is huge! The first is an educated decision made by a knowledgeable person, and the second *could* be a blatant disregard for personal saftey. Having known a heavier man (280ish) who went in under his girlfriends rig after a premature head-down delpoyment... the main blew up, and then when he chopped, dumped the (120 sq ft) reserve, and blew it up too, I am NOT a supporter of overloaded reserves. As to whether I would pack an overloaded reserve, that's very individual. Technically, my own reserve is overloaded (a microraven 150 is placarded to 150 lbs exit weight, and I'm around 165). Am I worrled? no... I know the history of the reserve, and I know that it had to pass TSO, which means the design was tested at least to 254 lbs at 150 knots. On the other hand, there is a newer jumper I know (who shall remain nameless) who weighs 300+ and is jumping a 26 ft round for a reserve. Would I pack that? absolutely not! The key words of your question are "experienced jumper," who "knows the limitations of their gear" and "knows the risks they are taking by jumping it." in the case of someone from out of town, I don't know that said jumper is any of those things. They most likely are, but I've seen some older former jumpers walk in who are none of the above. To give an extreme example, I was evesdropping on a conversation in the hanger a couple months back... this guy came back to the DZ after a 30ish year period of not jumping, looked around for about 10 minutes, and said, in all seriousness "well, it doesn't look like anything has really changed... the only difference for me would be that the reserve is on my back instead of in the front." I SWEAR I'm not making this up... couldn't if I tried. Point is that if some guy I've never seen walks in with a 25 year old rig, he might not be so knowledgable as he claims, or even believes. On the other hand, if someone I trust knows him from way back and vouches for him, then I might consider working on his reserve. I guess this has been a pretty long-winded stand on my soapbox, but as DZ brat who saw his first DZ at two weeks old and was packing tandems by 13, I dislike being called a predjudiced young kid just because I don't necessarily trust a rig I've never seen that's older than I am owned by someone who could be my grandfather. "Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."

Now now, you're not just bitter 'cause you crunched in under one and could barely walk for a couple days are ya? landed fine for me! yeah, yeah... you've got like 40 lbs on me. I'm just givin' you hell 'cause I can "Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."

That is, in fact, exactly what the manufacturer claims... that they reduce wingtip vortices, thereby reducing drag, increasing lift, and allowing for better overall performance. Does it work? I haven't a fricking clue, and I have NEVER met anyone who does. Everyone knows that the canopies that have these things on them are pretty high-performance, but whether it has anything to do with the winglets, well... who knows? I tend to lean toward it being a gimmick, and believe that time will tell... if it's useless, it'll go away in time, or at least not be pursued by other manufacturers. To play devil's advocate for a second, though... the stabalizers on your canopy are designed for the same purpose: to act essentially as winglets. And they did their job so well that they are now prettymuch mandatory. "Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."

Sorry, I perhaps did not word what I was saying well. What I intended to say was that the difference in speed and glide ratio in level flight would be small in comparison to the difference in turning/flaring performance. Having never tested this by flying my Sabre 135 in level flight next to a guy 116 pounds heavier under a Sabre 230, I don't know how much difference there really is... perhaps it is more dramatic than I believed. I am curious if you have any input on whether the difference in performance is itself a function of WL... What I am asking is, would the hypothetical jumpers, both at 1:1 under a 135 and 230 experience as much difference as another set of hypothetical jumpers at 1.5:1 under the same 135 and 230? My guess would be not. As a final note, something that was stressed in the article you sent a link to was that a large part of the equation is that lighter jumpers have a big problem with "percieved speed" because they start at such a light loading compared to heavier jumpers. I have to wonder how much of the speed increase is real and how much is percieved, at least in level flight (I'm not saying you or PD is wrong, just that this seems an important point to consider). "Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."

I won't claim to be an expert, but as an aerospace engineer, hopefully I can explain a few reasons why the smaller canopy will seem to have "more" performance... If you are flying strait, the difference is probably very small... the canopy will fly the same speed, decend at the same rate, ect. This is because the airfoil is the same. When you introduce turns into the equation, though, there is more than the airfoil at work. First, you've got less mass, so there is less force required to move things around. this allows things to happen more quickly. Similarly, there is less inertia (the higher the inertia, the more force it takes to make something spin). The combination of less mass and shorter lines dramatically reduces the inertia, so you can start spinning a lot faster. The last thing, and something that I've seen a LOT of people overlook is that on a 200 sq ft canopy, you have to move the toggle a lot further than you would on a 100 sq ft canopy to get the equivalent deflection of the airfoil. So if you make a small mistake like flaring 2 inches further on one side than the other, you might not notice on a big canopy, or only think you encountered a "crosswind"... but if you flare 2 inches apart on a really small version of the same canopy, you could find yourself in a serious turn. it makes the canopy feel a lot more sensitive or "twitchy." When you combine lower mass, lower inertia, and more sensitivity, well... it all adds up to a lot more performance. If you want a parallel, think about aircraft. Try to imagine a 747 performing like acrobatic plane. doesn't make sense, does it? if that's too outlandish for you, try to imagine even a small acrobatic plane performing like a tiny R/C plane... still never happen. "Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."

This brings up a good point.... nothing at all wrong with a sabre, but it would be a good idea to either pack it yourself or choose your packers very carefully (I choose the first option, but then... I AM a packer (-: I have about 350 jumps on a Sabre 135 (WL 1.2ish)and love it. the hardest openings I ever had were twice early on I dumped immedately out of a track (with my previous canopy I could get away with it, and didn't realize i was making the mistake). neither opening was painful, but uncomfortable would be a good description. "Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."

let me start by saying that I wasn't even born when you made your first jump. That being said, I would be uncomfortable packing YOUR 25+ year-old rig, not because it's old, but because I have no way of knowing it's history with any certainty. On the other hand, my father has a 1980 wonderhog clone with a Security SAC reserve (passed the acid mesh test) that I would put my seal on because I know it has been taken care of. Now, when you say it's perfectly airworthy, are you trying to decieve? almost certainly not, but someone at a "distant DZ" doesn't know you... just my two cents. "Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."

I'm a big fan of the tackified neumann's myself... lots of grip, and not too much loss of "feel." If you do a lot of RW, though, they get torn up pretty quick (I wear through them in about 250 jumps) and as was said, sporting goods stores sell them for like $40. Or you can go to www.skyleague.com and order them for $25 a pair, with a cool NSL logo. Check it out. "Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."

Hehe... seems a lot of us have this in common... my first (and only, so far) save was also before I actually got my ticket. Having that save was probably one of the coolest feelings I've ever had. Extra cool because the jumper was the girl I was dating at the time! "Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."

Aight, I've got a good one... Several years back, we had a lady just off student status (like 15-20 jumps) actually land INSIDE a Beech 18. She got such a bad case of object fixation that she went right through the door, somehow managing to narrowly miss hitting either side, or the top or bottom. Ended up sitting dead in the middle of the plane, without a scratch, and the canopy went over the fusalage and draped on the other side. Very lucky that an instructor had, less than five minutes earlier, forgotten to close the plexiglass door after doing some exit practice with another student. I SWEAR this is a true story, I couldn't make it up if I tried! "Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."

I've heard a lot of theories. The ones that makes sense to me are: 1) since the nose takes a fraction of a second to unroll, the whole canopy isn't inflating at the same time, slowing the opening. 2) basically what you said... it puts it futher back behind the slider. I agree that if the slider is properly exposed across the nose, it will have the same effect, and on a lot of newer canopies (sabre 2, velocity, crossfire 2, spectre...) it's enough. It should be noted that most of those canopies have comparatively larger sliders, which enables you to do this. On older models, like the Tri, and my old-school Sabre, however, the slider may not be large enough to properly accomplish this properly. In those cases, I find I have the most luck doing BOTH. As for the off-heading thing, I don't roll all cells together on anything other than old F-111 canopies that open like a shotgun (Sharpchuters and Ravens come to mind). Honestly, I don't really know. All I know is that if I don't roll the tail on certain canopies, they really crack open. Something else I have found is that I get extra slowless if I roll the tail both at the bottom (where everyone rolls it) and at the top (up by the slider). Intuitively, this should make the opening faster, because it prevents the slider from immediately catching air, but it works really well for me. Reasons?? Haven't a clue. Locing stows are certainly the most important, but they ALL matter. loose line stows will not provide any resistance during deployment, which means the bag will be travelling faster when it finally hits the locking stows... it's just a less steady, less predictable opening. And yes, excessively tight stows, like those crappy black bands or double-stowing might cause line twists, hence my advice not to do so. And again, this is just my advice based on how my own canopy reacts and how other people say their canopies open when I pack them. It doesn't always work for others... perfect example: I have a very neat packing style, and have to play games with my slider, tail, and nose to make my canopy open the way I want. On the other hand, I know at least a dozen people who will look you in the eye and swear that the only way to make their canopy open slowly is to pack it as messily as possible, and it works for them. So try different stuff, and find what works. When you've found it, stick with it. "Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."

OK... here's my experience on these questions (I'm a rigger, and i've been a professional packer for about 10 years). Keep in mind these are general answers, and some people find they have different results. What does rolling the nose do? slows down the opening, but excessive rolling may cause end cells to take longer to inflate. if you roll all cells at once (instead of 4 and 4 or 3 and 3) then it will slow it down even more, but will more likely result in an off-heading opening. What does rolling the tail do? slow down the opening very slightly... it also helps keep the packjob neater when you lay it down. The effect of different stows? tight bands and 2-3 inch stows will help prevent line-dump. Try to use proper sized bands instead of double-looping large bands. The effect of a larger slider? The larger the slider, the slower the opening, provided it is clover-leafed correctly. The effect of the position of the slider? If the slider is up against the grommets, it will catch more air, and do it's job better. the same applies to a proper clover-leaf. Also, if you make sure the part of the slider in "front" of the nose is really open, it can help it do it's job better as well. What a psycho pack does? never used it, but as far as I can tell, not much... psycho pack is just a method of getting the canopy in the bag, and things like the slider, nose, tail, ect are unchanged by the psycho method. Why the slider grommets should be tight against the stops? see above. Hope this helps. Again, please remember that this is my own experience, and I have heard many other people say they don't see it this way. It's best to try different things and find what works for you. Packing is a very individual thing, both for different canopies and for different people. FYI, my standard pack on a Tri is 6 rolls of the nose into the center, a few on the tail, and make that slider as big as humanly possible. "Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."

My vote is PD, but they're both good canopies. The color scheme of this canopy brings forth a quesion for riggers/manufacturers out there, though: I have, over the years, heard rumors that silver canopy fabric is a bad idea. The reason stated was that the fabric was made "silver" by embedding tiny peices of metal into the fabric, which would quickly degrade the strength of the canopy. Does anyone know for sure if this is true, or if it's just a wild story? or perhaps that it was true, and has since been fixed... any info is appreciated. "Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."

Second question first: 1.5 is a pretty high wingloading for 330 jumps, more so for someone who is only averaging about 50 jumps a year, and more so yet again on a spectre, which really wasn't designed to be highly loaded. Furthermore, at 180 + approx 20 lbs equipment, your wingloading is closer to 1.7, or maybe 1.6 if you lose that 5-10 lbs. PD lists 192 as the MAX weight under a spectre 120, so you'd have to lose about 8 lbs just to be under that. You should check out BillVon's article on downsizing, and really think about wether there is any reason for you to do so... at 330 jumps, it is unlikely that you are flying your already significantly loaded 135 at the edge of it's performance envelope. Another decent yardstick is the "canopy risk factor" article from the (i think) march 2004 issue of parachutist; It's far from perfect, but it gives a good starting point. I have no doubt that you could jump the 120 a few times and land it safely. Hell, I jumped (once) a stiletto 120, at about 1.25 at 58 jumps... about 15 jumps after getting off of 200+ f-111 canopies. Landed it just fine! The question is, can you land it safely EVERY time, ANYWHERE, in ANY wind conditions? In the above case, my answer was a resounding NO! As for your wife, that all depends on her... at 1.0, that's a reasonable WL, but 135 IS on the smallish side. You'd need someone who knows something about her canopy control skills to adequately answer that question. Also consider that since she is so small, she might find she needs to wear weights, particularly if she does mostly RW jumps. Weights could easily bump the WL up to 1.1 or higher (I weigh about 130, and wear at least 14 lbs of weight on every jump...) Blue Skies! "Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."