Canuck

Yeah full props to TJ and Jeffro. Jeremy Peters lays down some sick Mc-twists too on his Velo 79 - with a camera on his head! Also impressive is watching Andy Farington do "nothings" over dry land. I just can't imagine the stones it takes to fly no toggles or risers over the ground at those speeds. Wicked! Canuck

Yup, I agree with everything you said. I definately didn't mean to imply that any jump is ever counter productive if that's how it came across, just that some are more productive than others. On a side note, some of the best coaching I have ever had was thanks to you. You have a very intelligent way of explaining things that goes much further than "Cool jump dude, wanna smoke one and go again?" Oh yeah, you could practice back to back eagles with a student, but the video would be crappy!! Canuck

Not a pro, but I coach lots of newbies. I would say it's productive to a point. Flying with somebody who is just learning to get vertical really challenges your ability to fly at all speeds, drive hard, park close, etc. The other thing is, unless you are totally relying on video for the debrief, you have to be actively watchig the student, making mental notes. It forces you to stop thinking about your own flying, and things become second nature. But like I said - to a point. Coaching newbies isn't helping me learn how to do back to back eagles!! Canuck

Wassup, I'm thinking about taking a vacation to Florida in late August, part skydiving, part just chillin'. Can anybody tell me what the scene is like at Fort Lauderdale other than at Spring Break? How are the beaches, what's the night life like, is there generally cool shit to see and do. I'll be coming down with friends - not travelling solo, and have a time share to stay at. So what do you think, should I do Fort Lauderdale, or better to go to Orlando. Oh yeah, what's a close dz to Fort Lauderdale, and can I land on a beach? Canuck

Didn't do much for me... There was some great flying, but the video was, in my opinion, far from a perfect product. I wouldn't be happy handing it off to a tandem passenger who had just paid me $75 bucks. I get much tighter, more consistent, better framed shots belly flying them - otherwise I would freefly them - trust me!! Maybe it's just that the music was soooo bad!!! Canuck

The Sensei is Brian Germain's new canopy (Big Air Sportz), not PD's, unless he has sold the rights to them like he did his airlock design - but I doubt it. There are pictures available on his website. Canuck

The Velocity was released between the FX and the VX, but you're right, it certainly does hold it's own against the 27s. Canuck

Sounds a little suspect to me. I could see PD releasing a 27 cell, that makes sense, but something that blows cross-braced canopies out of the water and is only intended for people that are doing 1000+ jumps per year? Lets look at the facts: If cross-braced canopies only account for 5-7% of the market as somebody has suggested, then this new canopy would be what, 1-2%? Yes Ford and Ferrari can afford to put the R&D into a product with such a limited market, but PD isn't exactly Ford or Ferrari. And how many people are doing 1000+ jumps per year on their sport canopy, because I assume they don't mean 800 tandems and 200 on your own gear. Sure there are a few people doing 1000+, but most of them are still jumping Stilettos! I'm not holding my breath... Canuck

The good ole' 10% rule doesn't work for everything, gun murders and active skydivers notwithstanding. Our climate and affinity for 182's keep us well below 10% of the US in terms of skydivers, and thus license holders. Canuck

The biggest difference is that the CSPA licenses (CoPs) are WAY harder to get. For instance, the D- CoP requires 500 jumps, but very few peoplw with that number of jumps would be proficient enough to meet the requirements of two disciplines. As an example, if you wanted to do RW and CRW you would need to get 7 points on five RW 4-ways in working time (35 seconds), and 8 rotations on five CRW 4-way jumps in working time (2 mins I think). You don't have to pick RW and CRW, you have your choice of 2 of the following: RW, CRW, Freefly, Style, and Accuracy. Of course there are other requirements like accuracy and a test. Canuck

OK, this goes back a few posts now, but you're still asking me what I meant about a canopy with a short recovery arc being more tolerant. That question has already been answered - low turn, intentional or not, no attempt from the pilot to fix the situation. The fast recovering canopy is more likely to return to level or survivable decent rate than the slow recovering canopy. Think it doesn't happen? Read the fatality reports - there have been several where witnesses report no attempt to flare after a low turn, and I've seen it with my own eyes. We can't ask these people why they didn't flare, because they're dead... Now, go to the PD website and watch all the videos of Heath, Jay, and Ian at the IPC World Meet. I just did, and there is not one single video which shows any of them doing anything that would resemble digging. Hell, half the time you can't even detect the rear riser input. Funny how we interpreted Chucks post differently. I picked up on the parts where he said digging is not the right thing to do and how the e-line mod is there for those times when you absolutely have to dig but don't want to sacrifice the round by hitting the toggles. Canuck

Huh? Any lens that you can change the magnification on is a zoom, in this case from 28 to 80. At 28, it would be considered wide angle. My suggestion is to get a fixed lens, a 24 or a 28 for example are both common and relatively inexpensive. As a rule, the optics and speed of a fixed lens are superior to that of a zoom, and they are also lighter and smaller. Canuck

Fine, I'll accept that, but I would WAY rather hit the ground from 6 feet with a canopy over my head, than from 600 feet with a canopy in front of me... Again, it comes down to which is safer, and that again, comes down to the pilot. As per recovery arcs, as Relyon said, Brian has discussed this a few times. Line trim, line length, and airfoil design/shape all come into play. Canuck

You're right, you didn't say it, but unless you can deconstruct my argument, or at least pose a counter arguement better than "I didn't," then I don't think you can say that you didn't infer it. Lets leave that one alone - it's a no win situation. I admit, there is contradiction in my statement. I (like you) see safety in the hands of the pilot, not the canopy, and thus, don't like to say that any canopy is safer than any other canopy. Pilots are safe, canopies are nylon. However, I can't think of a single situation where a slow recovering canopy would be safer than a fast recovering canopy. The opposite, however, I can, and described in my previous post. And again, you are right, it would take bad judement to whip a low 180 and hold that turn into the ground - but surely you are not going to say that skydivers don't sometimes exercise bad judgment? Almost all injuries and fatalilities are a result of it! You can buy that, can't you? Again, no insult intended. Canuck

No retort to the deep?? As for the other, I'm curious why you didn't quote the first part of what I said: "I never said that canopies with short recovery arcs are safer, I said canopies with long recovery arcs are not less dangerous." Nevertheless, lets take a shitty hypothetical situation. Person is flying a Stiletto loaded at 1.8, gets cut off, and whips a 180 at 600 feet. they get to say "oops, I turned too low." Under a Velocity at the same loading, they don't get to say anything before they hit the ground. Like I said, hypothetical situation, the point is not to discuss why they did a 180, or how much altitude you will burn at 1.8 under a Stiletto vs. a Velocity, or what kind of turn they made. The point is to highlight one situation where a fast recovering canopy can be safer than a slow recovering canopy. Can you buy that?

Deep is implicit by your statement. If the competitor isn't "deep" in the corner, then they wouldn't need to "dig" because the canopy would have time time recover on its own, or with less input than would be called "digging." If they were not "deep" and they did in fact "dig" they would level out too high. So no, you didn'y say deep, but like I said, it's implicit by your description. Listen, I'm not trying to insult you, I just think it's super dangerous to be posting that it'snormal, or even ok, to have to dig out of your turns in a forum filled with often indiscriminating readers. I believe what Chuck is saying is that there are three possible outcomes of a competition run: 1. Turn is too high, you get a VE and a zero (bad) 2. Turn is the perfect height, no digging involved, and you get the optimal run (excellent) 3. Turn is too low, you have to dig, you're not going to get the optimal run, but at least you will still score (good). And in this case, being able to dig with rears is better than having to dig with toggles, and this is where the e-line mod comes in. So, in a do or die situation with the money on the line, you're better to err on the side of three rather than the side of one, as some points are better than none. That does not, however, mean that digging will in any way enhance your swoop. And the most important point of all, there is no such thing as too high when it comes to safety, only too low. I stand fully behind my claim that if you are digging, you have turned lower than is safe. Canuck

Thanks Chuck, I was hoping you would jump in on this. I absolutely agree with you on the e-line mod being developed as a save your ass without hitting the toggles invention. But are you saying that Jay intentionally puts himself deep in the corner on his runs knowing the mod will save him, or that it just often turns out that way becasue he is pushing it to the limits? Canuck

OK...I see how it is... No point in continuing this discussion. Either you have realized that you're wrong, and are trying to weasle out of it without having to admit it, or you still think you're right, even though several people with more experience and time in have told you that you are wrong. Either way, my time would be better spent doing almost anything else. I tell ya what, you find one single person who competed at the Pro level in a PST sanctioned meet last year who will come on line and say that it is normal to dig out of the corner, not just "use rears to plane out" (your words), but actually "dig" (yup, your word again) and I'll stand corrected. Good luck Canuck

Frightening that you actually believe this... Please don't share your wisdom with others... Nobody, and I mean nobody, who actually knows anything about swooping would make this type of claim, and nobody, and again I mean nobody, who is on the PST intentionally puts themself deep in the corner. Oh yeah...that "power" you are refering to is the rapid deceleration you get when you stab the toggles to keep your femurs out of the earth. Please do your homework. Canuck

OK, I don't know how to do the little quote trick, but dude... "when having to dig out is not a neccessary or intended part of the approach, unless you are competing." One of these One of these And one of these Digging and competing have NOTHING to do with one and other. As for the main point of this thread, you are obviously not understanding that not all turns are alike, not all turns should be alike, and not all canopies respond well to the same type of turn. Canuck

Alright, I never said that canopies with short recovery arcs are safer, I said canopies with long recovery arcs are not less dangerous. Semantics I guess, but there is a difference. If I had to argue the case though, I would say (as Aggie Dave alluded towards) that short recovery arc canopies can be more tollerant of an "oops I turned too low" due to their natural tendancy to recovery quickly. The other thing to consider is, it's not the turn that kills you, it's not having your canpy over your head when you get to the ground that kills you. That's why we teach flat turns for example. So, the deal with swooping a canopy like a Stiletto is that yes, you may need to turn it a little lower, but in a slow carving turn, the canopy is always pretty much above you, and hence you're never really in trouble as long as you flare when it's time!!!!! Make sense? Canuck

That's not a bounce - it's a stand-up landing!! Canuck

Two points: #1 - The positive/negative recovery arc thing has provided a nice excuse for people to buy canopies that are out of their leaugue under the guise of "it's safer because I can make my turns higher." Um...get real. #2 - The Stiletto is probably the most notoriously short (negative for those who like to use the term) recovery arc canopy on the market, yet that doesn't stop the Airspeed crew (and others) from swooping the living shit out of them. And not once have I seen them turn low. Fast recovering canopies require long, slow, progressive turns to build up speed - which is the proper way to swoop any canopy. Canuck

Looks fine, but get rid of that GIGANTIC zoom lens and put on a fixed 24 or 28. It will save your neck some strain, and the picture quality will be better. As to the tripod bolt, I wouldn't worry too much about a strap. I mount my EOS with only a nylon bolt and haven't lost it yet. My rational is that if I ever have a line wrapped around the camera, I think I can probably snap the bolt and ditch just that camera instead of my entire helmet. Canuck

My sentiments exactly! Some arcs are shorter, some longer, but every canopy will eventually recover from the dive and return to its original flight path. I really dislike the usage of "positive" and "negative" - I think its very misleading and often nothing more than an excuse for people to dig out of their turns. "Oh I wasn't digging, my canopy has a negative recovery arc so I have to give it some toggles/risers to get it out of the turn." Canuck