hackish

I don't think the issue is changing your canopy so much as looking at the canopy itself. For example on my Kanata the difference between tucking the nose and not is about 500'. I'd suggest talking to PD directly as they have a lot of experience in this area. As riggerrob already suggested check the trims. Maybe make sure you have the right slider with it. I have a hundred or two jumps on a Sabre2 and I don't think I ever had an opening as slow as 1000' -Michael

I gave the manual a quick read through. It seems that some interesting parameters have been changed. I think this is for the better as it seems they've made the unit a little more difficult to scare. It now becomes armed only when you're reached 1000' AGL. I also notice that it's approved for operation in pressurized aircraft but with a few restrictions. Another interesting warning is that you should not open the aircraft door below 1650' with student mode AADs on board. The screen changes to indicate that it's in climb mode but since my AAD is behind me I've never watched to see if the existing ones do this. It would be interesting to see a definitive list from AAD as I only picked off a few things that caught my eye. -Michael

So now we have something we both can agree with. IMO the AAD mfrs did not manufacture the container either ( a TSO certificated product ); so they 'have no right to try and dictate any rules for installing it. The issue here is that the AAD manufacturer provided instructions on how to assemble and use their product and that includes what closing loop material you are allowed to use. Choosing to ignore the rules and deciding to install THEIR product in an unapproved way or with unapproved components is the real problem. Taken right from the CSPA's list of BSRs. The principle Andre is trying to promote is directly in violation of the rules he is supposed to follow. Using your understanding of the systems should be applied to situations and judgements not covered by the manufacturers' published instructions, not to contradict them. -Michael

I don't think it's right to ASSume that their lineup is as a result of mis-management. I own a Vector and a Javelin and I'd have no issues buying a Wings. They're all quality rigs. Some offer features that others do not. My own personal priorities bias me toward some of the items that UPT offers. R&D, experience, features, testing budget, even the quality of the manuals are all things that come with being the top level. Just because they're king of the hill doesn't mean it's without a reason. -Michael

We will ignore the advice Cypres tries to give about others using their washers - they didn't manufacture the Vigil they have no right to try and dictate the rules for installing it. Since as you describe only rookies follow instructions it is interesting to find the innovative things these non-rookies have invented. Stuffing the nose into the width reduction folds. Not rolling the VTC-2R noses, rubber banding the slider up to the stabilizers, wrapping as many as 6 turns of sealing thread on brake lines and L-bars, using gutted 550 for reserve closing loops. Even interesting science experiments can have unintended consequences. Remember burning 2 holes in a reserve experimenting to see if a cutter could go on the bottom of a vector pack tray? In principle it seems like a good idea - after all it works on a wings. I think the advice of disregarding manufacturer instructions is poor at best. Very few riggers will ever have better advice than the guys who designed and tested a system. Many will have worse advice. -Michael

If you do decide on a racer then make sure you can find a good rigger willing to pack it for you. I know only 1 guy in my area willing to pack them. -Michael

Unless I missed the memo, not one part of any AAD is certificated by the FAA. 'Approved' by the AAD mfr carries no weight with me. If you're willing to throw away the recommendations of the AAD manufacturer then how about using some aircraft cable for a closing loop with your cypres. After all don't they do a demo showing that the cutter will cut it? The problem I think with deciding not to follow the recommendations of a manufacturer is that it is a slippery slope. Where do you draw the line? If cypres cord is the only thing approved for a cypres, I'm pretty sure the vigil product is OK. How about some of that 300lb HMA? I've seen it. How about some gutted 550? I've seen that too. Never seen AC cable though :) -Michael

While I agree with you on a technical standpoint it is not uncommon in aviation to see lists of the only components approved for a specific use. Maybe a Pratt would run better on that skyvan but unless it's approved your AWC is no good. While the washer and deneema thread may be better, it is not approved for use and the story ends there. Maybe the cypres cutter is not able to cut deneema thread properly. I haven't tried it and it's not right to ask my rigging clients to be the test pilots. Suppose for whatever reason the cutter fails to cut the loop and a jumper goes in. When asked if you followed the manufacturer's rules in assembling and installing the AAD what answer could you give? The part I find offensive is that one manufacturer tries to say their parts cannot be used on anothers product. I don't think they have any say. -Michael

Here is the problem: http://www.vigil.aero/wp-content/uploads/Vigil-II-users-manual-II.0.6.pdf The law said to install and use according to the instructions of the AAD manufacturer and rig manufacturer, not their competitors. -Michael

How long was that closing loop? Mark Hmmm. Good question. The rig arrived opened. The owner had just purchased it and opened it so I could supervise some of his repacks. We installed the correct loop and packed it together before I packed it so it could be jumped. I took my length out of the javelin manual so I never actually measured that one. If there had been a seal on it and I had found it I would have made a phone call. -Michael

Funny that this thread comes up. This was just found inside a rig. For old school rigs I think things like this could be fine but with newer rigs and their small grommets you don't want to run the risk of turning the user into a test pilot. I err on the side of caution and always install a fresh cypres loop. I like the cypres washer and cord because it is approved for everything. Otherwise I would need cypres washers and cord in addition to the vigil specific stuff. -Michael

I tried designing one for my flattop pro 2 years ago. I tried active damping using first high speed steppers then brushless motors using a high current controller. I used an arduino with a sparkfun embedded gyro. I never managed to jump it but it became abundantly clear is that it's not as easy a task as you would assume. Even small movements over-corrected make the video jiggly. I gave up quickly. Not enough hours in the day. Ultimately my idea was to build a platform for my RC helicopter but the quad-rotors really started "taking off" with chinese stabilizers on crap cameras so there was no point. -Michael

This year we dropped DVDs (available on request only) for 4gb memory sticks imprinted with our logo. They're much faster to write and the comebacks have reached pretty much 0 versus about 20% with the DVDs. The final product I believe is 720p mp4 but I'd have to check what profile is being used. -Michael

I have many years behind me as a photographer and later started to skydive. To this day I still have trouble believing that you can get acceptable quality with these action cams. The technical specs make it like running an old school 110 instant camera. Truth be told the gopros are now a $400 item and the quality of video is not far off from the trusty old CX-100. I've been battling with the idea of jumping ship for a while now. Stills will never be able to compete, especially when you're on a sunset load but the question really becomes one of "good enough". This year I stooped to a new low and downgraded the SLR to a rebel series camera for the weight savings. I still get compliments about the shots I've done but deep down I know they would have been better with the 5D. I just don't know how long my neck will put up with a heavy camera setup... One other thing I've done is run the Rebel with MagicLantern to get all but the freefall video. The quality is noticeably better but how do you get paid for this? At the end of the day as an outside video guy I can only spend $$$ on the better gear for personal satisfaction. -Michael

2 things: a) About those ears. A number of the manuals say you can just ram them in or neatly fold them. I've always preferred using neat folds and the closing loop length is decidedly shorter than that used by a local rigger who frequently has a bad case of the wrinkles. b) About the chance of lockup, one point many people forget about is closing loop lubrication. It says that you are supposed to lube up with the cypres silicone. Maybe I like my loops too juicy but many times I feel that other riggers entirely neglected this step or if they did it was only a little dab on the tip of the loop. Added bonus, I also find that putting silicone on your closing loop makes it easier to pass through the cutter. -Michael

I bought the T5i. The only complaint I have is that the autofocus during video isn't very accurate. Stills are quite acceptable. The flip-out screen is quite nice when trying to get shots in a crowded plane. I'm not too partial on the amount of time it takes in live view but being able to touch someone's face on the flip-out screen and have it auto-focus is handy when they're behind you. -Michael

Keep in mind UPT sees, assembles and repacks more rigs than any one rigger will ever work on. When they say they don't recommend it to me it means don't do it because when properly assembled it's not a problem. Personally I've always checked the l-bars on 15-20 odd rigs and have never found a single one that had a loose screw. -Michael

You can discount the issue and say to move on but that isn't likely to change anything. I don't disagree with what Mike is saying but if you really want to make changes you have to understand why the procedures exist and find ways to have them changed. -Michael

I'm not talking about jump run at all. I'm talking about the operating procedures that can be implemented to save wear on the aircraft that unlike H+P do not have an impact on safety. The faster you're travelling, the more wear per cycle on the flaps, and the stress goes up exponentially. I'll use the Navajo since I know it: vf1 is at 180 vfe is at 160. Jump run is at 100. We climb at 120. 1) set 15 for takeoff (0mph). 2) set 0 for climb (120mph) 3) set 15 for h+p run (100mph) 4) set 0 of climb (100mph) 5) set 15 for altitude jump run (100mph) 6) set 0 for descent 7) set 40 for landing (starting at 160mph) 8) set 0 for taxi Looking to save wear, do items 3&4 save that much? How about adjusting the SOP for item 7 so the pilot plans the approach to slow the plane to 120 before dropping flaps? Remove 8 and replace it with 1. I'm willing to bet the wear savings of adjusting 7 and 8 would exceed the added wear of item 3&4. There are better ways to save a buck. -Michael

I guess you'd have to choose between the extra maintenance of dealing the a high number of gear cycles or the extra fuel required to fly the entire time with the gear down! There are many SOP items that can be adjusted to minimize the wear on components without impacting safety. Why drop your flaps at 1 knot below Vfe? Wear per cycle goes up exponentially with the speed you're travelling. 1 extra cycle of the flaps on jump run adds wear. Deploying flaps for landing well below Vfe subtracts some wear so a flapless H+P may not be the best place to try and save a buck, especially since lives, tails and airframes are more expensive than grease and flap parts. Obviously these examples don't apply to a 182 :) -Michael

Just curious, but what the heck do you do for a 5000fpm descent? I've only been back down in turbo piston planes (PA31) but 4000fpm is a chore and often flown in the middle of the yellow. -Michael

A good point, and the same could be made about running a retractable gear airplane as well. The maintenance procedure of the aircraft needs to be adjusted for the use. The gear on ours gets inspected and lubed significantly more frequently than the standard guidelines. Mental image of the NTSB investigator looking at the wreckage saying well at least the flap motors were not worn out. -Michael

The answer often comes down to the way you describe the device. Using terms and expressions like aviation certified device or approved for use in aviation goes a long way. I bring the little vigil card with me. Words you don't want to use would be like explosive cutter or pyrotechnic device. Instead something like sealed electronic cutter would be much better. Ultimately AAD manufacturers have gone to lengths to ensure the devices are safe and approved on aircraft but communicating the finer details are complicated for a screener in a rush. Less info is more! -Michael

It's hard to say exactly what you'll get with "better". I have found in the past that fixing the trim on a canopy that's a few inches out just makes it fly nicer. Sometimes it's in the openings, sometimes in the flare. You should even get a better glide. It's like driving a 20 year old car and a brand new one. -Michael

I've had great luck with them as have hundreds of other skydivers. I wouldn't exactly specify a need to "save" their reputation as in general they do have a really good track record and reputation. Simple fact of the matter is that not all customers can be satisfied no matter what a company does. -Michael