riggerpaul

And in the end that is all that really matters. To the rest of you who would question "MY" decisions, Its "MY" money. Its "MY" canopy. Ive told you why I wont buy a hybrid. It is the same reason I wont buy an origional PD (the canopy not every canopy from PD). The only f-111 canopy I have or will ever puchase is a reserve. That may also be going away as soon as a designer comes up with a zp or zpx reserve. At the end of the day though, its "MY" money, "MY" canopy and "MY" choice and I really dont have to explain myself to anybody because it, in no way, affects anyone other than me. Done with this thread. First off, try to calm down a bit. Nobody attacked you. I never said that you weren't completely entitled to buy what you wanted for your reasons. You absolutely are. Still, your statement about non-ZP fabrics was one particular extreme view that was presented as fact. A little balance was in order, if only to give the original poster a full answer to his question. He deserves that, don't you think? The fact that your reserve is still made of a non-ZP fabric clearly illustrates that non-ZP fabrics actually out perform ZP fabrics in certain areas. There have been reserves available that use ZP. They were not great successes. If ZP was the end-all parachute fabric, it would be used in reserves. But it is not, and thinking of it that way just isn't quite correct.

You are oversimplifying things. Much closer to true would be that there are areas of a canopy where non-ZP fabrics will have less of a life than ZP fabrics. It is also true that there are areas of a canopy where you should see no appreciable degradation in fabric performance even with a non-ZP fabric. Using a non-ZP fabric in these areas should not shorten the working life of the canopy to any significant degree. I have a long time customer/friend who has put many many hundreds of jumps on his Silhouette over many many years. It is all he wants and expects from a canopy. It doesn't scare him, or hurt him, and he can land it gracefully in any condition in which he jumps. In his opinion, it is the best canopy in the world. Your mileage may vary.

+1 But I'll add that the Pulse is possibly the next gen Silhouette. If you have the opportunity to demo a Pulse, it might be a good thing. But, barring that, getting a new copy of the parachute you already know and love shouldn't be a bad thing. Though the Pilot and Sabre2 canopies are wonderful in their own rights, I would also point out that they are all ZP, which will not make packing either of them as easy as a Pulse or Silhouette would be. Brand new ZP can be really difficult to handle, though it will get easier after some jumps. But everyone I know who has tried them say that Silhouettes and Pulses are easy to pack even when brand new.

If you look at the USPA website (www.uspa.org), in the "Quick Links" portion of the page, you will find a link called "GM Credential Verification". You need an account and a password to get access. A Group Member dz gets that info, and can look up a jumper's credentials. I don't know all of the ways that you can search. But I do recall at least one instance where a jumper showed up at our boogie with no credentials and a long story. Bottom line, they found him in the database with a license that had expired a number of years ago. So, they keep the records for a long time, and you don't need to know your numbers for a dz to find you. (Provided, of course, you are in there in the first place.) (So, Lindsey, the licenses expire, but as harmless said, the number is yours for life.)

Thanks for the quick reply! This statement is really quite different from the earlier one, and I am much more pleased with it. I never expected you to cover obvious mishandling. Still, I hope you limit the claiming mishandling to obvious mistreatment, such as the screws you mention. If, for example, the unit has cable problems, I hope you won't be claiming misuse when both the owner and the rigger say that the device was handled properly. In other words, I hope you will give the customer every benefit of the doubt if it is at all unclear as to the cause of a problem. One of the reasons I have supported and helped to sell your AADs over the years was the apparent intent to give the customer a high quality, more fully featured product at an improved price. It is essential to me that you continue to set this as a goal in the longer term with superior maintenance and support policies. Again, thanks for the quick response! -paul

I hope you are thinking about changing this. The CYPRES people include any required repairs and adjustments in their price. When I got my ARGUS, it was a word of mouth advertising point that the service cost was expected to be significantly lower than for a CYPRES. I don't really think that $125 meets that prediction, especially if required repairs are not included.

Are any of the aircraft that were recently grounded flying jumpers again?

Not much of a stretch really. Watch people cock their pilot chute and pull and pull and pull on it till you swear they'll pull the hackey off. Then without checking to see if it's cocked, they look at the window to see if the mark is there. They know it needs to be cocked but haven't a clue how it actually works. That's just one example. I think most would understand how a pilot chute works and if they didn't they would be wiling to learn. My point was more about the not caring remark. Just because one may not know something, doesn't mean they care less. I've got to go with hookitt on this one. You'd be amazed at how many people are looking at damage and wear that scares the shit out of me. Then they calmly come by and ask if they should be concerned yet. While material can be taught, it is difficult to ensure that it is retained. You may very well be different, but I see plenty of what hookitt talks about.

Very interesting. Though I don't pilot airplanes anymore, I've read my share of airplane accident reports. Of coure, I read all the skydiving accident reports that I can. I do notice that I have different reactions to the two different reports. I've never really wondered why until now. My theory is that since the content of the two different reports is so different, my reactions are similarly different. Aviation accident reports are usually quite detailed, and generally include a clear list of causes. It is usually pretty easy to look at the list and note that each one is something I would never likely have done. It is also quite likely that the conditions of the flight are such that you figure that you would never have made that flight in the first place. Skydiving accidents are, IMHO, vastly different. The causes are not usually as clear, and it is often a lot easier to see how one could get oneself into a similar situation. There's a lot more left to think about without clear explanation. There seems to be a lot less separating me from the accident in the skydiving reports. Skydiving reports are a lot "closer to home", and get a different quality of attention.

What's your weight? Is that right out of the shower, or out the aircraft door?

NWFlyer just asked why you are posting again about the same thing. That's a question, and it invites more conversation on the thread. But you don't seem to think she should ask that question. Who is policing whom?

Everyone I know just calls it Sriracha, the last word of the name on the bottle. Wonderful stuff, and even regular groceries carry it where I live.

I want to be sure I am clear. They sent you a new full spool, but they BILLED you for 1 yard?

(Not responding to timmyfitz. Just posting after his.) In a ParaGear order of mine I ordered a particular hook knife. When the order arrived, it contained the wrong knife. When I called, they were simply great. They acknowledged their mistake right away, and immediately said they'd ship the correct knife and I didn't even need to return the wrong one. If the immediate apology was all that was lacking from the OP's interaction, I don't think it is fair to charge the whole organization with poor customer support. Don't forget that they are people too. Maybe the person handling it was having a bad day, and was only able at the last chance to add the apology that the OP thought should have come sooner. Maybe that person's mother just died, you don't really know. Put the shoe on the other foot. I am sure we have all had a day when it was all we could do to hold it together at all. I have always gotten great service from them, and I am happy to stand up and say so.

I don't see a tandem rig in the photos. In addition simply packing and closing a Tandem rig without an AAD does not mean it's unairworthy in any way. If it's used for Tandems in the USA, then there would be a violation of an FAR, but not in airworthiness. ................................................................................................. Holy thread drift Batman! .. since the original picture does not include a tandem. Closing a tandem reserve without an AAD may not re illegal, but it is certainly a waste of time, because you cannot jump it without an AAD. Similarly, packing a tandem - without an AAD - would be frowned upon in Canada, because CSPA's BSRs require AADs on all student and tandem reserves. Maybe not illegal in Canada, because the Canadian Air Regulations say very little about parachutes. But Transport Canada Enforcement will nail your ass to the courtroom wall if you hurt someone while ignoring standard industry practice. It seems to me that you could use a tandem rig for a solo - no student/passenger - jump without an AAD. The definition of "tandem parachute system" in 105.3 says it includes the harness for a "passenger parachutist". If you aren't using the second harness, then the system does not fit the definition of "tandem parachute system".

Even when flying a UK registered plane in the UK, as discussed in a UK publication? Wow. I didn't realize the FAA was really that bad! Now really... He begins with "But when dealing with the FAA..." He also pointed out that he is talking about rules in the USA, "These are U.S. rules, of course." If you are flying a UK registered aircraft, in the UK, then you are not dealing with the FAA. How clear does he have to make it?

Who said that you would be eligible for a C license simply because you have 200 jumps. 200 jumps is just one of the requirements. Maybe you'll need more that 200 jumps to complete the others. 1 in 8 for the accuracy is only if you complete ALL the requirements in 200 jumps. If you did a lot of hop'n'pops, you might not have the required 60 minutes of freefall time. Or can that requirement be ignored as well?

I am sorry Paul but you just do not understand the nature of the beast called "competition". Besides seasoned swoop competitors know when they have messed up and know taking a donut is better than the alternative. The problem lies in people new to competition may not have necessarily figured this out yet. I know one of my close calls in competitive swooping occurred when I tried to salvage a bad approach at the gates. Not only did I put my safety on the line, but I put the safety of a volunteer judge also on the line. Fortunately I pulled my head out of my ass and learned from this error and never repeated it. But unless you understand the "competitive" nature, you will never understand why some people do what they do. There is a classic line from the 1960s Grand Prix racing movie where one of the principle drivers tells someone else "After an accident when other drivers are lifting off of the accelerator, I am applying full gas". This is not the first time someone has been hurt/killed in a swoop competition and it won't be the last time either. But the vast majority of the competitive swoopers are NOT killing themselves. So I don't understand this desire by some to rush out and call for swooping to be banned (not saying this is what paul is calling for). Please people, shoot me before you force me to live in your over controlled over protected world. Last time I checked, none of us comes out of here alive. Did the racing world ban racing when Aryton Senna was killed? Did the racing world ban racing when Dale Earnhardt was killed? I understand competition well enough. Some have suggested banning. I am not doing that. But I want us to take a good look at how we might make it safer than it is. When auto racing has its tragedies, they step back a moment and consider if they can make the car protect the driver a little bit better. Full harness systems, roll cages, better head protection, explosion resistant fuel storage, etc, are all responses to tragedy. Not every tragedy results in an improvement to safety, but overall, over time, their sport has gotten safer. This is because they don't just throw up their hands and say there's no was to preserve competition if we make it safer. We still have spectacular accidents, and a lot of the time, people walk away from them. Sometimes, despite all efforts, someone dies. It makes them all unhappy, and it keeps them thinking about how to improve safety without eliminating the competitive spirit of the thing. Our response, so far, has been to do NOTHING. I find that at the least sad, and at the other extreme, possibly negligent. Changing the rules a little does not have to completely take the edge off the competition, not if we think hard about the changes that might be made. Maybe we allow X number of aborts in the novice competition, a different number of aborts that include some sort of penalty in the intermediate, and either no aborts or bigger penalties in the open class. Unlike racing, where the cars can arguably be made safer, we cannot really make the canopies protect the pilots. The best we can do is to take some of the pressure to perform in the face of an unrecoverable error. I also said that these responses can be different in different venues. RedBull can organize their competition any way they like. But, in the case of national clubs and such, whose primary goals include promoting safety, well, they should be able to make some rules that contribute to the overall safety of the competition. Maybe it is time to separate "professional" competitions from "amateur" competitions. Have whatever rules you like in "professional" events. But in the "amateur" events, there is no reason not to err a bit on the side of having people remain alive. I don't say mine is the only possible approach. I have just put out a few possibilities. I am sure there are lots of other things that might help, and maybe you would find then less onerous. But, using your example of the auto racing world, we should not just say "oh well, that's competition". We should be responding to the event with our best efforts to make it less deadly.

Redbull can organize their competitions any way they please. Their goals are not usually the same as the goals of national clubs and other organizing bodies. For instance, here's what the USPA says about their purpose, Competition is third on the list with safety being at the lead. I think it is in the best interest of the sport to come up with a manner of competing that does not necessarily put one in the corner where the most serious injuries and death lurk. I am all for celebrating the accomplishments of the people who work hard to be the best in the sport. I'd just rather not have to celebrate them posthumously if that can be avoided. Redbull or NASCAR or other commercial organizations can do what they like. I have no problem with that. But organizations where the stated purposes begin with safety should be able to arrange it so that competitions do not necessarily multiply the risks already inherent in the activity.

(not replying to captain1976) First off, I don't want to ban swooping. I've seen lots of swooping, and it can be beautiful. With proper training and respect for the realities of it, it can be done fairly safely. On the other hand, it can also be extremely dangerous when undertaken by those who are not properly prepared. But I want to put that discussion aside for a moment, What I want to discuss is the idea of competitions for swooping, their organization, and their execution. As I see it, competitions as we know them today change the game in an extreme fashion. People who talk about how safe swooping can be invariably mention that you can usually abort high enough to be safe when you realize you've made a mistake, and in non-competitive swooping, that seems to be true. But with the pressure of competition as we do it today, if you decide to abort on a bad approach, you are penalized severely because you get a zero for the round. To me, this seems to encourage a kind of risk taking that is an invitation to disaster. And I wonder if we can reorganize the competitions so as to not invite this sort of behavior. Maybe we should change things so that you have a number of attempts, and you select a certain number of these to count. Bailing would not immediately cause you to lose because you get another attempt. Of course, you can still find yourself "in the corner" when you've aborted enough times that all the remaining jumps must count, but I believe there must be a way to minimize even that risk if we try hard enough to come up with a new scheme for the organization of competition. So, what about it? Does competition as we now perform it excessively add to the risk by exerting undue pressure to make every jump count? Is it possible to reorganize our competitions so that we minimize the tendency to throw all caution to the wind?

So everybody knows, g3's new rig has the modified, "Y" shaped RSL where there is a separate leg of the RSL that supplies the Collins function. On this rig, the left side cutaway cable was assembled properly, going through the loop on the end of the new separate leg of the RSL. The problem in the photo was that g3 had moved the other leg of the RSL so that the white lanyard was exposed. He now knows that all that stuff should remain safely under the cover flap.

Is there a real reserve in the reserve container? That bit of white RSL lanyard should not be visible. Be sure to have a rigger take a look at it before the rig is jumped.

I have seen at least one that had one side of Type IV and one side of Type III. Type IV is a square weave tape and it is a lot stronger than Type III. In a smaller size you'll often see Type IV used for the RSL lanyard. But as slurp56 says, typically, you'll see 2 layers of Type III tape.

In another thread you said you are 5'11", 155 lbs. That puts you at about 175+ out the door, maybe more. Don't cheat on this. It is too important. If anything, overestimate your weight. Consider, with your build, you might be wearing weights soon. Think about what you might weigh out the door with those weights on. Bearing all this in mind, I wonder if this rig will be too small for you at this stage of the game. Don't let the tail wag the dog here. Don't fit your needs to the available rigs. Be realistic with how big your canopies should be to safely start your jumping career. And wait for the right rig to come along. (Is your profile current? 35 jumps total? Is this your first rig?)

There are pictures in the manual. I have a manual dated May 2005. The picture on page 17 shows the RSL guide rings on the left side of the top flap, Page 18 has a picture with the RSL installed going over the left shoulder. Page 22 has a couple of pictures that are ambiguous. Page 25 has a picture of the 3 Rings assembled. You can see a bit of the RSL ring at the top of the picture of the left 3 Ring.