captain_stan

"Some people" are liable to say anything. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Are you saying that a canopy's performance is not a measure of how safe it will be to use? Or that a canopy's safety cannot be measured in terms of performance?

Gosh, if you are that easily offended, then maybe you’d be more comfortable in a gardening or quilting forum. Having been personally characterized in an uncomplimentary way in this thread, I still don’t see the justification in that kind of over-dramatization. I have exchanged some pleasant PMs with those on both sides of this issue. To the credit of those who feel strongly, I’ve seen nothing that qualifies as a personal attack, and I don’t see any negligence in the moderators for keeping hands-off this thread, so far. Since the concensus here doesn't put "bad luck" in the OPs top 3 reasons, I'm not sure this discussion even belongs in this thread or this forum. It's beginning to sound like a Speaker's Corner Forum thread for believers and non-believers. To which, BTW, I have nothing to contribute.

Last time I asked Sunpath about doing that, they said that would be an unapproved alteration. Illegal in the US, but maybe not elsewhere. BTW, The type-17 chest-straps are thicker than the type-8 whcih are still in use, and therefore require a different method of folding or wrapping or else they won't thread easiely through the friction adapter. I haven't yet seen a type-8 chest-strap on a Javelin that lacks the fold-back

It is #1. Safety is a component of performance. If it opens consistently well, flies well in turbulence, responds well to control input, lands softly, etc., we'd say it performs well. OTOH, if it isn't safe to fly, we'd say that's not very good performance.

What I'm getting from this thread is that most of the rest of us who also know how to pack don't seem to dread it enough to be willing to accept any trade-off involved in trying to make it easier. So if you're gonna cut holes, it will only be a marketable idea if (1) no performance is lost (2) it's cost effective (3) It doesn't create more work. I saw a guy use a vacuum cleaner to suck the air out of a ZP canopy. It seemed like a birlliant idea to me, but not worth the effort in dragging the vacuum cleaner around the DZ. When I think about the ram-air canopy, the slider, ZP fabric, micro lines, eliptical canopies, cross-braced canopies, RDS, slinks, etc., I can't agree that the parachute industry is limited by convention. PD responded to that issue by developing the Silhouette. Then it's time to put your hot-knife where your mouth is. If you want to be the next Jalbert, you're gonna have to get your hands dirty. As skeptical as we might seem, I think your audience will be facinated to know the results; I know I will be.

Ouch! Actually in my 600+ jumps since I've gone to elliptical mains, I've chopped 2 spinners, neither of which was the result of bad luck. They were the result of bad body position or bad packing with an unforgiving canopy model that is known for it's marginal openings. Is that humble enough for you? Based on my experience, I don't think that either of these line-twist incidents would have resulted in a cut-away under one of my old rectangular canopies. BTW, my reserve is not elliptical. Again, those are your words, not mine. We all have a capacity to fail--let's not blame luck when we do so.

I've never deployed a round canopy, but I'll let you know next time I have a partial inversion on my ram-air. That doesn't come close to equalling the reliability of modern ram-air main canopies in an everyday sport environment. Should we be surprised when the military doesn't have a clue? Do you think maybe it was inherent to the design of the system?

I've already answered that, John. Any one of those could be the subject for an entire thread. Based on the choices that the average jumper makes and the way he treats his equipment, I'm surprised those things don't happen more often. We seem to have much better "luck" when we deploy our reserves, even though we depend on these to perform well in the worst possible conditions. Let's just say that I'm willing to bet my life that "bad luck" will not prevent my reserve from opening. And my main? In all of my 1400 jumps on square canopies, I have not yet experienced a malfunction. Lately I've chosen an elliptical canopy that is much less reliable because of the way it was designed (human factor again). You won't hear me blame "bad luck" when it spins-up and I have to chop. I'm confident enough in my own packing and maintenance of my reserve that I'll tollerate that risk. ***I think you're fooling yourself. Your disapproval is duly noted, John.

But that is indeed the case, John, and that's where we differ in opinion. I certainly expect to have a main-canopy malfunction anytime, but believe that when it happens, it will be a result of human failure. If I believed that, even when the manufacturers had done a good job and the user pulled at a safe altitude with a stable body position, I'd never pack another reserve, and I'd quit jumping.

Could you be any more condescending? I couldn't be any less interested in what you think I "should" do. A belief system that involves "bad luck" is not a prerequisite for emergency preparedness. Those are your words, not mine, so please don't project that concept onto me. I'm worried enough about malfunctions, but "Bad luck" is not on the list of things I fear. Nobody performs perfectly, and that's why we have malfunctions. I try to maintain my equipment, pack carefully, and keep a stable body position. I carry a reserve and rehearse my emergency procedures in case I personally fail in these priorities, not becaue I believe in "bad luck." If such an emergencey even existed, would a "bad luck" malfunction require some higher degree of preparation? I think that crediting "bad luck" as a cause for malfunctions distracts us from paying better attention to the real causes. In my experience as a coach course director and instructor certification course director, I have never seen any sylibus reference to "bad luck," nor have I ever been compelled to teach my students about "bad luck." And in all the incident reports I've read, I've never yet seen "bad luck" listed as the cause. My understanding of your post is that you've chosen to believe in "bad luck" as some supernatural force that can cause a malfunction. That belief is illogical to me and minimizes the relevance of real-life factors that result in malfunctions and other incidents. I think we should be trying to eliminate human failure, while realizing that we will always be vulnerable to this risk.

I think that there are only 3 reasons: 1) Faulty equipment (design or maintenance) 2) Faulty packing 3) Poor body position I think that any malfunction can be catagorized into one of these causes. Edited to add: If you will eliminate these three conditions, then you won't have to fear "bad luck."

Oh yeah, one other thing: The engineers who designed your canopy didn't intend for air to be leaking out while you are snivelling at line-stretch waiting for it to inflate. Any such alteration may change the opening characteristics. Let us know how that works out.

Yeah. Any air that leaks out through any part of the cells must be replaced by more air coming in the nose vents. As more air than "normal" must enter the vents, that leaves less air to flow over the top and bottom skin to create lift. You are free to experiment with your canopy by cutting holes in it. Can I watch? If it's a big enough canopy, then maybe you can still land it alright. You or the manufacturer could develop some valves that you could open during packing and close for flight, but the market of people who DON'T KNOW HOW TO PACK ZP is very small so there is not much demand. I reccommend learning how to pack or buying an F-111 canopy.

An internet search should help you come up with an exploded view from a parts book. These are often helpful in revealing how a specific machine is assembled.

That's hilarious. Actually, a #8 grommet (slider) will fit over a #3 1/2 or #4 Rapide link even after a cover is installed. Yeah, they work OK. Last time I took mine off to replace the bumpers, I made-up some soft links & never looked back. BTW, for those of us who mfr. our own links, the soft variety are much easier and cheaper.

In round numbers, they're 21 inches. Measure the webbing from bottom to top, not including the rings; it may look slightly shorter if no tension is applied.

If that's a joke, it's a bad one. I wonder how many jumps it would take to equal that kind of wear on the fabric coating. I would rather live with a little discoloration than subject a canopy to that kind of abuse.

That has been my experience also when leaveing my midwest DZ to jump in AZ. Because of the discolored white ZP fabric, I finally wiped it off carefully with a clean damp rag and laid it outdoors in the shade to dry. This resulted in a slight improvement, but I don't think the fabric was ever quite as white after that. A small sacrafice to make for the great winter weather in AZ.

Disclaimer: Referring to the 7-cell reserve in the broadest terms without getting into exception, variations, or fine details: The pro-pack can be flaked over the shoulder and then laid down to be further straightened and dressed, or it can be done from start to finish on the floor (hopefully not the ground). The exclusive feature of a pro pack is that when fully flaked, the L and R halves will be a mirror image of each other, and each group of 8 lines (A-D) are divided in half—4 L & 4 R separated slightly from each other on either side of the canopy’s center. The nose will be on the floor with the tail on top. It’s a matter of personal choice, and can have the same result. If a rigger “tosses” it down, I hope he’ll continue to dress it until it is neat and symmetrical with well-defined folds. You are referring to a flat pack, which may be required by the manufacturer of the canopy or container. This is becoming less common, especially in sport rigs. A flat pack, AKA side-pack or stack-pack is done entirely on the floor with the canopy laid on one end-cell, and the opposite end cell on top of the “stack” of cells. The lines are gathered in groups of 8 (A-D). The stack is then folded by one of several methods, but the common factor is that the stack of cells is not split apart, nor are the groups of 8 lines divided further, but rather stacked one on top of the other with equal fabric on either side. The result can be very neat, but will not be a bilaterally symmetrical, mirror image from L to R. Some of the canopies L side will end up in the R half of the pack & vise-versa. This method doesn’t lend itself as well to the more complex shape of molar-bags now commonly used. With 29 years in the sport, surely you've seen some old-timers packing their mains in this manner.

Experiences like this are a good reason not to send payment until the gear has been inspected, or to buy from a dealer who has a proven reputation for "satisfaction guaranteed." I've wasted a lot of time inspecting gear for myself and others only to have to return it, because it didn't meet the seller's description. I sure hope you come out alright on this transaction. Edited to add: At least in my experience, most of the sellers didn't know their own equipment well enough to be aware of damage and wear; so far they have been agreeable enough when I pointed it out. Your case sound more like outright deception.

Yeah, my posts went off-topic. I was trying to understand how some of you guys are packing, and it took awhile to get a clear answer. Thanks for explaining your technique. I may always be puzzled why some choose to stop flaking a canopy before going all the way to the outside of the end cell and include the stabilizer and it's corresponding rib in the same stack of flakes. When I do that, I count to 4 (7-cell) or 5 (9-cell), hence our difference. That way the number of flakes corresponds to the number of lines, not to the number of cells. After all, these are not 6- or 8-cell canopies. The 7-cell square has 8 lines in each row and the 9-cell square has 10. I teach my students to account for all the lines, grouping them in 4s (7-cell) or 5s (9-cell) and flaking the canopy from the center all the way to (and including) the stabilizers. I hope The Russian Rocket got some good answers to his Triathlon question. Any more discussion about packing may be better served by a new thread. If anyone has more comments on this, you're welcome to PM me, and I'll start a new thread, taking whatever heat goes along w/ that. Blues, Stan

If you read my posts, you'll see that I haven't disagreed with that; I'm just not sure what it means. Before reading this thread, I'd never heard of it. You can read in the thread that I've asked several times without getting a description of this procedure. From the answers I've gotten (or not gotten), I'm not even sure those who posted are all describing the same thing. Yeah, some people get defensive when I ask a question they can't answer very well, but I don't see how that makes it a bad question or how that constitutes a rant. Actually I have been taught things that are counterproductive and even dangerous. And I've been taught to do things in very different manners by different people. In these cases when there is reason to question whether a technique is correct and appropriate, we have a choice. My choice is to try to learn more through research from more knowledgable and reliable sources, or even by reading different opinions on a forum and deciding for myself which makes the most sense. I haven't yet accumulated unough knowledge to lose interest in learning. I don't see how mindlessly clinging to the first thing we are taught as being a better option. My students are welcome to ask me why I teach a specific method; I'm not threatened by that, and they deserve a good explanation. If I can't do that, I'm not a very good instructor. And if they are ever asked why they use a specific technique, I hope I've taught them well enought that they can give a real answer instead of the alternative (I won't offend you by repeating it).

What's the point of locating them if you're not going to organize and group them together anyway? Are you just making sure they didn't fall off the canopy during the jump? You really lost me there. I wanna ask why you keep these lines separate from the others, but I already asked that and the answer was "That's how I was taught." I think I'm getting the picture of how you guys are packing, so at least that part of the mystery is answered. Is it safe then to assume that the reason you all don't use the true pro-pack is that you weren't taught to do that? Maybe someday they will want to learn to pro-pack. But more likely they will say "No, that's not how I was taught."

I don't think you answered it. But regardless, threre's no need to apologize. I don't know why you'd think that. The question I'm trying to get answered is "What is the 3 + 1 method." Of the people who use the 3 + 1 method and posted in this thread, no one has explained to me what it actually is. Does anyone even know? Why anyone would chose to pack that way is the rhetorical question, because I don't think anyone in this thread knows why they do. If this is some bastard version of a pro pack, as I suspect, I'm wondering why anyone wouldn't go the extra distance and flake out all of the fabric and organize all of the lines for a true pro pack. And if this 3 + 1 pack is actually more complex and time-comsuming than a true pro-pack, it's an even greater mystery to me. If you guys are gonna cut corners, it would make more sense to just trash-pack; it's faster and works quite well. Evidently that's my answer. I don't think I'd take much comfort in that. I'm not gonna take responsibility for anyone's feelings of inadequacy. You can't teach people something if they are convinced they already know it. Questioning an established practice and suggesting that there might be a bettery way is a means to cause people to think about what they do and why they do it. Those who are rational enough to believe there might be more to learn will seek that knowledge. At least on some level my questions about this 3 + 1 packing method are my attempt to learn something about it. Regardless of my bias, I may be surprised by the answers to my posts. But so far, I'm not. BTW, If you are ever interested in learning more about packing, much information is available on that topic.

I don't think that qualifies as an answer. Why would a competent packer NOT group this one together with it's other 3 "mates" in the same row (A thru D) and on the same side (L or R)? Does it need to stay separate? Why? If so, where do you place these "other" 8 lines in the pack? BTW, none of the A-lines are connected to the stabilizers. Are these exempt from the "3 + 1 rule?" Yeah, I know. These are rhetorical questions. But it's just too good of an opportunity to make my point.