polarbear

An excellent post. I'd like to second BIGUN's request. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

I've done a fair amount of swooping in Albuquerque, which is at 5000 ft., as well as Perris and Eloy (~1500 ft.), and a little bit at sea level. My opinion is that obviously, you are faster the higher the density altitude. As far as distance goes, I think it depends to some degree on the wingloading you have on your particular canopy. What I find is that if I am at or above maximum efficiency, my swoops get shorter with higher density altitude. If I am below max efficiency, the distance doesn't seem to change much. Just my .02 "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

Hmmm....this still seems strange to me, but it appears Airtec has seen the same phenomenon. I wonder, though...they say that the portion of loop above the cutter has to 'weave its way through the grommets' after an AAD activation. Wouldn't it have to do that anyway after a manual activation? "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

What got locked up? If the pilot chute material got locked up under the flaps, then AAD activation wouldn't be the only issue...it would happen if you pulled the ripcord. If the fix is to move the cutter between the pilot chute cap and the #3 flap, that indicates to me that what got locked up is the portion of closing loop that would be between the old cutter location (under flap #1) and the new location (under flap #3). Are they saying that that piece of closing loop got pinched somewhere with enough force to hold down that massive PC? How did they determine this? Incidentally, I've been having trouble getting the side flaps of mirages with the new cutter location to pack up tightly...they keep coming out wrinkly. Is anyone else having that problem WITH THE NEW MODIFIED RIGS? "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

I'm also a bit fuzzy on how extra closing loop could cause it to lock up, even on small containers. I'm especially fuzzy on it since in the Mirage owner's manual they specify a closing loop length for every size of reserve, then say that the loop has to be +/- 1/4 inch from that length. That's 1/2 inch tolerance! If extra loop causes the reserve to lock up, how much extra loop is necessary? Mirage pilot chutes are seriously stiff...something would have to get pinched pretty tight to hold one down. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

Harvey was actually a model...if you've read parachutist, you've seen him! He is the guy wearing the camera helmet in the newton ring sight ads. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

Harvey definitely was from the old school...I think his D-license number was 412. He stopped logging long ago but had several thousand jumps. He was still an active instructor, rigger, and jumper at our DZ. Harvey gave many years to the sport and obviously loved it. I take comfort in knowing he died in the air, working a student, doing what he loved. Blue Skies, Harv "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

This is not a sport for people who don't see the dangers. This sport is completely intolerant of ignorance. Why do we base the progression and enjoyment of our sport on them? I would ask, is the right course of action to prevent them from jumping small canopies, or jumping at all? Some people just HAVE to find a way to do themselves in... Certainly a good point. Not everyone does want to swoop. The problem we are addressing, however, (landing injuries) is BY FAR due to low turns, mostly intentional low turns. If the underlaying purpose of the program is to reduce these injuries, shouldn't the program address this type of landing? I would also say that most people who understand canopy flight will not get into the higher wingloadings (say maybe 1.6 or higher?) without being a little bit of a swooper. EVERYONE who goes into the really high wingloading range (say maybe 1.9 or higher) is going to swoop. In addition, the canopies designed to fly in these ranges are not well suited to PRO accuracy (yes, I know it can be done, but usually not without either popping up and dropping in, hitting the deck and slidding in, or jumping in higher winds). Doesn't it seem that a swoop pilot wanting to fly a swooping canopy should have to pass a swooping test, if anything? "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

In general, I don't have a problem with this. My only issue is that such a system could be fair, or it could not be fair, depending on what the requirements and tests are. It could also be effective, or not be effective, depending on what the requirements are. I'd have to see the specifics of such a program to judge it. I've seen some fairly good ideas posted in various forums over the past few days. I've had friends hurt and killed, too...I've had my close calls...I'm not blind, nor do I desire more carnage. I also believe, however, very strongly in freedom of choice and I believe giving up such freedoms should be carefully considered. I believe if you are going to take part in a high risk endeavour, you'd better be aware of the principles of natural selection, because ultimately it is YOUR CHOICES that will save you, not other's rules. What this means is, I want to see a system that is fair to people that DO have talent, skill, good judgement, and who understand and accept the risks. I DO NOT want to see a poorly considered, quickly contrived system that is just a reactionary effort to address a recent accident, or to stave off federal regulations. I also DO NOT believe in a program based SOLELY on overall jump numbers, which is what some people are proposing. Such a system doesn't address the important factors, like actually having to be able to fly a canopy. It doesn't even address all of the fatalities that have already occurred. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

I'd agree with this. I've been trying to come up with a polite way to say it, but I can't. There is obviously good logic in what the USPA is trying to do...but there is also an element of this that is pretty reactionary, sometimes emotionally charged. I think it is important to remember that swooping and small canopies are ALWAYS dangerous...there is nothing safe about it, ever. Good judgement and skill are not just tools you either have or don't have...they are tools you must use EVERY time. Momentary lapses of judgement can occur at any time with dire consequences. Injuries associated with canopies are not a just simple matter of wingloading vs. experience...an effective regulation will need to be carefully thought out, not a reaction. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

I already stated my opinion...if you want to regulate canopies, base it on canopy experience and demonstrated canopy skill. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

And the speeder who gets a ticket from the cop just goes right on speeding, because he knows that the chance he meets that cop again and gets stopped by him is too small. Unpopular law, doesn't get followed or respected. I still say the same thing will happen if a canopy regulation doesn't make sense. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

Well, that's for sure. My point was it would be more wise-spread...I'll admit I haven't jumped at lots of DZs, but the only one I've ever been to that had anything close to a rule was a posted "No Hook Turn" sign. The S&TA executed a hook turn landing on the first load I saw. Some rule. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

You also see most people exceed the speed limits (often by a wide margin). Why? Because the cops usually don't give a damn unless somebody is obviously being unsafe while speeding. The letter of the law is the speed limit; the spirit of the law is just don't be unsafe. It's the spirit of the law that is usually followed becasue it MAKES MORE SENSE. I still say a regulation that is based solely on jump numbers makes little sense and is therefore doomed to failure. And if DZs were that keen on canopy rules, they would make their own. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

Performing a straight-in landing on a big canopy ONLY gives you experience doing that...It DOES NOT even come CLOSE to preparing you to fly a small elliptical, or to use combinations of different controls to acheive your goal, or to fly a small canopy in traffic, or to recognize the corner... I emphatically disagree with a jump number system. I believe a system based on jump numbers would also fall flat on it's face in no time. It WOULD NOT be fair to a large number of jumpers. Any way you cut it, this regulation will not be very popular. Unpopular rules have an uncanny ability for not being followed. If you want a rule to be followed, it must be fair, and overall jump numbers are NOT a fair system. Think about this...you obviously believe you are OK on the canopies you jump. What if the regulation says you can't fly the canopy you are on simply because your jump number is too low. Will you be prepared to smile and go shell out $$$ for a bigger canopy that you don't want to fly in the first place? Can you do that, or will you grumble about it being unfair? What if there is a non-USPA dropzone right up the road that doesn't enforce the BSR...do they start getting some of your business? "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

I am really digging(note: that doesn't mean "digging out of the corner"!) my Samurai 150, loaded 1.4. I have put a little over 100 jumps on it now and really like it. It definitely flies smaller than the other canopies I have jumped (Stiletto 150, Crossfire 149, Vengeance 150). You might demo one, but I recommend a 150 because of it's quicker responses. You should definitely listen carefully to the people who have seen you fly...the rest of us haven't and can't really make an intelligent recommendation. BE CAREFUL! "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

I've been to a couple of DZ's that have swoop lanes set up with short punch dolls. They work great. I've also seen beach balls used. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

I don't see how changing line type would change the speed of the opening. Personally, to me it seems like Dacron is the best available for BASE applications. The reason I say that is because the wingloadings are usually lower (ie parasitic drag isn't as big a concern) and the shock absorbing effect of the dacron would be a plus. I would think switching to a different line type would give the benefit of lower pack volume, but would contribute to harder opening shock and may contribute to broken lines. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

I've actually heard that (on Strong rigs) only ONE of the uppers is needed for a safe exit and deployment. I do know that the upper connection consists of 5000 lb. proof load hardware, which is pretty stout. That being said, I'm not a tandem master, so take it with a grain of salt. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

Last year I wanted to order a new set of risers from RI. I asked them specifically about the toggles (which were 1/2 inch wide and were stiffer than other toggles); they said those toggles were standard on Talons. I recently repacked a reserve in a 1998 Talon 2; it had the same toggles on it (and they were original equipment). My Talon was built in July 1996 and the markings on it (the serial number label and the monogram on the ring cover) identified it as a Talon (NOT Talon 2). It is true that there were no observable differences between my Talon and my friend's '98 Talon 2. Perhaps RI didn't switch to the "Talon 2" moniker until sometime after they started making them? Again, I was very happy with the container. All pieces of equipment have small nuances that you won't like; the issues I had with the Talon were minor. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

Most of the local riggers in the area should have one. Local dropzones might also have one available. You can order them from several sources (most notably paragear, www.paragear.com). They are expensive, so try to find one to borrow. By the way, why the interest in rigging? Are you thinking of becoming a rigger or are you just looking to expand your knowledge? "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

I don't know many websites, but the parachute manual Vol I and II are always good sources. They are fairly dense and contain a lot of information, but if you put some time in, you can learn a lot. You could also read through the various owner's manuals, althouigh I find they often don't contain as much information as I would like. As far as packing reserves goes, probably the best thing to do is find a local rigger and sit in on some reserve repacks with them. I haven't found many written resources on packing reserves. I know Relative Workshop has a video that does a pretty good job of showing how reserves are packed. As far as BASE goes, I know next to nothing about it. Somone else will have to answer that one. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

I haven't seen any of the big boys fully abort a swoop, but I saw J.C. bail out on his rear risers and use his toggles when he was a little low and in the corner. I also saw a competitor bail out on his front riser turn and swing himself over to heding with a toggle when he was too low. I find myself aborting every once in a while...maybe one in 15 or 20. I am finding the hardest (but essential) swoop skills to learn are patience and knowing when to say "no". "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

My first container was a Talon 1, made in 1996. It was a good container. The (minor) issues I had with it were: 1)It originally had soft cutaway housings. $18 and a trip to the master rigger solved that. 2)The main pin cover had "walrus teeth" tuck tabs that I didn't think provided the most solid pin protection. I never had any trouble with this in freefall. 3)The main toggles were susceptible to having the brakes lock. It is hard to explain without pictures, but the RI toggles are not made the same way as others (with a grommet through which teh steering line passes). Instead, there is a loop of fabric on the toggle. This loop produces a bulge on the toggle and if the brake set loop passes over the bulge when setting the brakes, the brake will not release whn tension is placed on the steering line. RI had a service bulletin about this. This problem is easy enough to avoid with a little extra attention during packing. You could also get main risers from a different company that had a different toggle design. All in all, I was very happy with my Talon. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

I think I saw this one. Was it a blue and black main? I saw one where it looked like for sure there was a jumper in it, I turned my back to get the attention of some friends, turned back to watch and had about 5 seconds before the canopy hit. I thought someone had gone in; aparently he managed to get out of it and land under his reserve. I never saw the reserve out; someone else said they saw a yellow one land. No rescue vehicles or personnel ever showed up so apparently the jumper was alright. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"