Hooknswoop

I think someone mentioned it, but you are right, drilling or punching holes in them will alllow the pressure to equalize and avoid and problems. Then they should work very well. Hook

KISS works and is a good idea, no arguing that. A collapsible PC is easy to use and to check though. A collapsible PC makes a difference, even on larger canopies, just less of a difference. It makes the most difference in a front risers turn or on the double front risers, such as fighting a headwind for a landing area. On long spots, either upwind or downwind, a collapsible PC will make a difference. If the PC ever gets entangled in your lines or over the nose, if it is collapsed, it probably won't cause a problem. I also think, and this is just theory, that a collapsible PC affects your openings less that a non-collapsible PC. The collapsible PC collapses immediately after the canopy is out of the bag and the non-collapsible continues to pull on the center cell. I don't know how much of a difference this make or if any. Hook

The training has to be generic enough to encompass low performance canopy pilot and high performance canopy pilots. We can't make a low performance canopy pilot demonstrate a hook turn landing. The classroom portion could cover HP landings strictly from an educational point of view. Dangers, recommendations, etc. Demonstrating accuracy under any canopy demonstrates a certain level of ability to fly it. I don't have a solution that would be accepted that would limit HP landing incidents beyond some classroom training. Hook

As an S & TA, I attempted to ground someone for pulling at 600 feet-ish. The DZO, said, get packed, you are the next load. There was nothing I could do. S & TA's are appointed, unpaid volunteers with no real authority. They can be overridden by the DZO, who really has all the authority. And what happens when the DZO is the S & TA? From what I have seen, DZO's want S &TA's appointed that will do what they are told. Grounding someone affects the DZ's bottom line. Some DZO's won't ground someone, cutting income and the S & TA is powerless. Hook

Like Wendy said, it isn't a closed system. Dirt, grim, gunk, etc gets into the housings and increases the cutaway forces, even without any lubricant. I have found with other lubricants can cause exactly the problem you describe. Once cleaned you have to keep cleaning or the other lubricants attracts dirt and gunk, kind like spinning plates, once you start you can't stop or it gets worse than having just left it alone. That is the nice thing about "Ace Pure Silicone Lubricant", it drys 'dry'. It cleans the cables and leaves a dry film of silicone behind. I have found that the cables are cleaner after 30 days than not using any lubricant and pull forces are noticeably lower with the silicone on the cables. With another lubricant, you have a real concern and valid point. This stuff is incredible though, very slick, but doesn't attract gunk. I would never use anything else again. RWS tested the stuff at the North Pole, passed with flying colors. I have been thinking about a way to clean the housings too. I have seen flexible 'cord' gun barrel systems that I have thinking about trying.

I agree to a point. People aren't aiming for the peas and femuring in generally. They do get nervous and stressed landing off in a tight area leading to poor decisions, i.e. low turns or missing the off DZ landing spot. Very true. The requirements have to made so that everyone can do them, from someone that wants to fly a Spectre at 0.8:1 to someone that flys a Stiletto 97 at 1.7:1, or even greater range than that. Hopefully between the classroom training and demonstration of skills they will be better canopy pilots, have more confidence in an off-DZ landing situation and better understand their abilities and their canopy. It isn't ideal but without being restrictive or a very complicate system, it won't get any better. Restrictive and complicated will receive a lot of opposition. I am trying to aim for the best canopy training/education program that will be supported enough to be put into effect and used. Thanks for the feedback, this is exactly the type of response I was looking for. A great idea that nobody wants is useless. People have to look at a program and see the value in it. If enough people think it is a good idea, most of the people that don't want to do it, stand a good chance of being convinced and doing it. The 'my license was harder to get than your' boasting might actually help this idea. "You may have your "D" , but when I got mine, I had to have 500 jumps and go through a bunch of canopy training and demonstrate canopy skills that you didn't". Not grand-fathering current license holders in wouldn't be fair. They have the license, we can't take it away. We would offer the canopy training/education to current license holders of course, but it would be optional. If it was a good enough program, current license holders would take it anyway. Hook

Cool, I'll send you what I have with some ideas and see what you think. Hook

Write it Hook

I think most Instructors would give the course for free too, or maybe a beer. We could make the material down-load-able from USPA's web site, so materials would be free. I don't think it could hurt. The real problems are making a course that everyone accepts that isn't too "watered down" and pencil whipping it. I think the solution to both of those is making a very good course that people will agree with and see the value in. Hook

After giving a lot of thought to each of the issues raised about the WL BSR idea, I have come up with this (rough draft of an idea): A generic canopy control course for the "B", "C", and "D" licenses. We could pool our resources, design a "B" course, "C" course, and "D" canopy course syllabus and Instructor's text. On a rainy day or scheduled in advance, an Instructor could go over the material and sign off the requirement on the license application. Same idea as water training without the hassle of a pool, water gear, and getting wet. It automatically grandfathers in current license holders since they already have the license and make canopy training/education mandatory for each license. No new BSR or restrictions. Simple, mandatory training/education. The hard part would be putting together the material. We could also increase the canopy requirements for the "B", "C", and "D" licenses from just some accuracy requirements. Include a crosswind landing, a rear riser landing, flat turn downwind to base, base to final at or above 200 feet, etc. Make them waiver-able requirements for extraneous circumstances such as knee injuries, unsuitable canopy, insufficient arm strength, etc. How about a modified accuracy requirement? For example, landing within X feet (meters) of target without landing beyond it, or in front of it, or without landing to the left of it, or to the right of it? I mean a half circle accuracy target with the flat edge that moves to another side once you successfully hit it for a total of four jumps. What do you think? Hook

Anyone have any rip-stop tape they can send me? Hook

I think this is the "root cause" of why we disagree. If this is what you believe, I again ask you, where was the uproar when the "A" license pull altitude BSR was changed? I find it interesting that no one is willing to answer that question. Hook

Good question, the longer it is on the fabric, the worse it is. It doesn't immiedately start to fizzle and eat through, but it can leave the adhesive behind if you peel it off, require ing the entire area to be reparied. I have canopies rip apart starting at a rip stop tape repair. I have also torn fabric like tissue paper that had been repaired with rip stop tape. I didn't have any way to determine how long it had been on the fabric. Anyone have any rip stop tape and fabric that would be willing to do an experiment? No, it affets both, but an experiment could provide better answers. Hook

Very good point. Something to look for. Hook

I agree, but this was a Cypres-ready container. Hook

Right (doesn't go out the bottom corner) and right( a Javelin). The cable has to make extra turns and it isn't a very robust cable. Hook

Yep, a patch. Never use rip-stop tape on a canopy, the adhesive is acidic and will destroy the fabris it touches over time. Hook

Faster turns, quicker response in flare, longer recovery arc, faster speed. Check out: http://www.performancedesigns.com/docs/wingload.pdf Hook

$20.00 and 30 minutes. Hook

The larger canopy creates a lot more drag, from the area of the canopy, frontal area and surface drag, and the longer lines are a source of drag. Hook

Found it on the rig, definately caught my attention. The inserts hadn't been tacked and there was nothing stopping them from sliding. Hook

Found it. The manufacturer has sinced changed how they install the inserts to prevent them from sliding out of the channel. If the inserts had been capped, they would have never slid down through the locking loops. Hook

The smaller the canopy, the shorter the lines, so it will turn faster. Also, the smaller canopy has less drag than the larger canopy. Check out: http://www.performancedesigns.com/docs/wingload.pdf III C Hook

This what you were thinking of? Dacron and 1000 lb Vectran. Hook

OK, I finally downloaded some digital pictures I took of different rig problems. 3rings: The top mini riser does not have the reinforcing tape sandwiched between the type 17 webbing. This tape is red on the bottom mini riser. cable: Mis-routing of the Cypres cutter and control head cables. dslinks2: Dacron soft links. All the force is on the bar-tack/zig-zag stitch. They aren't long enough for the finger trap to take any of the load. inserts: The plastic inserts for th excess cutaway cables have slid down out of the channel and through the locking loop on the 3-rings. Pulling the cutaway handle would not have released either riser. pc: the reserve pilot chute fabric was rolled up tight, preventing the PC from launching safey stow: this safety stow was incorrectly manufactured so that it has two loops instead of being on continuos loop. This was on a tandem reserve free-bag. Hook