pchapman

My latest big guy was 300 lbs this past weekend. Had a standup landing with a Sigma 370 in somewhat lighter winds. (Not near zero, but definitely not medium either.) I was quite impressed! The key thing was that this fellow wasn't all flab, so was able to do good practice flares with me. Otherwise one might have to start the flare fairly early, while working hard to get the toggles down against the heavy pressure, in the meantime slowly running out of flare energy. Instead, it was possible to wait 'until the last moment' and get an aggressive 2-stage flare going. We did plan to slide it in but turned it into a standup in the end. I tend to get picked for these jobs due to being 150 lbs., tall, & having decent landing skills. Total system weight was right at the 500 lbs allowed (Or, ahem, a tiny bit over depending on our scale accuracy. We certainly wouldn't go any heavier than that at the DZ.) Still, it was entirely my choice to evaluate the student before deciding whether to allow him to go.

There's a big "Post your helmet" thread with photos and descriptions, that includes some homemade helmet systems. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1324044; I built a fibreglass box to go with a modified Protec, and I should post it in that thread some day. While inexpensive, a lot of labour hours went into it. Which was fine for me, as I wanted to work on fibreglass skills and had the time.

How much time to you spend explaining the additional risk the student is putting the tandem pair in by not arching immediately off the airplane? Best to to anesthetise and straightjacket tandem students, then just give them the video afterwards. Keeps them safer. But seriously, I find when doing a single frontloop, diving to the side from a C-182, it is fine to instruct the student to arch normally. As long as I dive rotating downwards, momentum and my body position is enough to get around. That avoids the obvious body position and timing issues for the student!

Being less sub-terminal after a few seconds might also be helping. I do tandems out of a C-182 and the DZ used to unofficially allow a frontloop if a student mentioned wanting one. I did find it was a little more work to do (rather than being easier), but perhaps more front loops would have made it more like what the original poster experienced. I thought doing a frontloop was a good practice of a tandem instructor's flying skills. Of course if "it takes more work" that somewhat implies it is less safe. Fair enough. Still, it seemed to be something an instructor should be able to handle, and that by doing it from time to time they'd be a more capable instructor in being able to take care of exits that weren't for whatever reason perfect. It might also reduce the tendency for some instructors to "get the drogue out right away" which has made for poorer drogue toss decisions, than for those who are willing to fly the student for a couple seconds longer before tossing. Allowing a front loop doesn't mean that anything goes -- the instructor still needs to be appropriately tight to the student, fly the student, and quickly deal with any tendency to get the relative wind from the side. After the DZ's firm new no-frontloop policy started, I figured I needed something for the students who really want a frontloop and want to do something cool like in the Youtube skydiving videos they've seen. First, with the head-low attidute one tends to get from some C-182 exits, especially when following a video flyer, students may think they've done some sort of flip anyway. Second, after the drogue was out I'd crank out a couple fast turns before settling down to a normal jump. They'd get impressed enough just by being spun around. One post mentioned: Ironically, some students want to be introduced to skydiving by doing a neat exit like they see real skydivers doing. What's the point of skydiving, they think, if you can't do flips and stuff...

Exactly!!! My opinion is that Tandem Progression is within the acceptable range of safety & training effectiveness of other training methods. Far greater variation can exist at any DZ with any instructional method, depending on how the DZ implements its programs. The original question: In my area of Canada, a couple DZ's have very different training philosophies, but both are well respected. One DZO chooses not to have any tandems whatsoever and only does PFF (essentially AFF) progression. Another DZO chooses only to do tandem progression. As for personal experience, I have one example of where a tandem progression program has essentially been abandoned. At a Cessna DZ I've instructed at, they never got the critical mass of PFF instructors to run a PFF program, so they had tandem progression as an alternative to beginning only with traditional static line progression. There were students who came out of the program happy & successful, but on average the program wasn't as effective as desired. The problem appeared to not be the tandem progression concept, but its implementation. Tandem progression students were handed to tandem instructors in the normal course of tandems during the day. The instructor would be expecting to gear up and go with the next student in the next 20 minutes, but suddenly be told that the student was on his 3rd tandem. For the same pay as a regular tandem, the instuctor, who might not have done a tandem progression for a couple months, would have to re-learn from the tandem progression sheet what he'd be teaching. The progression sheet was very terse so it wasn't convenient to interpret for those who didn't teach tandem progression often. And the sheet would sometimes not be updated to reflect current DZ policy. All in all, no wonder that on a per jump basis, the amount of student learning wasn't as much as desired.

Ditto! For width reduction folds, I usually use the technique of 'all down at once'. That fits with the technique Precision showed at least as far back as '91, when I learned, when the Ravens were very popular. It also matches PD, once they (years later) came up with their Pro Pack addendum. It's good enough for Aerodyne too. At times I will use some sort of microreefing without doing all the folds together. I tend to do it if the previous rigger did it that way, or in cases where volume is at a premium, especially the smallest reserves. I suspect that the individual folds might tend help allow a tighter pack job with less air in it. When I'm doing individual folds I tend to do each fold upwards, individually (with the tail wrapping around all but the nose). I've also done it with each fold individually downwards instead. For a while I was trying to be fancier, and did AB fabric upwards; BC, CD, and tail wrap downward together (ending up above the AB). I'm just not sure it really brings any advantages. With all the different methods out there, I haven't been able to pick out one method as superior. Even among BASE friends I've seen methods change, sometimes becoming more complex and then simplifying again. I'm not in tune with a lot in that world, but even they may have found limits, in that there is a point where fancier does not equal better. I do use the manufacturer's technique for what seem to be special cases, such as tandem reserves. If a rig & reserve is something ancient from the early 1980s, with no modern manuals, I certainly don't flat pack and then wrap the reserve around the closing loop(s) in some intricate manner shown by the manuals of the era. I would use more modern techniques, propacking and molar-ing the canopy. Everybody has different techniques published. Old manuals without propacks weren't always updated. PD still has propacking as an optional second way. DeWolf changed his folding from his '03 to '06 manual. Flight Concepts has the canopy propack flaked neatly, wrapped, and then laid down without going through everything again. Paratec and Performance Variable in Europe does it similarly. PD insists on clamp pull tests, FCI now specifically prohibits any clamps, and Rigging Innovation shows lots of clamps to pack a reserve. I guess in the US, the canopy manufacturer's word comes first, over that of the rig manufacturer, for canopy packing technique. But even then, where does "packing the canopy" end and "folding it into the bag" begin? For example, Velocity mentions packing the canopy according to its manufacturer's instructions. But then it still shows steps for a specific folding technique (pretty much AB up; BC,CD,tail down above the AB). And we'll all go straight to hell according to the FAA if we don't follow the manufacturer's instructions. So I like to remind people that on account of that, an Aerodyne Smart in the care of a rigger MUST be kept between 15 C and 30 C, at 15% to 70% humidity. The manual says this must be done.

I've got the IPC weight restriction table from the FAI's Canopy Piloting rules, that shows how much extra weight a competitor may carry. It's in kg and I was wondering if someone had a version translated to pounds. Can't seem to find one on the web.

Yes, my video was of one of their first practice jumps trying to sink it into the tuffet. Although the landings were quite survivable when they missed the tuffet, they soon changed to going to a full flare and trying to tap the scoring pad as they planed out and went by. They both used the Optimum 113's. Isaiah's comment on the video was that the loading was 1.8! (But there was significant wind that cut down his forward speed.) A quick count shows that between them they got scores on the 16 cm radius pad seven times out of 20 competition jumps. They also entered the just-for-fun team accuracy event and on one round used their Velocities. But one malfunctioned, so after the chop the jumper used his real Optimum 113 reserve to go for the tuffet...

Whether this refers to the video, or what I said about a single jump on an Optimum 113, you're right, it doesn't prove anything. And I don't know how another modern reserve might fare in comparison. Others may get different ideas, but I got a favourable impression out of seeing that something as small as a 113 could be flown in without it being too scary, if one for some reason weren't able to land from full flight with a proper flare. A good video of the same canopy landing with a full flare in no winds would be useful too.

Unless I'm much mistaken, I just saw the original poster at a skydiving event attended by a PD crew with demo Optimums, so she might have first hand experience now. I put just one jump on an Optimum 113 in moderately windy conditions. At 1.5:1 loading I tried sinking it in in deep brakes (about 2/3 brakes) without a flare onto grass. The descent rate was not a intimidating at all and a little roll to the side was fine to absorb the landing. A video of a PD jumper trying to sink the 113 in to a tuffet and missing also shows that the landings are quite survivable without having to have a perfect approach. The vid should be up on skydivingmovies.com any time now. The name is "Sinking in an Optimum 113.wmv".

I was also thinking that that technique may be a good place to start, although I don't have the practical experience to back the idea up. So this is just an opinion. Sometimes one will already be spinning before one can react. But other times the canopy may be flying with only a slight turn with line twists. Kicking, grabbing risers, and violently moving one's body around at that time may just make things worse. Even if the lines are fully locked in the twists and one isn't therefore making the risers uneven, all the movement can result in swinging under the canopy that can get the canopy to start turning and spiralling. Some canopies are directionally very sensitive and may tend to stay in a turn once one starts. That's in line with the reply that "You don't even need uneven risers. Do a hard riser turn after opening when breaks are still set..... The turn/dive might not stop by itself.... " The increased anhedral of a canopy, when line twists are pulling the lines inwards, is likely also making the canopy more directionally unstable.

I never found out the factory way either; they aren't always very responsive to questions. One thing I've done is just to use the same principles as building a loop for a Reflex. (That's not in the manual either but there does exist a printed sheet showing construction details. Not sure offhand if it is on parachutemanuals.com.) I also have notes from a dz.com post by someone who had contacted TSE about the Teardrop. The loop was to be built 2" from washer to finger trap, with a 1.5" long fingertrapped section. (I haven't checked the numbers out, but 1.5" is the same as used on the Reflex.) Better answers welcome.

A couple weeks ago at a drop zone in Ontario, Canada, a jumper had a minor reserve malfunction that did not result in injury or canopy damage. After a low speed cutaway from a lineover on a large canopy, the jumper activated his reserve, which was also activated quickly by the RSL. After a fast and on-heading opening, he noticed an entanglement at one front corner of the canopy. He was able to counter steer against the turn, and landed safely. The entanglement was still present after landing so the issue could be investigated. I did the informal investigation but wasn't present at the DZ where this occurred, so am relying on others' statements and photos. (I'm not highly experienced but have 600+ reserve pack jobs.) The malfunction: One line on the reserve canopy was hitched around an A-line slider stop, which on that design of canopy is at the bottom of a flare. The reserve was a Glide Path Fury, a design which continues to be built by Flight Concepts International. That canopy and others in their product line, use flares rather than direct line attachment. The line that entangled was most likely an adjacent line, either the next A-line over, or the B-line directly behind. The Fury reserve is 220 ft. sq. in size, and the jumper was perhaps 150 lbs. without gear. My conclusions: Flight Concepts knows of only one other incident where a line hitched around a slider stop (one which resulted in serious injuries). It appears to be an extremely unusual event. Both the entangling line, and the line with the slider stop, would need to be slack in order for a line to loop around a stop, either within the pack job itself, or perhaps more likely during an out of sequence deployment. The design of the Fury reserve (and others like it) with flares and no stabilizers, may in my opinion be more susceptible to such an entanglement, than a reserve which has the slider stops embedded in a stabilizer, even if the overall risk is extremely low. I would consider the incident to be largely due to chance, although it can be asked whether the pack job might not have been as neat as it could be.. Details: Picture 1 shows the line around the slider stop, as it was found after the jump. Since it is poorly exposed and focused, Picture 2 is the same but with colour added to show how the routing of the lines. Picture 3 is a re-creation using another canopy with flares, showing how such an entanglement can look when the lines are under tension. The entanglement was I believe technically a "simple hitch" -- the line just looped once around the stop. (Not quite a "half hitch", although that term is used a lot.) While it wasn't confirmed which line entangled the A-line slider stop, due to the limited amount of canopy distortion it was likely one of the adjacent lines. For Flight Concepts and Glide Path canopies like the Fury, Firelite, or Sharpchuter, there are both main and reserve canopy versions. As far as I know, all the reserve versions have no stabilizers, so the slider stops are at the bottom of flares rather than embedded in the bottom edge of a stabilizer. I hypothesize that a stabilizer's fabric and the fabric tapes around a stop, may help 'protect' a stop from having a line loop around it, even if that fabric is still flexible. While looping a line around a slider stop is simple enough in concept, even on the ground it takes some work to hitch a line and have it stay in place when tension is applied to the lines. It is still more difficult to see a way for it to have a significant chance of occurring on reserve deployment. I contacted Flight Concepts, and they said they know of only one case where a line has ever entangled on a slider stop on a Flight Concepts or Glide Path design. While minor incidents may not get widely reported, Flight Concepts noted that there have been no concerns in the industry regarding canopies like the Manta, perhaps the most popular student canopy every produced. Although the main canopies have stabilizers, they do not cover the A-line flare. (At least on some of the companies' mains. Pic 4, from another dropzone.com thread, shows an example of a Flight Concepts or Glide Path main canopy.) I personally haven't heard of similar line entanglements on other types of canopies that have stabilizers and direct line attachment. A rigger I asked at one of the major reserve canopy manufacturers had not heard of other incidents either. The one previous reported slider stop entanglement incident was a case in 2006 where a Sharpchuter reserve suffered serious damage on deployment, likely when multiple A-lines entangled around an A-line slider stop. This was reported on dropzone.com: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2171368 Ultimately the cause was unknown, but could have been more likely to occur if the pack job was not neat or the opening was not perfectly in sequence due to chance or another reason. A hitch would be more likely to happen there were slack in some lines, especially if the slider had already moved part way down the lines. One would have to imagine a scenario that could include things like a less neat pack job, the canopy at least partially dumping out of the freebag on deployment, an unsymmetrical canopy inflation, etc. A less than neat pack job would not necessarily contain an entanglement, although it could still encourage a poorer opening. The rigger who packed the reserve in the Ontario incident is a newer rigger, and was involved in the analysis of the incident. I have seen his work and have no reason to believe that he is anything but thorough in his approach to reserve packing, and he has good awareness of things mechanical. Nevertheless, maintaining canopy neatness when S-folding and squeezing it into the freebag is one of the challenges of rigging, especially for the newer rigger, so that will receive extra focus in the future. I understand that no anomalies were seen with the rest of the gear (e.g., safety stow, freebag & canopy size compatibility, etc.) Other thoughts about slider stop entanglements: One can try to imagine various scenarios for different lines of different lengths, entangling with the A-line stops. If all lines were the same length, the slider up against the stops would be very good at preventing a line (from below the slider) looping around a stop (above the slider). But with unequal line lengths from A through D, there may be more potential for lines of different lengths to interfere. The slider will help keep some lines separate from each other. The pack job method may influence the likelihood of entanglement. If the tail of the canopy is well wrapped around the canopy, right down to the bottom of the flares (that is, where the lines start), the tail material will help keep the longer lines separated from the shorter A-lines and their slider stops, when the canopy is S-folded into the bag. The two known incidents, however, seem to involve only A- and possibly B-lines. The Flight Concepts reserve packing manual does show the tail of the canopy being brought down to the bottom of the flares. Flight Concepts emphasized this when I discussed it with them, as a method of keeping the pack job organized when the S-fold is made. (However, the instructions are a little vague about wrapping the tail around to the nose. The written instructions do not explicitly mention it, but the drawings suggest that the tail is to be brought around as on a main PRO pack, although not rolled as it would be for mains.) Although riggers are to follow manufacturers' instructions on reserve packing methods (especially in the USA with the FAA), in reality I think many riggers have their own preferred method. It is possible that some riggers do not bring the tail of the canopy right down to the bottom of the flares, particularly if they are less familiar with canopies built with flares. Having a generally neat pack job, that is adequately retained in the freebag until the lines are taut during deployment, should encourage a symmetrical, well sequenced deployment, that reduces the chance of a slack line entangling a slider stop, but there are no guarantees. ============================== Any comments, corrections, additions, or opinions are welcome before I send in a report to the CSPA, USPA, and Flight Concepts.

Can someone confirm that all of the Flight Concepts or Glide Path reserves are or were built without stabilizers? (eg, Cricket, Fury, Maverick,...) I know that generally they are, but am not sure that it is that way for ALL. The main canopy equivalents generally have stabilizers that start at the B-line attachment, while the outer A-line is on its own on a flare. Does that hold true for all of Flight Concepts / Glide Path F-111 canopies? (E.g., including the good old Manta) Also, on the reserves, at least some do not use a slider stop on the B-line. (Whereas on the main some do.) Again, is this the way it is on all of those canopies? And yes I'm asking Flight Concepts too. I'm trying to understand the designs so that when I talk about them I don't make unwarranted statements about the whole range of canopies, for something that is true for only some.

I think one has to look more closely at how many jumps are involved when trading off belly vs freefly jumps. Let's say that everyone starts out with 50 jumps (or whatever) to learn the skydiving basics, and then specializes into free or belly. Perhaps most will likely agree that doing 500 belly dives (after the skydiving basics) will then make one a better belly diver than doing 250 belly and 250 freefly. There's just too much belly learning that is missed by doing all that freefly instead, even if it can teach some useful things about freefall control in general. If someone disagrees with the above, perhaps it will relate to particular skills. The 500 guy may be better at belly than the 250+250 guy, when it comes to understanding how to launch a specific formation from a specific aircraft. But what about having to do a long, steep dive down to a bigway formation base? I don't have the experience to answer that one. Will the 500 belly guy do better, or the 250+250 guy, if the freefly aspect provides a totally different but useful freefall method and set of skills for accomplising the task? Moving on: While it is perhaps less of a sure bet, I'd guess that for smaller numbers of jumps, the same relationship will exist as for 500 beating 250+250. That is, 100 belly will be better for belly than 50 belly plus 50 free. But I'll hypothesize that maybe if there are plenty of "primary discipline" jumps, then a smaller number of "secondary discipline" jumps may actually improve the primary discipline skills (for the same number of total jumps). So now compare the person who does 500 belly, vs. someone who does 450 belly and 50 freefly. The latter person won't have lost that much in belly learning, since after 450 belly, he won't be way behind on belly skills if he misses 50 more. But having just 50 freefly jumps may be enough to give the jumper some valuable additional freefall control concepts to work with, that'll make him better at belly than the other guy who never tried freefly. Whether you agree or not, this provides a more specific hypothesis to consider.

At our DZ, the standard thing to do with someone who wants to be around a tandem passenger, but isn't at all qualified to do RW with the tandem, is to have the solo jumper in the airplane next to the tandem. The solo exists first, with normal freefall separation. So at least they all get the airplane ride together. The other thing we've tried, and this seemed to be enjoyed by the friends, is to have the solo exit after the tandem (again with proper freefall separation) and pull high just like a tandem. Then the solo can fly over to the tandem under canopy. So the friends get some time "together" in the airplane and under canopy, although not in freefall. Still, as a tandem instructor I'd want to be pretty sure the friend was a heads up and disciplined jumper, before allowing this. Maybe 50 to 100 jumps experience at least??

I don't mind round reserves, but one may want to consider one's DZ environment when making the choice. My only reserve until 2002 was a round, but I was mainly jumping at a DZ that was "traditional" in that it had a lot of open fields around it. I'd think a lot more about squares if I were at a DZ surrounded by forests and subdivisions.

Statement #1 Statement #2 In most of skydiving, statement #2 is the correct idea. But I'll have to agree with statement #1 instead, for very particular applications. I have adjusted the brakes on a Parafoil so that it flies in a bit of brakes, under the supervision of very experienced accuracy jumpers. Forward speed (useful for big slow canopies!) was hardly affected, as tested by an anemometer. I don't care about having airspeed to trade for flare! I need full and complete control throughout the sink & stall regime to drop it onto the tuffet. I just couldn't get that without moving the toggles up the steering lines a little. And I did this adjustment despite being tall & long armed. [Edit: Looks like John Rich said much the same thing before I could get this typed up coherently!]

There was a case where a woman had her reserve deploy over the tail and get shredded before sliding off. She did manage to hook knife the whole thing away before deploying her main. Pretty good work considering she only had about 40 jumps. (This was reported in the USPA mag 5-10 years back and did get mentioned in another dz.com thread once.)

With old rounds there's a wide range of opinions, whether to refuse to pack them all, or keep on packing even 1960's military stuff, if one just can't seem to get lucky enough to pull test the damn things to destruction. Anyway, below is an opinion from GQ, or more specifically IrvinGQ, part of Airborne Systems. GQ doesn't categorically state that one can't pack an old Security chute. This conveniently provides the rigger with some legal protection! Still, despite the statement in the email, it isn't entirely clear whether the original GQ products are really considered orphaned or are somehow covered by blanket statements regarding 15(?) year lives, that are in manuals for products from a later version of the company. Note that they are very strict with their modern gear. Even where they sell to civilians, they act like it is a military sale. (One reserve ride, throw it out!) (Permission received from author to publish) ================================ Subject: FW: GQ Security parachutes Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 13:01:56-0000 Hello Peter Sorry for the delay. GQ Security was closed in the 1980's after it was purchased by GQ Parachutes and shipped to the UK very little data exists within our archive relating to products produced by them or any policies they operated. In the days of GQ Security and in common with many US manufacturers the parachute life is 3 months from new and the lifing is then based on a qualified rigger inspecting / packing it and certifying it as fit for use. This info required to inspect / pack is normally found in the packing manual. At Irvin-GQ we give a in-service life based on the stressing of the parachute and subsequently destructive testing. In which case we recommend on average a total finite life of 10 years with repacks of 180 days. If the parachute is designed for bail out we restrict the life to one deployment. You may wish to contact the PIA (Parachute Industries Association www.pia.com) as they have a riggers forum where similar questions are asked. It may be they can offer you more exact advise based on the Parachute you operate. ========================== While I'm at it, here are more opinions. From an April 2004 post by "meatbomb": ======================== I phoned up GQ, as I was concerned that there are several X210Rs and X175Rs still in circulation at my DZ (13-18 years old). The response I got was that the 15 year life is a liability issue, much as most American manufacturers life their reserves at 120 days, and then it's up to the rigger...so GQ have said, after 15 years, they will no longer be liable...They then suggested that if the canopy was in good condition, it could still be packed, but that I may want to go to Paragear.com, who sell more up to date designs! Wink So it seems like, as usual, the whole thing is a fudge. ======================== That also suggests GQ doesn't prohibit old reserves from being packed. In Mar 2006 the following was posted in the similar thread http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2146742; ======================== My pdf packing instructions for EB80, Security 350, 650, 750, 850, 950, and 1050 all specify a life of 10 years for the system. For all but the 1050, the instructions say a factory inspection may result in an extension to 15 years. There were some previous versions of the instructions that did not specify a life limit, and it is not clear to me that new packing instructions necessarily supersede the instructions that originally accompanied a TSO'd product, even though best practices would be to use the most current. Mark ========================

Sew on an extra star. Nobody will notice. :)

I'm packing a ParaFlite MT-1XX rig and wanted to know what the length should be, for the 2-pin closing loop. Also, do people simply pro-pack the reserve? I'm following a military video manual that shows flat packing. The loop in the rig seems almost impossibly tight. I'm just wondering if the closing loop is a shorter replacement, that might be appropriate if the rig had been propacked the last time.

For a little fun on the weekend I tried out the combination of my ParaCommander with my Birdman GTi. The PC was in an early 80's piggyback sport rig. Anyone else tried out a wingsuit with a round canopy? Pros: Little worry about line twists; the long accuracy rig put the BOC handle down low for an easy pull; and one can fly oneself to the desired opening point. Cons: It's a round! The opening was good, with no more force than a regular terminal PC jump. One old timer had been worried that opening shock might be higher than normal but I figured the total velocity would be OK. The swing after opening was not an issue and felt a lot more damped & slower than on a square. The round & wingsuit combination has been done before, but the only dz.com reference I could find was by Skyflyer on Oct 29, 2002: Attached: A photo of final approach, and vidcaps from an unfortunately out-of-focus ground video of the opening. Having mis-estimated how much the evening winds had died down, I just made it back to the DZ, putting it down in the parking lot. And being under a "slow" canopy I hadn't bothered to unzip my legs after popping the booties off, so I ended up tripping and falling on my face on landing.

I'm posting an example of one relatively simple way to get a ParaCommander into use. Other suggestions from more experienced PC riggers in this thread may be more complex but also better technically! I wasn't able to get a Paracommander, without a sleeve, into a rig that was a tight fit for a modern 282 Parafoil. Older 'Foils would be bulkier. I therefore built a very simple new main container that velcroes overtop of the existing main container. Basically one big piece of Cordura, plus grommets, stiffeners, velcro, BOC, etc. Side and bottom flaps are new; the original top flap is used. Having discarded the sleeve, I found a large enough d-bag, and simply added elastics to stow the crown lines, on the inside top of the bag. The lines aren't as out of the way as with external stowage, but at least they are kept neat. The canopy is folded into the bag side to side. The pilot chute is just an old 36" one that was lying about.

I also don't like the concept of "flaring the same in different conditions" idea UNLESS it is presented as applying only to a certain set of conditions. If I'm flying a big student or accuracy canopy in strong winds and coming straight down, I certainly don't flare 'like normal'! Only a sharp, short flare is needed to remove most of the vertical speed , without reducing forward speed through the air much, which would throw me backwards on the ground. The "flaring the same" concept only has a hope of working if the wind speed is significantly less than canopy speed. I'm guessing that the concept is meant for jumpers who get spooked by ground rush when they are coming in faster either due to low winds or a recent canopy downsize. One still has to remove one's vertical speed and reduce the horizontal ground speed as much as possible before touching down. Use the full flare capability of the parachute right down to touchdown. Just because the ground is whizzing by faster than one is used to, one shouldn't start braking higher than normal, or yanking the brakes down faster than normal. Heck, it even applies if one is on a small crossbraced canopy and does a downwind swoop when one isn't used to it. Any scary extra ground speed has to be ignored while one concentrates on a good flare. (Although the way one chooses to touch down, like a sliding weight transfer, may vary from a normal landing.)