davelepka

Thats a shity way to go for a few reasons. For one, setting up for an udershoot, and then adding brakes will give you more of an undershoot (provided you are landing into the wind). Flying in slow in the pattern sucks for everyone behind you. Encouraging a newbie to use 'deeper brakes' of final approach is just plain dumb. You did not explain the other half of your 'plan' which is that A) he needs to not be in any brakes before he attempts to flare if he wants a soft landing or that B) when returning to full flight form a braked flight will cause the canopy to dive which will produce a period of time when the jumper will have no flare what-so-ever, followed by a period of time where the jumper will have excessive forwrd speed (which at 40 jumps is most likely not ready to handle). Your suggestions may be one way hit a target, but certainly not he best way, and certainly not the way you want a newer jump to learn for the first time.

Thats the problem. You're trying to flare, like you're landing. I'm talking about slowing the canopy down. If you pull the toggles down slowly, the canopy will gradually slow down, and remain stable. If you flare, the change in pitch is more sudden, and the canopy will need 5 or 10 secinds in deep braked flight to stabilize. You and your canopy are a system, and than system goes out of whack when when you apply input. If you flare, you will swing forward, the canopy will pitch up etc. This flight mode cannot be sustained, as the systen is out of balance. If you wait, eventually you will swing back under the canopy, and the system will re-balance itself to the new toggle position. None of this has anything to do will stalling your canopy. These manuvers don't require that much toggle input.

Similar to what? My suggestion was for a Stiletto 89. It seems the jumper has no interest in swooping, and is regarded a solid canopy pilot, both of which I took into account with my suggestion. The incident you're speaking of contains many factors that separate it from this discussion. A higher WL, lots of lead, a donwwinder in strong winds, combined with the pressure of competition. Not to mention the drastic difference between a Katana and a Stiletto. A jumper with 1000 jumps flying a straight-in approach with a Stiletto at 1.28 does not give me cause for concern. Edit: Lets also keep in mind the chick-factor. Despite the incident we were discussing, it's no secret that females are typically much more conservative (as in smarter) under canopy. They are less likely to take a chance when compared to their male counterparts, and if this one has made it 1000 jumps without swooping, I would doubt that a new canopy would insipre her to start taking chances. Guys often times feel a need to prove something, like who has the biggest balls (I like balls). The ladies have no balls, they have boobies, and everyone can plainly see what size they are.

You may have more luck with your front risers if you slow the canopy down first. Go into deep brakes and hold it there while the canopy settles down, look up at your dive loop (or loops) and then just reach up and grab them. You'll have a window of a few seconds where the pressure will be reduced, and you should be able to pull them down.

Just to be clear, my suggestion was for her to jump an 89 Stiletto. If she were to weight her Sabre to match the 1.28 WL the 89 would provide would take 10 lbs. of lead, but it's still not a great idea. Your claim that 19lbs. is reasonable for this jumper is outrageous. Her exit weight is 115 lbs. Unlikey as it may be, I'll even say that she doesn't wear lead for fallrate purposes, giving her a bodyweight between 95 and 100 lbs. Do you realize that 19lbs. represents approx 20% of her bodyweight? If she is already weraing a few pounds for fallrate, that percentage only goes up. Lets look at you in those terms. Your exit weight is 248 lbs. I'm guessing that your bodyweight is around 230lbs. For you to wear 20% of that in lead has you wearing 46lbs. How's that sound? Why not man-up, strap it on, and prove your point by jumping it. I would challenge you to find a PST competitor who would see any problem with the downsize. 1000 jumps, good history of canopy control going from a Sabre 97 at 1.18 to a Stiletto 89 at 1.28 is not a big stretch. As far as your slide/PLF comments, I'm thinking about the situations you can't control. Canopy collisions, near misses, downdrafts, rotors, turbulence, whatever you like, it's out there, and when you find it, lead will not be your friend.

This would be great in a first jump course.

Don't forget about the max loading for your legs. Also, keep in mind, that the bigger canopy you are jumping the more weight it takes to make a difference. Guys jumping a 90, who are thinking about an 84 need only ten pounds to experience the equivilant WL. Typically, those jumping bigger canopies have fewer jumps, and less developed skills, and they would be the ones wearing more lead to get the desired effect. As you see from my example, the difference from a 150 to a 135 equals close to 30 lbs. Thats crazy.

I think you replied to the wrong guy regarding your retarded idea. Either way I'm glad you did, as after I posted yesterday, I thought of some additional reasons why your idea is stupid (or retarded, or whatever). So, lets get started... I'm guessing that your confidentiality is your way of adding to the credibility of your 'source'. If you read the conclusiuon to my post, I state that, "People have become....." when expressing my thoughts on addign weights. If your 'source' is indeed a person, then he or she is included in the group I believe to be in error. I didn't say it was worthless, I said it was retarded (and then later I called it stupid). If you're interested in raising the WL of your current canopy, that is certainly one way to do it, and the act posses worth if that's your goal. All of this, however is unrelated to the retarded-factor of your idea. By adding weight to your current canopy, you will, in addition to increasing WL, increase your speeds in feefall, and for opening, and increase the pressure on your ankles, legs and hips on landing. In the case of a reserve ride, you have just riased your reserve WL accordingly, and along with landing an unfamiliar canopy at a now higher WL, your still wearing all that lead. In the worst case scenario, and you are involved an incident, I can't see that lead helping any at the point of impact. Whew... Lets look specifically at your situaiton. Your current set-up is a Sabre2 135 (1.85) and a PD160R (1.56). This adds up to an exit weight of 249 lbs. Guessing that your last downsize was from a 150, by the end of your time with the 150, you would need to wear 29 lbs of lead to equal the WL of the 135. If I'm not mistaken, this gives you an exit weight of 278 lbs. First off, doesn't this exceed the TSO of your harness? I'm not sure of the numbers, but you're somewhere in that neighborhood. I'm sure your reserve is also at, or close to, exceeding the Mfg's limitations. Equipment failure is a bitch, and I'm guessing that with an exit weight of 278, your airspeed isn't helping anything. Provided your gear holds together, now you have to land a canopy carrying 29 lbs of lead. That weight narrows your window of acceptable descent rates on landing. It's a simple fact, more weight plus less force will snap your leg just like more force with less weight. Landing your reserve at 1.7 hauling an extra 29 lbs. should be fun as well. With 750 jumps, and 1 year in the sport, I'm guessing you don't have much time under F-111 7-cells (don't forget about your 29 lbs). I load my reserve up, but I have 100 or so jumps on an F-111 7-cell, and five times as many jumps as you, and I don't wear lead. Ever. All of the above is leaving out the concept that a Sabre2 150 at 1.8, is not the same thing as a Sabre2 135 at 1.8. The shorter line-set will see to that., and that's provided that you went from Sabre2 to Sabre2. Throw in a model change, and you learn even less about your new canopy...... ....which really brings me to my point, which is that is the situation in question, your idea is even more retarded. For a small girl jumping a Sabre 97, no amount of weight will make the Sabre fly like a Stiletto. It will fly like a more-loaded Sabre, but not a Stiletto (for the record, I have more Sabre jumps than you have alltogether, and three times that mant Stiletto jumps). With 1000 jumps, and a history of good canopy control, the downsize to a Stiletto 89 is very reasonable, and with a few minutes of talking to an experienced Stiletto pilot (and those are so hard to come by) and a few dedicated jumps, she should be on her way to enjoying her new canopy for another safe 1000 jumps. The simple fact is this. Fly what you have, learn it inside and out, and than do another 100 jumps with it, and see you more you learned. Be ready when you downsize, and fly like a student for 20 jumps or so. This is how you do it. Adding weight is for guys who need the weight to fly one canopy in a competition, and needs different loadings for each event (or for the factory guys who have every size canopy, and the time and experience to know what size at what loading will go 678 ft). Oh shit, I just thought of this. You list swooping as an interest of yours, and that 29 lbs, would SUCK in a pond. I've had nightmares like that, where I'm drowning, and I can't get to the surface, no matter how hard I try.....

This is retarded. If she is that small, she is most likely already wearing weights, and adding to that is only increasing her chances of injury on landing. If she is not wearing weights, canopy flight is no reason to introduce that hazard to her situation. If she is compotent with her current wing, she is ready for a reasonable downsize. People have become quite ready to add weights without thinking through the consequences. Wearing weights for the purposes of canopy flight needs to be reserved for those who can realize the potential offerd by the increase in WL. An upcoming pilot who is ready to downsize, should donwsize. If you're not ready to downsize, adding weight to 'half' downsize is stupid.

I am often times skeptical of these stories. Given the variences in air pressure across your entire body, wrist-mount and helmet-mounted devices will offer different readings from each other, as well as from the Cypress itself. Also, when you're just getting canopy out of the d-bag at 1500ft, my guess would be that noting your altitude is the last thing on your mind (it didn't seem important in freefall, as you're low as hell, so why should it matter now). More times than not, my guess is that these 'high fires' are mostly in the mind of the jumper, reluctant to admit the size the error they just made, and chances are that the Cypress operated much closer to it's intended altitudes. Yes, I know that the manual states that the high fire is psossible, but I personally have taken low after bigger ways when my airspace was not clear above me to the point that I was looking over my shoulder for a freebag during my main deployment, and never had it actually happen.

OK, how about a Stiletto 89? She'll like the openings, after jumping the original Sabre, the turns should be more fun, and she'll be able to float all afternoon if she wants to. It seems like it would be a reasonable downsize and planform switch. I might even know where there's a used one for sale.

How about a pilot chute completely out of it's pouch? I'm pretty sure it wasn't that way when he got in the plane, but when he went to get up for a pin check, sure enough, his PC was sitting on the floor right behind him. It was a newer jumper with rental gear, so the list of 'how could this happen' is pretty long. It was repacked, and he had a normal jump.

Yes, it does, and thats the point.

Jumpers are going in left and right with the current system. Any additional parts opens the door for further jumper confusion/mistakes, and equipment related problems such as failures or mis-rigging. Learn to configure your equipment for the jump you will be doing. Avoid situations that will put you outside of your equipments limiltaiotns.

The yoke is the part that goes across your shoulders in the back, more or less the top of the container. There are range of harness sizes that will fit any one person. Some like it tigher, some loose. There are certain measurements that are there to keep you in the harness, and others that keep the rig centered on your back. By moving these numbers around, you may find a ris that will fit you comfortably all day long. Harness rings may not be the answer. Consider selling your rig, and staring over from scatch. As it is, you could take a $300 loss on the rig, order a new one, and be even money (if you include the cost of fixing your current rig). See what Avery thinks he can do for you with your current rig, and with a clean sheet.

Yeah, they'll have to replace the harness. They'll pick off the container, housings, and stuff, build a new harness in place of the old one. If you have special needs, make sure they know this. Your existing harness size may not be appropriate with or without chest rings. There may be additional chnages they can make to imporve your situation. Addtional padding? Wider yoke? Longer MLW?

This a huge waste of time and money. You will need most or all of your harness replaced, and unless you are an eastern european female gymnast, you'll never need your upper harness to move than much.

I think that guy was reaching with his left hand. A nice even flare is a requirement for a good landing.

I'm sorry, but as far as swooping goes, you're a newbie to flying a canopy in general. You need to hold off on swooping for another hundred jumps or so, spend some time under the same canopy, get to know it's ins and outs (and this takes a while). Then you may be ready to take that canopy to the next level. Note that I said 'may'. Learning the basics first, and getting to know a wing will let you learn faster and better when you do start swooping, the time you spend working up to that will serve you well for years to come. Or just rush through it, and take your chances.

First off, who bears the cost of this indefinite offer? RWS is out of pocket for the components and time they put into every free Skyhook they will give away. Can this go on forever? How about this, make the Skyhook standard on every V3, and raise the base price accordingly. If you want to delete the option, so be it, but sorry, no discount. This should pacify any (inappropriate comment removed by slotperfect) who has a problem with the current arrangement. Why are you partial to Mirage? Is it becasue they have features individual to Mirage that you feel are superior to other rigs? By your logic then, Mirage should share these features with other manufacturers so all rigs are equal. I'm sure that the Mirage people think that their pin protection, harness construction, and reserve system are the best and safest around, yet you don't chastise them for not offering that technology for use on other rigs. I'm glad that after two years, you're ready to drop the hammer on a guy who has been building rigs and revolutionizing the equipment for ten times longer than you have been jumping. Big picture pal, big picture. Take a look at it.

How about this; a note in every CD jacket, "Due to the extreme angles used in skydiving photography, some or all of your photos may appear to be upside down. This will not effect any prints of the photos, and photos to be used on your PC can easily be rotated in any picture importing software. Enjoy your photos."

First off, the bumper/no bumper discussion is limited to soft links, and their cloth bumpers. Hard links require a silicone bumper to prevent the link from damaging your slider gormmet, and then the grommet from damaging your lines. A hard link with a bumper will stop a slider, and the slider can usually be pulled over the silicone bumper, although it will typically damage the bumper in the process. Yes, your slider goes over your toggles, before unstowing your brakes. Once it is down, and you unstow your brakes, and unless you have a bungee, or slider stops, your slider can move back up, as far as the guide ring. If you prefer it to stay up, and you don't have bumpers, it can come down upon deployment, and either trap a toggle, or knock it out of it's keeper (possibly unstowing a brake, and with the slider over your toggles, this is a tricky one to fix). If it stops at the slinks, it is unlikely to cause any further trouble.

Right under the links are your toggles. Some people are uncomfortable with the slider being over or around their toggles. Those not concerned with the drag of the slider have no reason to risk the slider and toggles being in the same place, and yes, there is a risk involved.

You're forgetting about the context that jumps are being made in. When you started jumping, the 'state of the art' was lower, i.e. canopies were slower, freeflying didn't exist, more smaller planes were in use (as in, smaller average size of RW groups). In order to perofrm at the level that the average weekend warrior desires, it takes more jumps than it used to. People want to do maore with their skydives, and it takes experience to be ready for that. It still takes hanging out at the DZ all weekend, socializing with the other jumpers, and dedicating yourself to reaching your goals. That part hasn't changed at all (and too many jumpers try to skip that step), but the end result of that effort has changed.

Really? I thought is was the other way around. My take on the long risers is A) the higher up you can reach, the further you can pull the riser, and B) the increase in distance from the pilot to canopy allows for a longer pedulum swing which equals a slower recovery from a dive (AKA more time in the dive).