davelepka

What do you want to do with your canopy? Regardless, I would think that difference in disatnce between the two (if any) would be offset by variations of the pilot. If you're not flying the exact same approach every time, and if you're not swooping a measured course for points, the distance angle seems moot. I think the Stiletto would be more fun, go faster, glide further, carve better, and open better. You could jump a 120 for that matter without 'overloading' it. I've got 1000's of jumps on a Stiletto at 2 to 1, and always thought is was great.

So true. What if Aerodyne stepped up to the plate, and started using PD's method. Then, two of the largest parachute companies would be unified, and could weild some influence in getting the other companies out there to follow suit. Problem solved.

In this order: 200 more jumps Sony PC stlye video camera 200 more jumps Sony VX series camera 200 more jumps Any film camera you can fit on your helmet

If your profile is correct, thats an interesting choice. A competition model eliptical canopy, loaded at 1.45, with how many jumps on it? With 150 total it can't be many. If you made any sort of progression to what you have now, you couldn't have many jumps on any canopy. Why would you jump a canopy that you admit you have to be 'cautious' on? Why would you select one that's so clearly outside of the 'norm'. That bullshit Atair dishes out about the Cobalt being good for all jumpers from novice to expert is marketing. They're trying to sell canopies. In truth, the Cobalt isn't good for anyone. There are far better choices for whatever you want to do with a canopy.

The death count has changed. Dramatically. Thats why were havig this discussion. Ten years ago, open canopy incidents were no more prevalent than other incidents. Were you unaware of this, or do you have reason to believe that the trend has stabilized, and will not get any worse? If the latter is the case, do you believe that the number of open canopy incidents is acceptable? This is a point I have echoed on many occasions. What do you propose we do in the meantime? The USPA has been 'working' on this problem for years, with no tangible results thus far. Looking at the small picture, there were two serious incidents in the last couple weeks involving low time jumpers making low turns, with predictable resutls. Both jumpers were on eliptical canpies at a WL FAR excceding the values of the WL NE chart. There is nothing to say that if the chart were in place these incidents wouldn't have happened, but I'm willing to bet that if it was: 1. Their WL would have been much lower. Maybe not to the number of the chart, but having a chart in place would have shown the extreme negligence in allowing these jumpers to jump the canopies they were. 2. If their Wl and canopy choice was closer to the WL chart, and they had perfprmed the same manuver, these incidents would not have occured. A more appropriate canopy would have recovered from the input in sufficient time and altitude to allow for an un-eventful landing. OR 3. If the jumpers had changed their approach to try and swoop the larger canopy, at a minimum the impact would have been lessened. In my opinion, 1, 2, and/or 3, anre better alternatives to the reality of what did happen.

Although this is an older thread, and I cannot remember every post (and I'm not going to re-read the entire thing), I don't think that anyone, aside from Matt, ever commented on his choice of canopy or WL with the word 'dangerous' (or anything remotely similar). I have agreed several times that there are students who make for better canopy pilolts than others. The trouble was always in sorting out the good ones from the bad before canopies are selected. The only solution I could come up with was for ALL canopy pilots to follow a progression that has proven to be a safer alternative to no restrictions at all. The only downside would be to those students who may be able to handle a faster canopy sooner than others, and even then, that will be quickly corrected when said jumper cranks out some jumps. Soon enough, students won't even be aware that there was a time where you could just 'jump whatever'. When I got my first eliptical, at which point I had 1000+ jumps and 500 or 600 swoops, I didn't lament the fact that I couldn't have a Velocity becasue the Velocity didn't exist. See? No option, no disappointment.

Look, a company makes a HP canopy, thats what it's built for, HP flight. There's no reason that a jumper needs an HP wing under 500 jumps, at any loading. X-braced canopies are sold in smaller sizes. Smaller sizes which would require a numerically lower WL as per the charts guidelines. Combine these two factors, and most jumpers won't even qualify to jump an X-Braced wing much under 800 jumps. Not to mention the point from the first paragraph, x-braced canopies are designed for HP flight, and who needs that at lower jump numbers? Again, I agree that the training will have the greater influence over the course of events, but considering the glacial pace of developing that system, the WL chart is a good band-aid for the time being. I'm in no way suggesting that it's a stand-alone solution, or that it wil ease the need to ASAP the training program, but it's something we could do for now. In comparison to the NOTHING that has been done to address this matter, at this point anything would be an advatage.

The Crossfire is HP, but it's no X-Brace. A Crossfire at 1.5 is even further from an X-Braced canopy. I agree, a Crossfore at 2.0 is zippy, and needs a skilled pilot, but within the confines of the WL chart, 500 jumps seems reasonable for a Crossfire at that loading.

I'm a big fan of the WL NE chart, as well as the need for increased education. I've always thought that the education was the more important of the two (although having both is the ideal situation). The reason I've publicly supported the WL NE chart, is becasue of the simplicity in implementing it. Write it down, fax to every DZ you can think of, and say, 'This is what you should be doing, everyone else is going to do this'. And yes, everyoen can keep jumping what they have, but when they want to donwsize, their WL must fall into the given chart values. An addition I would make to the Brian Germains chart would be no HP canopies under 500 jumps (Stiletto, Crossfire, etc) and no X-brace under 800 jumps. Now we have the whiners who think they are special and better than everyone else, and they want to test out of the restrictions. The ideas you have to cater to this are actaully prerry good, and once the bugs are worked out, they seem like they will work well. That, however is the catch. 'Once they are wroked out'. When is that going to be? Even if we could get the USPA to focus on this it would be at least another year before there were functioning CC coaches at some DZ's (not all). The addition of the 'tst out' clause to the WL chart takes away it's ease (and speed) of implementation. What about getting the WL chart out there, as it sits, without the 'test out' clause and start to get a handle on the situation? We can add the ability to test out at a later date. When the educational cirriculum,testing criteria,as well as the coach certification criteria are established, then we cann add the ability to test out.

Maybe they've got a government supplied molar strap that costs $3000. That would do it too.

Which should go nicely with a Z-brace main that packs 30% larger.

Here's one for ya. A guy deploys into a spinning mal. I think a line over. It's a tandem video jump, so he's got altitude, he goes for his hook knife to clear it (and if anyone could pull this off, it's this guy), and wouldn't you know it, years of non-use have resulted in a snap that doesn't want to let go. Cutaway, pull reserve. Land without further incident.

I'm not a Mirage fan, but if you check thier website, thier usual charge for a repack is $75. I guess the overhead of a building and full time rigger drives thier price up from your local rigger, but it does seem that they are offering a discount in light of the SB.

Just to be clear, I was aware that your end goal was more jumps and a 270 on your current wing (with the 270 coming late in the game). Just to be clear, my assertion is that a 270 on that canopy at any number of jumps doen;t look good from a risk vs. benefit standpoint. As an example, I have borrowed a Spectre 135 (at 1.5) when I was on three or four lifts in a row. I found a 180 was sufficient for swooping the crap out of it. My regular landings are all between 270 and 450 and canopies at 2.0 and up.

Just a question, why not do accuracy with your 170? The benefit to a tradtional accuracy canopy, is that a big seven cell will maintain inflation with almost zero airspeed. This is helpful because you can aim high, as in overshooting your target, and when you're just about over top, deep brakes will lower you down onto the tuffet. Landing this way is not reccomended on a casual jump as the decent rate is a touch high, and if the canopy should stall, you have a problem (hence the usage of a tuffet). Use your Sabre. The skills you build wil seve you well if you plan on downsizing canopies or in your day-to-day jumping, where you will be sharp with your Sabre, and off field landings will be a non-issue.

Thats a big turm for a 210. The trouble is that your canopy will have to be 270'd at a very low altitude, which is not a great idea. A bigger canopy, at a lower WL will not have much of a recovery arc. All of your turns for swooping will have to be low, but a 90, for example, is a very low commitment turn. Your intended landing path is very close to your base leg direction, and in turn, it's easy to keep a clear path through the entire arc of your turn for outs. Furthermore, your pendulum effect under your canopy will be minnimized, and the simpler turn has a higher probability of going as planned (all good things close to the ground). A 270 on the other hand has several problems. Firstly, unless you are landing in the center of a large field with no traffic of any kind, you cannot ensure outs throughout the entire turn. Second, you are increasing the commitment level of your turn, and most likely the amount of pendulum you will incur in doing so. Finally, the riser pressures on larger canopies will build quickly, and the harness response to input will be nil. The result is that if you should loose your strength, or simply your grip, during the turn, you have no recourse for completing the turn. These are all bad things close to the ground. A jumper on a more highly loaded canopy wil have several advantages in doing 270's. More altitude when entering the turn, lower riser pressures and more effective harness turns all combine to build in a margin of safety. A better thought for you would be to become proficient with your canopy in all flight modes, and limit your landing speed manuvers to douple fronts and 90 degree approaches. When you can exhibit a high degree of control and consistency in your approaches as well as throughout your swoop, consider downsizing. Once you have downsized, become proficient with the same skills that you were practicing on your last canopy before moving to a larger, more complex truns. It is a double edged sword, between swooping and downsizing, but a well thought out progression, and commitment to developing your skills, as well as being honest with yourself about the level of those skills should serve you well in your persuit.

Non USPA DZ's follow the BSR's (partially) in an attempt to adhere to the 'standard industry practice'. In the case of a lawsuit, you can avoid neglegence claims by folowing 'standard indusrty practice'. If you do it the way every other DZ, as well as the USPA reccomends, the injured party was a victim of bad luck, and as outlined in the waiver, skydiving is dangerous, and you are choosing to make a jump of your own free will. Why your DZ is soft on the age policy, I don't know (most likely to attract more students, and thier money). Whatever the case may, be a WL BSR doens;t present a financial advantage or disadvatage to the DZO. Additionally, the presence of a Wl BSR sends a message to students and newbies that this is a valid area of concern, and if your DZ enforces it or not, it is worthy of some consideration when selecting your canopies. This is a function of your training, as well as the canopies you had been previously jumping, and not related to WL. If your student canopies were clapped out F-111 (like mnay student canopies), you would be hard pressed to have a nice landing on them. If you were given a Sabre 210 (as opposed to your 190) I'm sure that would have wroked just fine for you as well.

Hey now. I'm just callin' um like I see um. Just keep jumping hard, and in six months, jump the 120. The good news is, that when you love it, you can score a used one and save some cash.

I think the Sabre supports your arguement. The 190 and the 210 (I think, it's the big ones) have that extra brake line thingy. It's not on the other sizes, so there must have been a difference when they made the big ones. As far as the Katana goes, after jumping one, I can see why their not in a big hurry to release the 135. It really performs at a much higher level than I had expected, and in truth, if you're not going to load it up a bit, there's no reason to be jumping it. As for the big guys, I guess you're out of luck. It's just like the Velo, 120 is the end of the line.

What were you jumping as a student canopy? How much of a chnage is the 120 going to be? Does your need to question the choice come from some mmisgivings regarding the canopy? Will this effect your confidence? Typically, with smaller canopy sizes (135 and under) it's best to be MORE conservative with the wingloading. Ask yourself the quesitons I've posed, and go from there. It is, after all, your choice.

"If PD don't make it, you don't need it"

Good point.

Do you think you could land your reserve there? I didn't look at your profile, I don't know what you fly, but thats a pretty tight scenario. Be honset with your self. Better yet, put a frisbee next to a building ro under a tree, and see how close you can get. For the record I have landed many canopies from 120 to 90, loaded at least 1.8 in those situations. These were mains, built to swoop, not for accuracy.

Flite Suit. Call them today, place your order, pay the rush. jump your suit next weekend. Continue jumping in unitl it wears out (although I'm not sure if you'll still be skydiving then).

Well that may have been true, it was simply a refferal to his equipment, which was a few years off the pace in terms of technology (this was simply a function of having not bought gear for a few years). I'm not saying that older gear will not provide a safe decent from an aircraft, just that it won't do it with the competency of more modern equipment.