Deimian

I jump a vector. My flaps overlap way more than that. It looks to me like the loop is way too long. Have you checked with your rigger?

I think all advice can be summarize in: -Get an audible -Learn how to track effectively -Build up your big-ways skills (4-way->6-way->8-way->10-way->12-way) -Got someone that knows how to properly plan a jump of that size taking into account the experience level of everyone involved Your problem isn't just altitude awareness, your problem is lack of separation in the time you are given, and that is not just your problem, that's everyone's (in the group) problem. If the group needs more time, move up the break-off altitude, don't suck it low for 10 jumps. After that go back to 12-ways

Clicky PIA Document: http://www.rigginginnovations.com/files/Docuemnts/Other/PIA%20Canopy%20Volume.pdf PD Reserve Manual: http://www.performancedesigns.com/docs/Reserve_manual.pdf Variances: http://www.performancedesigns.com/docs/packvol.pdf The PIA volume for Optimum 99 is nonsense. It can't pack bigger than an Optimum 193. Which makes you question the accuracy of the other stated volumes....

Thanks for explaining! I had the same feeling with the X-Fire. I demoed one and had very very long brake lines. Even shortening a couple of inches the slack was just too much, but the flare was way way better than before shortening.

Can you explain why? I haven't flown the Tesla yet, but I loved the X-Fire, so I am curious.

I stand corrected then. Thanks for the clarification, this one was really misleading.

I don't understand. The Sife website says explicitly that it is certified under TSO: Isn't "have a type certification" the same as "certified"? Doesn't Austria have a "FAA partner" able to delegate certification on local authorities? Isn't "Austro Control" allowed to certify such thing? Honest questions, I don't know, but it looked obvious to me. Maybe it's all mambo-jambo?

That's not true. There are at least 2 manufacturers that have a pin-based MARD with Collins lanyards. Sife and SWS. Maybe what he meant to say is :" Non of the other MARDs on TSO certified rigs..." Maybe. But I think he would be wrong anyway, Sife is TSO certified: https://www.austrocontrol.at/jart/prj3/austro_control/data/dokumente/TD_AOT_ACE_300_2017-04-19_1304378.pdf http://www.sife.at/tests SWS has been tested according to TSO-C23d, but can't be certified due to the lack of a FAA partner in Ukraine.

That's not true. There are at least 2 manufacturers that have a pin-based MARD with Collins lanyards. Sife and SWS. In my opinion the Curv is a top tier rig. I like their harness design and the thought they put on it, the design of the main flaps closing system and the extra details like the "sure grip" tape on the handles. I dislike the design of the reserve flaps, the lack of lateral "deflectors", the fact that you can't order without chest rings and the lack of Collins lanyard. That's why I chose Vector for my current rig, but I still consider the Curv among the best rigs in the industry. I'd love it if UPT copied some of the Curv features and viceversa.

For me a critical issue is how reliable and robust these 2 altis are going to be. There are a lot of new features on them but if they break easily (and that kind of screen can break easily) or fail to work properly (more complexity can potentially make them more error prone at basic tasks) then all the new stuff is secondary. Also: Dekunu One, cons: they want to build games for the climb up. I really think that is a very bad idea. Just another way to get complacent skydivers distracted. We don't need that.

In my experience an X-Fire 124 packs noticeable smaller than a Sabre 2 120 with a big logo. I had to shorten the loop around 1/2". I expect the X-Fire 153 to pack a tiny bit smaller than a Crossfire 149. But that is just an expectation, take it for what is worth.

Agreed. But not everyone takes their responsibilities "seriously" and do what they are supposed to do. And sometimes things are not clear cut and your actions as a man on top might not be obvious. If you have someone tracking diagonally below you, what do you do? Let's say they come from the left, because they didn't do a proper 180 on separation. -If you move to the left, but they notice their off heading tracking and correct it, you keep being right on top. -If you go to the right, but they keep tracking on an "angle", you keep being right on top. -If you keep your original trajectory, but they do a partial correction, you keep being right on top. -If you pull and they pull too, you are going to open pretty close to each other. In an ideal situation nothing like that would happen, of course. But in the real world it can and has happen. At the end of the day what is important is to land safely. To have a collision you need 2 people, but to avoid it the actions of one person can be enough. If the one above doesn't take the necessary actions to avoid it, the skydiver below has to step up or collide. If I'm not sure the space above me is clear I am not going to pull. Sometimes (hopefully very few) this might mean sucking it low or looking up before pulling once you know that there is nobody below you that you have to avoid. I don't mean to contradict you with this post. I am just saying that oversimplifications like "it is the responsibility of the one above" are just that, oversimplifications. And it would be a pity if someone reads that and thinks "if I am below I won't care to get out of my way to avoid a collision, I have the right of way and it is not my responsibility".

Well, you can NOT dump your canopy right in someone's face. That is something you can do. Not that taking it too low is an attractive option either, but........

That's great. With the new non-crossbraced Schumann planform wings I feel like there is a gap between them and crossbraced Schumann wings. I'm not sure current entry level crossbraced canopies cover well that gap.

There is not such a thing as "too conservative". If you don't feel comfortable flying something small, don't do it. I have a friend with more than 500 jumps that is still jumping the canopy he bought with 40 jumps. And enjoying it. I respect the shit out of him because of his decision of not following the downsizing trend just to be cool. Think about what you want, not on what everyone else does. Less forward speed on windy days. That's about it. A tiny bit more work for packing, and if you like to go fast under canopy, well, you won't.

Just to expand on that: The EVO series seems like a weird/interesting proposition. They have what they call "V-ribs", that are a sort of weird cross-braces. The load bearing ribs are divided in 2 in a V shape, which in theory results in a more efficient top skin. They applied that principle to 7-cell canopies (skipper), all around 9 cell canopies (magellan) and elliptical canopies (odyssey). The Odyssey EVO has also a Schumman planform (as opposed to the normal Odyssey, that has a planform similar to a crossfire 2). I am really curious about how these canopies perform and how the V-ribs affect pack volume.

Depends on the helmet. It shouldn't have protrusions or snag points. Other than that, I think it it reasonable. The only rated full-face helmet I know of (for skydiving) is the one the skyhelmet guys are doing (https://www.facebook.com/Skyhelmets-210211255784088/, http://www.skyhelmets.de/), but I don't know which certification they have. I guess one of the basic ones. The padding definitely looks more protecting than the padding on any other skydiving fullface helmet I've seen (G2/G3, Z1, Kiss, Phantom). To what degree, I can't really tell.

In my opinion, if the wind is so turbulent that you have to keep away from fronts or rears, you'd better off not jumping. Besides that, normally pulling on your fronts increases airspeed and pressurization, both of which help to deal with turbulence. Of course, it deforms the airfoil as well, and if your wing when pulling on fronts is close to the tipping point where it is not really stable anymore, going through turbulence can make it worse. So at the end, it depends on the wing, I think.

Welcome to the club! My suggestion is: wave off . Honestly, other than that it looked like the perfect 1st jump. Smooth inputs, perfect exit, good arch and stable position, good altitude awareness, you looked calm and in control, and you even cracked a smile. If somebody with a 1000 jumps was to make an AFF level 1 jump, they wouldn't do it much better. Maybe just the wave off, and looking at the altimeter before you had to be reminded by the instructor right before pulling.

IMO normal jumpers actively choosing not to jump a MARD do it due to poor risk assessment skills (they see possible line twists on a reserve, instead of noticing that they do have a reserve deployed almost instantly), overconfidence/ego ("I'll never be in a situation where a MARD would make a difference, I am not that stupid"), lack of gear understanding and price (gotta get whatever is available 2nd hand). I personally just see it justifiable in CRW and dedicated swooping. And in some cases when the jumper is carrying big and heavy camera equipment on their head.

After 2 days nobody stepped up, so I'll do my part and say it: "holy thread hijack, Batman" Great. Over forums sometimes things can be misinterpreted. I am glad it didn't happen here. I don't think there is anything wrong with just the most dedicated canopy pilots asking for exemptions..... if the rule works for the majority. For instance, the guy jumping a VK with 1200 jumps, 900 of them hop'n'pops, should in my view ask for an exemption, and it should be granted. I just think that flying a Katana 107 @1.9 at 900 jumps is something not aggressive enough to require an exemption. It should be part of the rule, provided the guy doing it has had a safe and reasonable canopy progression so far. Nobody needs a WL of 2.0. I don't it is a matter of needing, but of wanting, and skills to handle it. Interesting. I didn't know that. So I guess that, in a way, getting an instructor license in the Netherlands is way more complicated than in other places, since they have more power (and with it, more responsibilities). That out-of-contecxt-statement actually made me laugh. You are absolutely right - and what's more, skydiving is no different that any other area you care to name, including politics. If I was german that'd be the take away lesson from the thread. "The Dutch have no power" Rightfully so.

Each country has its own federation and rules. Some might have recommendations about various things (canopies, cameras, wingsuits, freefly levels, etc). Some might have regulations, about some or all of these areas. Some might reuse USPA ways. Some might enforce the rules or not. Some DZs might even operate outside of the national federation. So in general, there isn't a straight answer. But the Dutch have no power in any other country, and the rules under which they operate are valid just in the DZs affiliated to their federation.

Are you sure this is a ramp? [inline noramp.png] In the "can" vs "will" argument: Both are equivalent for many individuals. If you allow something, someone will do it. Hell, some will even try to get away with it even if you don't allow it.

I would agree, if it wasn't because I am not German (I just live here now) and because these are not recommendations, these are regulations Sure. No rules are perfect. I was just pointing out flaws I've seen. Not just in KNVvLPA's regulations, but generally. Other federations follow similar schemes. They are a "decent tool", but if we can do better, why not? 1.8 at 850 jumps is nothing sort of a swooping wonder. It is reasonable for the average skydiver interested in CP. Note the word "reasonable" (as opposed to "logical", "normal" or "desirable"), and note too the "interested in CP" bit. I am also not sure how open KNVvLPA is to add exemptions, but in many other federations they are pretty difficult to get, and even when you get them is often a long and frustrating process. Which in the real world means that nobody will ask for them for these kind of things, except the extremely dedicated CP, maybe. I guess by "instructor" you mean the S&TA or the DZO, and not just one random instructor. So the S&TA is free to tell you to piss off with your unhealthy option, but he might not do it for a thousand reasons (trust the guy, doesn't care, don't want confrontation, secretly want him to femur because he stole his girlfriend, he isn't aware of the huge step in canopy progression of that guy, believe in your freedom to make stupid choices....). Whatever. So the S&TA doesn't say anything, the jumper makes a stupid decision, but everything is within the limits. Then the guy bounces and "we all saw it coming but he was a grown ass man and made his own decisions". As I said before, I personally believe that building a "ramp" instead of a "staircase" within the regulations, taking into account more factors than just jump numbers, would be a safer and more logical option. It might be more difficult to put on paper or to make it understandable for everyone (particularly when you introduce multiple factors in the equation), but IMO it bets having the same limits from 700 to 1000 jumps (or from 500 to 1000, like we have in Belgium). None of my comments were meant as "the regulations of federation X are BS", but more as a "we, as a community, should do better at establishing a clean, progressive and safe canopy progression path for those who are interested in it"

Of course not. Possibly not even for 500 jumps. That's part of my point. That the ranges are too big, and they can be too lax in the lower end and too restrictive in the upper end (depending on the range), and completely ignore the circumstances of each individual. Surviving for 1000 jumps is not the best metric to assess people's capacity to make good decisions IMO. It just shows that none of the decisions taken has been catastrophic yet. Also your friends beating some sense into you has never worked particularly well. That's what the regulations are for. In case someone and his/her friends are idiots. Ok, I missed that part, thanks for pointing it out. I think you are missing my point. Maybe because I focused too much on the "restrictive" bits of the regulation. I am just saying that a) CP proficiency can't be assessed just by jump numbers; and b) the current regulation has a "staircase" shape with big steps, instead of being more of a ramp (which in my opinion makes more sense). You aren't more capable of handling a WL of 2.0 at 1000 jumps than at 999 jumps. But you might be able to handle a WL of 1.8 at 850 jumps. One of this examples is permitted, the other is not.