Deimian

Maybe they consider that, but IMO that'd be a mistake. Jump numbers are not necessarily related to wise decisions (eg: experience jumper going from a Storm 107 to VE96 at once). Besides that, I think it makes far more sense to have more gradual and personalized limits. +0.1 on WL per 100 jumps is a rule of thumb, that even though it is far from perfect, could be mixed&matched with that scheme, together with other considerations. Canopy control is not a one dimensional space, where jump numbers is the only metric. Having 0 leeway to fly anything smaller than 120 with 950 jumps, and then total freedom 50 jumps later seems short-sighted to me. In my opinion these simplifications ignore too many things. Currency, demonstrated ability, safety track, style of canopy flying, canopy piloting experience (600 hop'n'pops are not the same as 600 wingsuit jumps), coaching... Taking all these things in consideration you'd find out that you can and should move the limits up and down depending on the individual. But of course "ain't nobody got time for that". These limits are similar in Flanders, but with canopy control courses you can get a bit extra leeway. http://valschermsport.be/docs/koepelkeuze_VVP.pdf. I find that a better approach, but I still think these limits are too permissive on the lower end and too restrictive in the upper end (ie: jump ranges are too wide and restrictions ignore individual circumstances). For instance: You are allowed to jump a 117 canopy with a WL of 1.7 at 501 jumps, or a 105 @1.9 if you have had a canopy control course (Flight-1 101 done right after AFF qualifies as a CP course). I find that too permissive. These are the same limits than with 999 jumps, where I find them pretty reasonable for most people. But then these scheme ignores other things, like how dedicated you are to CP. We have had a guy with ~1200 jumps, ~900 of them hop'n'pops, that was kicked out for flying a VK (WL and canopy size within the allowed limits). I consider that a mistake. For sure most people at ~1200 jumps shouldn't be jumping a VK. But somebody dedicated purely to CP, and with a super safe record, could be an exception.

I find it very weird that on the 700-1000 jumps range, the minimum allowed size is 120 and the maximum WL is 1.7, and after 1000 jumps there is no limit, neither for canopy size nor for WL. Just looking at that it seems like it is ok to go from a 120 to a 79 in one step, and that having a 107 at a WL of 1.75 with 900 jumps is a no go .

That's correct. But it also increases the chances of the excess snagging your camera/sight ring. That's a choice to make.

Can you clarify what you mean by shitty risers, Deimian? This is the first time I've come across good vs. bad risers (as opposed to simply old or worn-out). Oh, well, it is simply that the diving loops were made of a single layer of type 17 webbing and lower on the risers than the diving loops I am used to. I use louie loops, which sit a bit higher on the risers and have an extra layer of tubular webbing inside. These two things makes them easier/more comfortable to pull. Calling the other risers "shitty" was just me being picky.

As you said, "which is best" is subjective. The Crossfire 3 has the same planform than the Crossfire 2. They have reshaped the panels to make a smoother surface and they have lengthened a bit the recovery arc. I believe the openings are also a bit quicker, as some people felt the openings of the Crossfire 2 as too slow. So if you like how the Crossfire 2 flies, but would like it to dive a bit longer, you'll like the Crossfire 3. The X-Fire is a completely different beast, designed for a similar kind of jumper. The openings are soft, on heading and well staged, and a tad quicker than Crossfire 2 too. The recovery arc is also longer than Crossfire 2, without being as long as the Katana. The planform is completely different than Crossfire 2/3 or Katana. It is similar to Valkyries/Peregrines/Petras/Leias/Sofias/Teslas/HKs/Airwolfs/HSs/Helixes. That means that it is more efficient than traditional designs (more lift, which translates into longer swoops and better glide ratio, all other things being equal), but more sensitive to input, so it needs more work to get used to it when compared to Crossfire 2. Subjectively speaking, I liked the X-Fire enough to buy one after demoing it some months ago (but I'll wait to replace my current wing, as I don't want to do it right at the end of the season). But you need to get used to how it flies, as it is closer to high performance wings than similar canopies on its range. I've heard a couple of people saying it was the best working canopy they've ever tried, fun, quick, but with reliable openings. But I can't really compare it with a Crossfire 3, I haven't jumped one. In contrast to the above poster, I didn't feel the fronts particularly light. Quite the opposite. But my WL was significantly lower (1.5ish), and I demoed the canopy on shitty risers, which might negatively influence that perception.

Comprendez? I do understand your points. Comprendo . But as it was a discussion point, I did discuss , nothing else. Sorry if I got too caught up in the argument.

I agree, but I do not believe this has any influence on AADs. It it very real on computers, TVs, phones, home appliances, etc. But one thing that people complaining about it typically forget is that in many cases this is the price to pay to advance quicker. The revenue of one generation of products pays for the research and development that goes into the next one. If things last forever, the development of new products would stagnate, unless the prices skyrocket. It is that simple. Affordable, long lasting and better than before. Pick any two. Sure, that might be a possibility. But I see two issues with that: -It has to be actively supported by the manufacturer and its suppliers, which would mean guaranteeing the supply of all its components. I think most electronic providers would laugh when a customer asks for a non-stop supply of a low volume and cheap component for 20+ years. So the issue goes up the chain of suppliers, it is not just the AAD manufacturer (which is small fish in the big picture). -Assuming the first point is not an issue, I'd doubt the savings would be huge. That would mean replacing all the electronics and sensors. So you can reuse the cutter (assuming the charge doesn't chemically degrade over 20+ years), the display and button, and the plastic or metallic case. Savings would be minor. A couple of hundred dollars maybe?. I don't know. It looks to me like you want to see AAD manufacturers as evil corporations focused on squeezing every dollar out of its customers. While I agree that they are in the market to sell units and make money, not to make friends with skydivers, I think you underestimate the complexity and costs of reliably extending AADs' life past the manufacturers stated lifespan.

I disagree. Electronic components have a limited lifespan, that varies a lot depending on a large number of factors. Would you be at the receiving end of a misfiring AAD? Because that can very well happen if people start pushing the life of their AADs with the mindset of "it will probably be ok and I won't accept this throwaway culture and the bullying to make me buy another AAD". For sure AAD manufacturers are in business to sell units. But that is no reason to disregard their recommendations. Maybe airtec determined through internal testing that their units are safe for up to 20 years. Take 30% from that to be safe for each and every unit out there. That's 14 years lifespan. Maybe they decided to add an extra 1.5 years just to sell more units. Ok. But I honestly prefer to be tricked into buying a new AAD 1.5 years ahead of time, than to fool myself thinking that I (or any other external company not endorsed by the manufacturer) know better than airtec (or vigil, or mars, or any other).

You had a malfunction. You reacted properly and according to your training. You survived. That should feel good, not bad. Everyone makes mistakes, don't punish yourself. You learned your lesson. Be happy about it.

Exactly......... If the brake is correctly set there is no force applied to the toggle keeper at all, it all goes to the guide ring. If the toggle keeper is worn out it hardly matters (as long as the toggle stays in place and the brake is not released, of course)

Well, JFX has been praised for its good openings and tame (for being a crossbraced canopy) but fun flight characteristics. I haven't flown one, so I can't talk out of experience, but it looks to me like a very good first crossbraced canopy. It is less aggressive than a Velo or a JVX. It will probably dive a bit less than a katana, but it will carry you further. It all depends on how aggressive you want to be with your canopy progression.

Have you consider a JFX?

Just 3 comments: -The foam inserts normally wear out rather fast. At least the ones I tried. -If the glass is polarized it will make it difficult to read digital altimeters. You'll be distracted trying to find a proper angle to being able to read it. That's the main reason why I don't jump with my driving sunglasses. -I thought I would need something tight, with inserts, etc. I was wrong. I jump now Julbo Montebianco with a relatively loose strap, and I have had no issues. Some occasional shacking when I stand up for a long time, but that's about it. I think we tend to overestimate the need for a tight fit in our goggles.

That depends on a number of factors on both canopies (line age and type, how long are the steering lines and age and state of the fabric). Wingloading is also an important factor. But more importantly than the flare, which most probably will be just fine, is how faster it is, and how you deal with it. You are skipping one size. That is normally not a wise move.

IMHO, nobody should answer this question here. It depends on so many variables, that any simple answer will be useless. At best it would be too high. At worse too low. Average: Too high for some, to low for others, and fine for the few remaining.

We are overlapping our answers . You are right, but I don't think it pays off. Unless you have a small canopy the behaviour won't change enough to warrant the increased risk of loosening your chest strap when practicing intentional deep stalls. IMO.

I am a Mr. Nobody, but from my perspective I don't think it is necessary to repeatedly stall your canopy in every jump. Your original post came across as it is something you do regularly. But maybe I misunderstood you. The target of the stalling exercises is to know where is the stall point of your canopy so you don't get there close to the ground. This is the value of that exercise. Once the canopy stalls there isn't much you can practice (besides recovering), so if you hold it for long it will be a waste time and altitude that you would better off practicing other things. I think it is a very valuable exercise, but I don't see value in taking the exercise to the extreme. But again, I am nobody. In any case, I see no reason to loosen your chest strap if you are going to practice stalls. I rather be tightly strapped if I am stalling my canopy. You have very little to lose by keeping it tight, and a lot to loose if things go south with a loose chest strap. That's risky, even if you are familiar with normal rear risers landing. Broken brake lines is one thing, because you can apply symmetrical input to both risers. But if just one brake is stuck you'll need asymmetrical inputs (toggle in one side and rear riser on the other) which are way more difficult to get right. Besides that, you'll need to flight your whole pattern in brakes, so you'll have way less power in your flare. The whole situation would qualify for me as a severe problem, and I would take my chances with my reserve. Others might evaluate it when they face the situation, but if they take too long evaluating the problem they'll lose precious altitude. I think it is wise to think about it before facing it.

I would highly recommend to stop doing that. Unless by "low" you mean "low to be comfortable doing stalls", instead of "low" as in "get ready to land". Toggle stall recovery is not too predictable, particularly in smaller canopies, as you are seeing. You are unlikely to be head down because of line twists. But of course loosening your chest strap means that you can move more inside the harness and make falling out more likely (still unlikely though). The questions for me are: Why are you regularly doing stalls out of boredom? And why don't you do intentional stalls with the chest strap tightly fastened? I just loose my chest strap after I know I'll be stable seating in the harness for the rest of the ride (ie: that's the last thing I do during my opening routine, right after popping the toggles). I would be uncomfortable otherwise, because of the increased risk of falling out and because of the added difficulty to find my cutaway and reserve handles in case of a malfunction (locked brake for instance).

This was on the first post:

That's an interesting canopy. I didn't know that inflatable stabilizers were a thing in the early 90s!

Don't be a teaser. Tell us how is it different Regarding the nail pin......... I'd never jump that. Seems like you'd get more PCs in tow, more broken grommets and stiffeners and more wear on the loop.

I've got a X-Fire 124 too, for demoing. I could make just 4 jumps, in very windy conditions. My normal canopy is a Sabre 2 120 and my WL is ~1.55 -The X-Fire packed way smaller than my Sabre 2. But my Sabre 2 has a really big logo with 3 layers of material in some areas, so it packs way bigger than normal. The same week I demoed a Katana 120, and I used the same loop for the Katana and for the X-Fire. I think it might have been a bit softer on the X-Fire, but it is difficult to compare directly. -Openings are soft and well staged, but not super long. 3 times it was perfectly on heading. The 4th time I had a single twist. It still opened on heading and kept flying levelled. I blame the packer (me) for that twist. -It is gorgeous. Not important, but it really is gorgeous. -The harness sensitivity is amazing. I obviously can't compare with VKs or Petras/Leias, but it was way more sensitive than my Sabre 2, and more than the Katana I demoed. I am used to lean a lot on my harness for my last turn (90). That keeps my Sabre 2 diving a tiny bit more, but in the X-Fire, after I let go of the fronts, it kept turning. I countered it by leaning on the other side and started turning towards it instead of straightening. I kept countering turns with harness input almost until landing. Very, very sensitive. But I loved it! I just need to get used to it, I am probably just used to "overdo it" in a less sensitive wing. -I couldn't play too much with it, but I had the feeling that it has way more range on rears than my Sabre 2 and maybe also more than the Katana. Again, difficult to say with just 4 jumps (2 on the Katana). I didn't land on rears any of them, but I tried them up high. It seemed to slow down steadily, nice and easy for a long time after a turn. Turning on rears is way more radical on the X-Fire than on the Sabre 2, or even Crossfire and Katana. -I don't feel like it dived significantly more than my Sabre 2. A bit more yes, much more, no. But I was doing 90s. I suspect the difference gets bigger with larger turns. I had the same feeling with the Katana, just for reference. But maybe expectations play a role here as well. I was expecting the Katana to just drop out of the sky. It wasn't as much as I expected. -Fronts are heavier than my Sabre 2. I suspect a more efficient turn on this wing would use less fronts and more harness. But that is coming straight out of my ass. Also I didn't like the loops on the risers they had, they were lower than my louie loops, and made of type 17, plain and simple. Maybe that played a role also on what I felt. -During my first jump with it I came out of my turn way too high. After that it didn't want to land, it kept gliding forever, or so I felt, even with significant wind. -I think it has a lot of flare, but the one I tried had way too much slack on the brakes. During the first 2 jumps I had barely enough power to level out and run on touch down (remember, it was windy). The tail started deflecting when I had my hands at my lower chest level, more or less. I asked them to shorten the brakes, they noticed that they had indeed more slack than other sizes they tried (I think I was one of the first jumping that particular canopy), and then I jumped it again. I think they shorten the brakes 2". After that it had way more flare power than before, but I still think there was too much slack. I liked the wing a lot. The overall feeling I had is that there is a significant difference between its handling and the handling of a Sabre 2. It felt more advanced than a Katana (which is less sensitive on harness, might have less range on rears and is way lighter in fronts). The Katana flew more similar to my Sabre 2 than the X-Fire. However, the X-Fire does all that without diving scarily, at least with 90s, so I wouldn't necessarily say that it is more advanced than a Katana. It just flies differently. I'd love to demo one again, and play a bit more with fronts, and see if it makes sense to have shorter brake lines. My next canopy will probably be either a new X-Fire or a second hand Katana. Price plays a role, and both seem like a reasonable step from a Sabre 2 120. Crossfire 3 is also in the "to consider" list. Tesla as well, but I saw one during last week whose whole C and D sections were fluttering at landing various times, once even scarily. It might be a one off though, or an effect of the windy conditions. I think the owner is checking what happened.

Indeed. For a domestic new membership, accounting for inflation since 1998, the price in 2017 should be $97.59 (http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/). I wouldn't complain too much if I was an USPA member (I am not)

I also support the course, but there is one variable that it can't mitigate. You can't get rid of the "this is going to look so badass on video" factor with it. From the psychology point of view it is probably related to quick downsizing. Essentially a lack of good judgement about your own skills and limits. If everyone was more aware of their limits nobody would be distracted by a camera or make a mistake because they are trying to get the shot. Of course everyone is susceptible to these kind of mistakes, not just novice jumpers, and everyone can have a momentary lapse of judgement. Maybe it makes sense to introduce that topic for a B license for instance, with tips about how to keep your own ego at bay, the Dunning–Kruger effect, etc.

And I think that's precisely because "youngsters" have grown up with it. Everyone today wants to film and share what they do and get as many likes as possible. That pushes some people not level headed to push their limits. Older people don't care so much about sharing their cool videos, so they don't try to get them before they are ready.