tsf

Have you tried inquiring with Aerodyne?

I've noticed this new canopy pop up on the Fluid Wings website and saw a couple posts on the Fluid Wings facebook page, but otherwise I have not heard/seen much about this new canopy (not even a promotional/release video from Fluid as they have done for their other canopies). Has anybody had the chance to jump the Nexus or own one? Thoughts on its opening/flight characteristics compared to other canopies in its range?

There is a decent population of skydivers that believes spinning cutaways using MARDs (or even just RSLs) leads to line twists on reserves. These people sometimes vocalize that they prefer to get stable after chopping & manually deploy their reserve instead of using a MARD/RSL, while others are fine with just an RSL. Some of these people also jump high performance canopies, where a spinning malfunction cutaway is purported to have an even higher likelihood of resulting in reserve line twists if chopped with a MARD. A MARD is also an added complexity in the reserve deployment system, and some people place particular value on keeping things simple when it comes to safety. Note that Skyhooks aren't perfect, and there have been instances where the Skyhook never engaged. It is also worth noting that not every container has a MARD available, and people choose their specific container for a variety of reasons. And for full disclosure, I prefer a MARD over no MARD if given the option.

I heard something about the wind being choppy or turbulent at higher speeds. Is that still the case, or did they fix whatever it was that was causing the issue when it opened?

The G3 is super common, so there are about a million different ways to mount a camera on it, but what about the Aero? Is there an easy way to mount a camera on the front? I'm talking about the equivalent of this: http://www.chutingstar.com/grellfab-gopro-g3-front-mount

Is this a case of old Vectors vs. new Javelins? I've personally seen lots of main pin flaps on Javelins in person and in videos, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was ultimately container age.

What exactly is the "split dbag" design that the Javelin Odyssey has? To those talking about comfort differences between the Odyssey & Vector3, assuming both rigs are custom designed to your dimensions (and both are articulated with spacerfoam), what exactly is the difference in their designs that makes one more comfortable than the other?

What is it about the fabric that makes a new canopy have this "slippery" feeling that wants to move around & expand when brand new? Also, it seems to be commonly reported that ZP canopies lose this quality after quite a number of deployments (as opposed to after some amount of time)--what is happening during deployment that is causing the canopy to gradually lose this slipperiness (would the canopy lose slipperiness differently after 200 sub-terminal deployments vs. 200 terminal deployments)?

They aren't testing the critical functionality of the AAD, though. They may do 1000s, or 10000s of jumps, but I bet they have 0 or very close to 0 AAD fires (and a professional is probably one of the least likely to end up in a situation where he/she has to rely on the AAD to save him/her). It's like Mario Andretti driving your car for 100,000 miles to prove the airbag system is good. If he never gets into an accident, what can he really prove about the reliability of the airbag system? Probably just that it never gave him an error or misfired on him.

The factor isn't a wash just because it can happen with any product (that logic would make almost all factors a wash). You have to consider which product is more likely to have an error or service recall. And if you're just looking at the raw # of reported errors, you also have to factor in sample size (there are a LOT more Vigil II's out there). And if you say "who cares, an error is an error," then consider that your M2 could have an error but it might not get caught because the sample size is small and nothing gets reported. 99% of people that are happy with their particular AAD are NOT happy because it worked as intended for its critical application (as in it fired when exactly when they needed it to). They are happy because it didn't misfire, it hasn't had any errors, and it hasn't had to be recalled. Something to consider when someone says they love their brand X AAD.

I'm still getting this same error when browsing the classifieds section (such as when limiting the listings to a given country).

What's the difference between the J2 & the J2K? For some reason I always thought the "K" designation was for the Odyssey containers, and "non-K" was for regular Javelins, but both of those appear to be Odyssey containers...

So, J1KS is also shorter than J2K (and that's why it fits a smaller reserve?)?

I would figure having a slightly larger reserve would always be better, but I am just wondering if there are any other size differences that might explain why the J1KS exists. Would one fit better than the other for a tall person, broad vs. narrow shoulders, etc. ? How is the extra reserve space size realized with respect to container dimensions?

Can anyone with either of these two provide pictures of their packed rig? These two seem to hold the same sized main, but the J2K can hold a larger reserve, so I'm wondering how the dimensions are different (and I'm assuming the J2K would then be a more rectangular overall shape compared to the J1KS?).

I'm using Windows 7.

Does anyone know what happened to the Infinity Container designer/coloring program? I can't find it from the Infinity website and the link I found from googling doesn't load at all...

I will never understand this logic. You have to use your main on basically 100% of jumps so why jump some ragged out/possibly out of trim "older" parachute? When I see people pack a $300 (if that) parachute into a $3000 rig I simply wonder, why? Because the main is something you have fun with and the rig is something that saves your life every time you leave the plane. Because a main with 10 patches and 5 cm out of trim is cheap but might still be airworthy ,and a poorly fitting rig is safety hazard. Because you spend up to 10 times more time in your harness than under your main. Because you can make more jumps on a new rig than on a new canopy..... ...And the list goes on If you had to choose only 1 to spend money on, then it makes sense. But, I think he was asking why people skimp on the main instead of, say, saving up a little longer to get BOTH a nice main and a nice container. With that in mind, going back to your points: 1. A main is something you have fun with, but why not have it "save your life" as well by being new or relatively unused, nice/clean lines, well-maintained, etc.? If you can add some extra degree of safety without compromising how fun it is, why not? 2. A poor fitting rig is a safety hazard, and the canopy you quoted **might** be airworthy. Why not remove all doubt for the sake of safety and not buy such a rough canopy? 3. Most of that time is just sitting in the plane, though. You spend a fair amount of time under canopy as well. Arguably, under canopy is the most important as you rely on it to get back down safely. So, it seems strange to skimp on this part. 4. I'm assuming you're referring to slower pack times on a new canopy? Okay, it'll be slower in the beginning, but if it's safety we're talking about, is maybe dropping ~1-2 jump per day until it becomes less slippery really that big of a deal?

Can you shed some light on why a Pulse 150 packs larger than a Storm 150 (making the container look more "preggo")? I know the Storm is a 7-cell, but I thought the low-bulk fabric on the Pulse would make it still pack smaller than a 7-cell. http://www.performancedesigns.com/packingchart.asp PD's website lists a Pulse 150 having a pack volume of the same size as a Storm 135, so I would have figured a Storm 150 would pack bigger than a Pulse 150.

Sorry for a slight hi-jack, but is there any relation (weave, pack density, etc.) between this "low-bulk" ZPX and the "proprietary low-bulk fabric" on the PD Pulse? Or is there not much detailed information on the Pulse material because it is "proprietary"?

Does anyone have experience with this relatively new option on the Javelin Odyssey? Is it the real deal and something that makes the Javelin an option to more seriously consider over other options (assuming here that cost is not a factor)? Or is this new lateral system just marketing fluff and nothing remarkable?

I have the recent Zhills incident still in mind, but I'm just wondering why there isn't an AAD manufacturer that allows programmable firing altitude (other than trying to do some sort of offset by turning it on at a different altitude than your DZ)? The firing altitude adjustment I'm talking about would only allow increasing it for the more conservative/cautious jumpers. I know that there is a cypress "student" mode, but I believe that doesn't apply for terminal malfunctions. I would have thought that this would be an obvious feature as there must be a number of jumpers that religiously avoid pulling low or don't do low hop & pops or high performance canopy maneuvers, so they'd want to set their AAD to fire at, say, 1500-2000 feet to err on the side of caution. Maybe it's just a dumb question and I shouldn't put too much weight into the recent Zhills incident. Admittedly, I don't have a lot of experience, so I wouldn't be surprised if the answer is something obvious that I'm just not thinking of...

I don't really have gear fear anymore, but in AFF I had it bad. Even though I was getting checked out by my instructor, I wish I had better confidence to know that if something was wrong with my rig that I would catch it. I wish that part of the instruction would have been time spent on rigorously inspecting gear. I'm talking about having the student inspect many "dummy" rigs and conclude if they are ready to jump or not. Mixed in with perfectly fine rigs would be rigs with common issues that range in severity (exposed bridle, no reserve seal, sketchy closing pin, not enough bridle slack, too much bridle slack, etc.). Is this excessive? I know part of it is that instructors really only have so much time, and it's possible that this is more my shortcomings as a student and not the responsibility of an instructor. But I feel like it would help in the early stages to help instill confidence that you do in fact have your wits about you when you inspect your gear (as opposed to *always* seeing a proper rig ready to jump when you do your gear inspections).

As a beginner browsing around for a first canopy, I'm lost in all of the different types of canopies (pulse, spectre, etc.). Once I've decided on a certain size for the appropriate wing loading for my jump experience, how do I decide which brand/model is most appropriate? Are there any folks here that have jumped many different ones that can comment on what certain types of parachutes are known for (easy to pack, hard to pack, softer openings, harder openings, slower openings, sensitive flight, etc.)?