shadeland

No, they're both NexGen. And I've seen their pre-Nexgen charts, they make more sense from what I've seen with both my NexGens.

I own two Icons, an i5 (2014) and an i3 (2015). I enjoy them both. I've found Icons, at least in the Pacific Northwest and desert areas, are ambitious to what they say can fit. For instance, my Icon i3 can barely fit a 135 from IPT, where it's supposed to hold a 140. In more humid conditions, a 140 might be easier. In my i3, I've normally got a Crossfire 3 109 in there, and it's a good solid fit. It's supposed to bottom out at 120, but I think I could fit slightly smaller than a 109. I had a ZPX Pilot 117 in there as well, and my next canopy will probably be a Pilot 111 ZP. Currently it has a Pilot 132 ZP for big ways, and it's a rather firm fit. Not too difficult, but the closing loop is pretty long and the loop is still quite tight. My i5 currently has a pilot 150 in there, and I've had a Crossfire 2 129 (I wouldn't recommend a 129, but a 150 is pretty solid). Crossfires tend to pack a little bit bigger (not a full size, maybe not even a half size, but they have more material I believe from the way they're constructed compared to a traditional nose). When I got my i3, I had a SmartLPV 150 put in. A master rigger with over 10,000 reserve packjobs had a hard time getting it in there. I swapped it out with a Optimum 143 and it's a much better fit (I think the Optimum material packs smaller than the SmartLPV material). I pack it now as a relatively new rigger and find it works great. I've got an Optimum 160 in my i5, and it's a medium-tight fit. I don't know that I would try an Optimum 176.

I also recommend a Pilot 168 ZPX, however if you demo keep in mind they do fly very differently. A pilot is a lot flatter and the flare is quite different. If a Pilot's brake lines are too long, you'll miss out on a good amount of flare, so you'll want to try some test flares up high and you might have to take a wrap or two.

I've had two chops on a PD Optimum 143, loaded at ~1.3. I don't think I noticed any harness sensitivity. It flew pretty boring and was a mostly one stage flare, but I stood up both in little wind. On my first cutaway, I had line twists in the reserve but it flew straight and was easily able to kick out of it. Both deployments were skyhooks.

I experienced a Vigil failure on a jump at 30,000 feet. In May 2016 I did a 30,000 foot jump at Skydance. The night before I was sure to turn my AAD off, since I'd just turned it on when I arrived at Skydance for a last load or two. In the morning, I turned it on and did the hour of pre-breathing. The jump went as planned. Despite it being -40 (same in F as it is in C) I was relatively warm, except for my fingers which were burning from the cold. I opted to pay for a packer and they packed it. When the packer handed me my rig, my AAD was off. I knew I turned it on. I tried to turn it on, and got Control Error 9. I sent it in, and they sent me a new unit. They promised to get back to me on what happened, but never did. Thankfully, I didn't need it.

https://youtu.be/LUAJsrSK260 I did a quick video on patterns, feel free to steal :)

The good news is once you get good at packing that slippery fucker, it's usually all downhill from there.

My personal experience (though not extensive) is the opposite. When I've tried them they were prone to disconnects, were hard to pair even right next to each other on the plane, etc. Two different sets of gear, but again my experience was probably about 5-10 jumps with them.

I think there are a couple of important things to point out here: 1) The original poster knew enough about their own gear to ask a question about spring loaded pilot chutes and hesitation. I think it shows they're thinking about safety and asking good questions. They're clearly thinking about these things and developing a better understanding. This is, utterly, entirely, and without question a good thing. 2) I don't think it's fair to expect a newly license jumper to know everything about all sport gear. Clearly they know their gear has a spring loaded reserve pilot chute. It looks like they're a fairly new jumper (A license), not a rigger. We need them to know their gear, and more importantly, their EPs. And given the questions they're asking, they're thinking about EPs. 3) By admonishing the poster in this manner we risk discouraging the asking of questions by creating toxic environment. An environment where people are fearful of asking a questions because someone with a lot more experience (and maybe has forgotten what it's like to be new at this) says "they should have already known it" or some other admonishiment. Maybe they should have known, maybe not (in this case I don't think they should have), but either way it's far better to address it than to admonish it. We want to cure ignorance, not encourage it. Because a toxic environment where people are discouraged from asking questions, quite simply, is a recipe for death. We aren't playing tiddlywinks. When we stamp their foreheads many of us tell them it's a license to learn. Let's not discourage that. So original poster, keep posting these questions. You're asking good questions (don't forget to ask you instructors, generally they're a better resource than message boards). But these are important questions. Keep it up.

It's always a possibility, but fortunately it seems rare. Or at least, with that much hesitation. There was probably some additional burble/turbulence from the bridle he had bouncing around up there, maybe it interfered. Being belly to Earth for a reserve deployment means there's a chance you can launch it right into the burble. They usually clear it even in those cases, but not always, which is why I was taught as part of my EPs to look over both shoulders (check right, check left) after the reserve ripcord is pulled. If there's a pilot chute caught in a burble that check will tilt your body and will hopefully expose the pilot chute to relative wind and the reserve deployment sequence will continue. Watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCrvQ_xy_LA Go to settings and set it to .25 speed. You'll see the guy in frame, his reserve hesitates for a split second in the burble, which probably saved them both as they ended up deploying at two (very slightly) different altitudes instead of wrapping in each other's shit.

There's a Paradactyl-looking thing called a Beamer being used for paragliding reserves. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2Kf1Kv7mnU

Several people have mentioned Tempos, Ravens, etc., fly different/were designed differently from modern canopies. However, the Performance Design Reserve has been around for a while. I believe it was initially tested under C23b, then later (and currently) C23d. Are they two different models? Do newer PDRs fly differently than older ones?

My personal view: I double wrap every stow, locking and otherwise. I use medium sized rubber bands (some people call them large, whatever isn't the small rubber bands) throughout. I do this because: 1) My master rigger mentor recommends double stowing the locking stows (and he has 50,000 pack jobs between packing-related malfunctions) 2) PD Recommends also double stowing all the way through (the previously linked video) 3) Keeping one size rubber bands makes things logistically easier 4) Once you get good at double stowing (doesn't take long) it doesn't take longer to double stow versus single stow 5) I'm not concerned about bag lock. It either doesn't happen because of double locking stows, or at the very least, incredibly rare and easy to cut away. I personally don't think a bag lock on a tandem system is a good comparison because of the many differences in the deployment sequence and other factors. But that's me personally.

Yeah that one was pretty crazy. The PIA was generally all over the map.

I made a graph, but I'm not sure it would help. I used a PIA document (link below) as well as the PD Reserve manuals reported volume, and came up with some interesting numbers. PIA Document: http://www.rigginginnovations.com/files/Docuemnts/Other/PIA%20Canopy%20Volume.pdf PD Reserve Manual: http://www.performancedesigns.com/docs/Reserve_manual.pdf The variances with the PIA chart are pretty wide, and its covered in this document here (at the bottom): http://www.performancedesigns.com/docs/packvol.pdf

I've probably put about 600 jumps on my Crossfire 2 129. When the Crossfire 3 came out, I ordered a 109 size (wing loading about 1.7) The flare is about the same as a Crossfire 2, that is to say, quite strong. Straight off, I noticed the openings were faster. They weren't painful or even uncomfortable, just quicker than you'd get with the Crossfire 2s. The Crossfire 2s had beautifully slow openings, though it burned up a lot of altitude. My guess is the feedback is that they wanted something that opened a bit quicker, and that's what the 3 is. It's still a well staged opening. Another change from the 2 is the trim. I didn't notice it at first as I was super conservative in my flying (most of my patterns were done on rear risers for the first dozen or so jumps) as I had changed my wing loading a bit more than I wanted to. But as I got more comfortable with the 3, I noticed my turns bled off more altitude. It has a longer recovery arc than the 2 does, and the even if doing conservative turns you'll need to start your pattern higher than you would with a 2. The jump in wing loading can account for some of this, but generally people have also said they're trimmed steeper and the recovery arc longer.

For retrofitting older risers with only a fabric channel (or a plastic channel) with a metallic channel, what do you charge?

FAR Part 105: http://www.flightsimaviation.com/data/FARS/part_105.html AC 105E: https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_105-2E.pdf

I saw something on /r/flying which reminded me of this discussion (regarding what happens on the ground versus what happens in the air mass) At Soto Cano AB in Honduras on Jan 13 of 2001 the tower controller was talking to a Chinook in the pattern when he felt the building shaking, so without thinking he keyed the mic and it went something like this: "Sugarbear 26, did you guys feel that?" "feel what?" "I think we are having an earthquake" "Think about what you just said and get back to me"

No (assuming you're doing a standard rate turn or otherwise not inducing an accelerated stall). Your wing only knows indicated airspeed. Generally, your wing has no idea what the air mass you're moving in is doing relative to the ground. Your ground track should show 45 MPH into the wind, and 105 MPH after the 180. But your wing and indicated airspeed will always show 75 MPH unless pitch is changed or additional thrust, etc.

I have an answer! It's their website. It has incorrect spans. A friend mentioned something about differeing TSOs, so I looked the manual. Turns out the manual has the correct spans and chords. They match the model number. Someone mixed up the spans on the website, that's all.

There's a side discussion in the incidents form regarding whether or not a canopy will naturally turn into the wind. Specifically, an unconcious AAD deployment. Landing a ram-air canopy upwind or downwind in a moderate to high wind day (maybe even low-wind) can have a huge effect on the outcome for the jumper. I'm starting this thread as a discussion to take it out of the incident. Some suggest that canopies tend to turn into the wind. Others have said otherwise. My personal thought: No, canopies don't naturally turn into the wind. A canopy will fly straight in the body of air its in. If the body of air is moving in one direction, the canopy moves with it, but the canopy thinks its straight. Example: Canopy opens on heading, and flies a north course (360) and its indicated airspeed (relative to the mass of air) is 20 MPH. The wind is coming from the West at 20 MPH. The ground track would be NE at ~28 MPH (if my E6B computer math is right). Without input the jumper would impact the ground at 28 MPH on a 45 angle (Hopefully helping make a natural PLF). I can't think of a way for the air to communicate with the ground what direction the ground winds are going. That's my thoughts on the matter, at least.

What I'm not sure is why the PDRs are inconsistent in that regard. Some of the models the math adds up, others they don't. And the divergence means the measured square footage (by however they measure it) is smaller than the stated size. I even made a graph, because graphs. The bottom axis shows the models, and the side axis shows the percent smaller the measurement math shows versus the stated size.

Does anyone know where the discrepancies in sizes of PDRs comes from? For example: A PDR 143 (http://www.performancedesigns.com/products/pdreserve/ check the WL chart) is 16.27 ft wide and 8.25 ft long, multiply the two and you get 134 square feet, not 143. However, A PD Optimum 143 is 17.33 ft wide and 8.25 ft long, giving 143 square feet. PDR sizes 113, 126, 143, 160, 193, and 281 have these discrepancies. None of the PD Optimums do. The Icarus Reserve and Icarus Nano was mostly accurate, but off by a few feet in some cases. Same for Aerodyne Smart and SmartLPV reserves.

Objection! PDs and Optimums are the same size. They're measured in the same way. And no, PD has not misnamed their reserves, they are exactly the size they are labelled, when measured by PD's method. Their charts say otherwise: PD Reserve - 143| Span: 16.27 Chord: 8.25 Aspect Ratio: 2.1:1 Sqft: 134.2 PD Optimum - 143| Span: 17.33 Chord: 8.25 Aspect Ratio: 2.1:1 Sqft: 143 It would seem an Optimum is slightly bigger than the PDR of the same model size, unless there's other reasons for the discrepancy. The Optimums are pretty much 143 sqft by the math, while the PDR 143 is 134 sqft in the other direction of what Quagmirian said. Running some of the other sizes is interesting. At 218 and below, and 113 and above, the sizes are identical, and the math works out. But for PDR, there's a bulge at 193 to 113 where they're smaller than the PD Optimum counterparts.