• Content

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback


Community Reputation

3 Neutral


  • Main Canopy Size
  • AAD
    Cypres 2

Jump Profile

  • Home DZ
    Skydive Oregon
  • License
  • License Number
  • Licensing Organization
  • Number of Jumps
  • Tunnel Hours
  • Years in Sport

Ratings and Rigging

  • AFF
  • USPA Coach
  • Rigging Back
    Senior Rigger

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I've not flown the LPV version, although those that I know have haven't mentioned anything about being different than the regular version, which I've over 1,000 jumps on in various sizes. 168, 150, 132, and a few smaller sizes here and there. The pilot has one of the best, consistent openings of any canopy. It's easy to pack (and the attachment point coloring makes flaking much easier for a beginner). It's very forgiving of beginner technique as long as you get the basics right (slider, brakes stowed, pilot chute cocked). It also has a long glide. The flare is not the best compared to some other canopies. If your brake lines are a bit too long, you'll miss out on some of that flare power. Pilots (and Safire 2s) are more sensitive to that than other canopies, generally speaking. Don't get me wrong, the flare is powerful enough to get the job done, but it's not as strong as say a Sabre 2's flare (though the Pilot has much better openings overall compared to a Sabre 2). Everything in this sport is a tradeoff.
  2. In almost all cases, I would defer to the manufacturer. But to maybe get a finer point on it: What's the container and what's the main?
  3. Also correcting myself: Apparently Paratec does have an FAA TSO approval: In my defense, the FAA search function is... awful. Edit: Case in point, the "copy URL" button doesn't work. To search FAA TSO Approvals, to here: Under "Design and Production Approvals", select "Technical Standard Order Authorizations/Letter's Of Approval". The quickest way in the search window is to select Paratec under "TSOA Holder".
  4. Thought I do agree that legal or not, loading up a reserve, especially higher than 1.3, gets to be in the "maybe not a great idea" realm.
  5. I keep hearing about that FAA waiver, but I've never seen it or found it. Both the Optimum and the PD Reserve must have it based on their weight limits. (PDR mentions 1.5 as the expert range, for instance). And Aerodyne must have it too, as they list a maximum weight of well over 1.3 (though the recommended weight maxes out at 1.3). There was part of the PIA TS-135 test document which would have allowed more than 1.3 for everyone (landing by flaring) but the C23f specifically forbade that part of the testing standard as someone here (I don't remember who) pointed it out to me. Of those three, only Icarus specifically forbids more than 1.3 and that might be their interpretation while Aerodyne (and PD) use the maximum load tested part. I've got an older PDR and it's maximum weight is much lower than a new PDR.
  6. I don't think that's the case. The EASA doesn't do approvals for sport reserves and containers, only bailout (some might have been considered in the past). I also checked the EASA approval database and it only lists their bailout parachutes from what I can tell: Looking at their manual, it says tested to the standard, but doesn't say anything about approved.
  7. There are three available to US markets that I'm aware of: * PD Optimum * Aerodyne SmartLPV * Icarus Nano As someone mentioned, Icarus has a prohibition beyond 1.3 WL. So many of us are limited to PD Optimum and Aerodyne SmartLPV. Both my rigs have Optimums in them and both my cutaways were with Optimums. It was a 143 at about 1.3 WL, and both landings were one stage flares to a standup landing with little wind. I had a SmartLPV briefly before I was a rigger but never deployed or packed it. Someone mentioned the Speed 2000, but I don't think they can manufacture under a USA TSO anymore. The EASA doesn't ETSO sport reserves, so reciprocity doesn't work there usually (they might have been grandfathered). I talked to someone that said they were going to re-enter the US market, but I haven't heard anything. So if you're in the US, those three (and really two if you're above 1.3) are the only ones I'm aware of.
  8. I hadn't heard of it until now. It doesn't have an FAA TSO from the looks of it.
  9. Ah. Both PD Optimums and PD Reserves (after a certain date) have, on their data panels, maximum operating weights well above 1.3 WL. I just saw a photo of one for a PD-R 106 with a maximum weight of 220 lbs, which would be over 2.0 (I would not want a reserve loaded the high, personally).
  10. I've "heard" that there are waivers, but never seen them. Perhaps it's an interpretation of the rules. There's the maximum weight the gear has been rated at, and then there's the maximum weight that will put a canopy faster than 24 feet per second descent rate, 36 feet per second total speed (usually around 1.3 WL) which would be significantly below the tested load weight (i.e 254 lbs). As an example, the PD Reserve 143 size has a maximum weight of 254 lbs, which would put it at about 1.8 WL. An Icarus Reserve 149 reserve has a maximum suspended weight listed of 199 lbs, which is about 1.3 WL. Is a waiver required by PD to list a maximum weight above 1.3 WL? I don't know. That's the regulatory part of it, so what of the actual performance? I don't think there's a significant difference in descent rate between the PDR, PD Optimum, Aerodyne Smart/SmartLPV, etc. with the same wing loading and canopy size, so I don't think that's a relevant factor in choosing between them. I think that there was the idea that there was, based on Optimums having some time of waiver, and PDRs not. But I don't believe that's actually the case. And of course what's the safe thing? Most, if not all of the C23 testing standards (NAS, SAE, PIA) list a maximum 24 ft/s descent rate and 36 ft/s total velocity for a deployment configured (i.e., brakes stowed and no flare) landing, and that roughly translates to 1.3 WL. Does that mean you're safe below 1.3 and dead above 1.3 if you land unconscious with no flare? Of course not. The higher the WL you are, the more danger there is. There's also the issue of canopies getting aggressive, regardless of the design, when loading them highly. But in choosing between the various reserves, I don't think descent rate variability given the same size and wing loading is an issue. That would be interesting to test.
  11. I think there was a misconception that PD Optimums descended faster than the PD Reserves, which is why I brought it up. I don't believe that's the case. I believe that there's no real difference in descent rate given the same size and wing loading. The only difference (again, as far as I can tell) is some companies have maximum recommended weights well above 1.3 (Aerodyne, PD) and some don't (Icarus World). Whether that involves an FAA waiver, I don't know. I've never seen it. And I've never gotten a firm answer from anyone on it.
  12. I know this is an old post, but in doing some research on the subject, I believe this to be incorrect based on the information I've obtained. Both the PDR and PD Optimum both have waivers (though I've never been able to find a copy of the waivers). Same for Aerodyne Smart and Smart LPV. Anything over 1.3 WL is going to exceed the maximum descent rate as specified in the various TSO standards (C23b/c/d/f). If you look at the maximum recommended weights of the PD and Aerodynes, they clearly go over this. Icarus World, however, you'll note that their maximum weights for the Icarus Reserve or Icarus Nano are pretty much exactly at 1.3. They don't have a waiver and specifically mention the ~1.3 WL limit in the reserve manual. I talked to an Icarus representative at the 2019 PIA regarding this. I don't know what other reserves have or do not have them, other than the 3 listed above.
  13. A couple people I know have Dacron lines on their canopies. Another benefit seems to be, even in tough environments like Perris, they last longer than the canopy. One guy had Dacron lines on a Pilot 96, close to 2.0 WL. Another on his Spectre (much larger). Neither seemed to have any complaint on how the canopy opened or flew (one is a camera flyer) or wear on the gear. When my Pilot 150 comes up for a re-line, I'm probably going to put Dacron on it.
  14. I put a video together for people looking for their first canopy:
  15. Question is the topic. Getting some details for a video. What year was PISA purchased by Aerodyne?