Top_Bunk

Members
  • Content

    10
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

Gear

  • Main Canopy Size
    126
  • Reserve Canopy Size
    170

Jump Profile

  • License
    D
  • License Number
    33668
  • Licensing Organization
    USPA
  • Number of Jumps
    1000
  • Years in Sport
    8
  • First Choice Discipline
    CReW

Ratings and Rigging

  • USPA Coach
    Yes
  • Rigging Back
    Senior Rigger
  • Rigging Chest
    Senior Rigger

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. My impression was that that service bulletin was simply a list of units overdue for service, and after the service they are once again airworthy. Please verify this with Paraconcepts. Was this unit unused with an expired pack job since 2017? They should have the batteries replaced at every repack.
  2. The 2002 Wings manual gives two options for D-Bag orientation: Grommet to pin, or Grommet to BOC. It gives descriptions of each orientation and the statement "use whichever method suits your container size and packing style". The 2015 Wings manual shows grommet to reserve. Take from that what you will, but here we have three different orientations recommended by the manufacturer at various points in time. Most of the jumps I've made have been on a Wings packed grommet-to-pin, because I learned to pack with the then-current manual. In the video'd deployments that I've examined the dbag tends to come off my back stable when packed grommet to pin. When packed grommet to reserve there is a tremendous amount of rocking due to the initial rotation. Is the rocking an issue? Probably not. I just like to keep deployments as clean as possible, so I stuck with grommet-to-pin.
  3. Just to throw even more conflicting info out there, look at page 7-31 in the 2015 FAA Parachute Rigger's Handbook: [inline Main_Line_Replacement.png]
  4. Have any members seen or heard from Roger lately? He hasn't been to the dropzone in a long time and we have not been able to reach him... just wondering if he is OK.
  5. RiggerRob, you're in luck! There is one written for Android already: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.klausriedl.skydivetrainingaltimeter&hl=en
  6. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3835929 This guy had the same question, he had no problems with the transition. GL!
  7. Some of the purpose-built accuracy rigs are made to hold much larger mains than reserves. The NAA Centaurus and the RI CPX are two that come to mind.
  8. I ran into the same problem earlier this year trying to get a second Nitro, and ended up getting a Nitron instead. I currently have both and they seem to be 90% the same, with subtle differences.
  9. I recently considered a Crossfire II as well, however I would only be loading it at 1.3-ish. I called Icarus regarding this, and they recommend only flying it at a WL above 1.4 due to pressurization factors. I do know two people who fly a CF2 at lower wingloadings and they have not had any issues, however I decided to follow the mfg recommendation and get a different canopy until I am ready for a heavier wing loading.
  10. Seems to me that this would be an electronic form of RSL, only with more failure points, no? Instead of the main riser pulling the reserve pin, you're suggesting that the main riser pull a switch, which notifies an electronic control unit, which then fires a cutter, which then costs the user $250 for something an RSL would do more reliably. Is the appeal related to the idea that it would only be active at a low altitude? For example, if someone refuses to use an RSL because he/she "wants to get stable before pulling the reserve" would this be an attractive option to that person? Edit: I could see other possible applications for CRW jumpers, or others who have reasons for not using an RSL.
  11. The Breast Cancer Research Foundation just rejected their donation http://jezebel.com/breast-cancer-charity-says-thanks-but-no-thanks-to-mo-1447371097 "Remember these dudes who guilt-tripped dozens of women into letting themselves be motorboated For Breast Cancer? Their charitable giving... hasn't gone as planned. The Breast Cancer Research Foundation, according to a scoop from the Daily Dot, has rejected the $2,080 the bros of Simple Pickup raised on the grounds that they weren't wild about how the money was raised. Let this be a lesson to people who were thinking of maybe fingerblasting for ovarian cancer: charities don't like it when you use their name to convince women to let you touch their private parts in public, and then post videos of it to the internet. "