lyosha

Members
  • Content

    676
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1
  • Feedback

    0%

lyosha last won the day on June 15 2021

lyosha had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

20 Neutral

1 Follower

Gear

  • Main Canopy Size
    170
  • Reserve Canopy Size
    193
  • AAD
    Vigil 2

Ratings and Rigging

  • USPA Coach
    Yes

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I got harder openings from a larger size PC. At one point I had two canopy setups that I juggled gear between and same canopy with a newer larger PC consistently opened harder. It's definitely a factor.
  2. Here is a handy guide by the German equivalent of USHPA: https://www.dhv.de/fileadmin/user_upload/monatsordner/2004-06/Ausbildung/activ_flying_english_text.pdf Keep in mind - I am not a PG instructor - just a guy that's most of the way there to his P4 (D license equivalent) and that has a D license and at one point had a coach rating. I know that I should not be teaching anyone active piloting. But I believe it is a useful application of first principles of canopy flight - especially for larger canopies. This is why I said "you should reach out to USHPA". I absolutely do not know everything there is to know. I can recommend some instructors for you if you want - they are much more qualified than me to discuss the topic. Specifically a few instances - when you fly out of a thermal/rotor/turbulence and your wing surges, you should "check" the surge with some light braking. This one several friends and my wife have broken themselves over. Also - if you find yourself low and in a turn, don't release the turn, apply counter steering. This one is taught in canopy courses (at least it was in mine). But the general gist is exactly that - keep the canopy overhead, square, stable, and in approximately in the same place over your head. That means you check your surges, release toggle pressure (or front riser... good luck with that on a skydiving wing though) on the drop backs to keep the wing in the place above your head it is happiest and producing valuable lift. And if you find yourself in a situation where you need to make emergency maneuvers, make sure to keep your wing flying and producing lift and not surging towards the ground in a turn. With regards to rears in high winds - what is currently in the SIM sucks and I have the video from landing in high winds that picked up suddenly at Burning Man to prove it. I pulled one brake, my canopy literally did a 360 without touching the ground, locked itself into a line twist, and kept inflated while pulling me at a 30-45 degree angle. I was along for the ride with literally nothing I could do except watch my now locked-in brake line dangle in the wind when I realized I made a mistake and tried to release the pressure - and it did absolutely nothing. It took a few random passer-byes jumping on the thing for it to finally deflate. It just kept producing extra lift due to the toggle input and dragging me. Later, I learned about rear risers and it all just clicked. What you want to do in high winds is stall your canopy. The reason is simple - a stalled canopy produces no lift and therefore only the fabric drags you. Additionally, stalled canopies fly backwards (something that absolutely needs to be added to the SIM as well - not just for high winds, but also for canopy collision avoidance), which in most scenarios means the canopy flies back into the ground, pinning it to the ground and reducing the surface area actually dragging you and promoting deflation and distortion. In almost all modern canopies, a rear riser stall requires much less effort and range of motion than a toggle stall. This is why "trust your rears" is a joke on sofpidarf. You will accidentally walk into a rear riser stall with no warning - but in the case of collapsing a canopy in high winds - that's exactly what you want to achieve. I'm no swooper, but I have yet to jump a canopy that stalls at full brake deflection - and I've jumped most semi-ellipticals and am currently on a Pilot loaded at 1.4-1.5. That means if I pull a toggle to full deflection, it will only cause the canopy to produce more lift, dragging me more - and not collapse the thing. Rear risers collapse canopies. With large modern canopies - it's much more dramatic of a difference.
  3. Solicit input from USHPA. They've been moving forward, we haven't. For example - active flying - keeping your canopy in the same position above your head - is absent from skydiving although it is a derivative of landing priorities. The high winds recommendations in the SIM are just wrong. You should pull rears not a single toggle. This will stall the canopy instead of making it produce lift.
  4. I think it's more like "there is a lot less power in the flare, so you have to flare much harder and deeper". The outcome is people land on their ass, a lot.
  5. The USPA can: 1. Try to reproduce the French results. 2. Advocate with the FAA on behalf of skydivers. FAA is perfectly capable of bringing ADs for skydiving rigs. 3. Disseminate knowledge to skydivers via those nice emails and magazine. 4. Suspend use of the rig at USPA events or dropzones. 5. Be a bridge between the skydivers and the manufacturer to facilitate the flow of information. Just some ideas about how USPA BOD could be non-useless in this situation :)
  6. As someone from America, I'd really like to know what USPA is doing about this. Seems like a great opportunity for that BOD to prove it's not a lame duck.
  7. I thought Linda Waz was in one of the rings but I don't see her name there :-/
  8. Well that certainly should shut the peanut gallery and apologists up. Boy I wish the USPA took as proactive an approach to protecting it's members.
  9. The havoc is still the go to suit for a lot of stuff, for example acro. It's stayed pretty much the same with some minor updates, mostly to the inlets (practically speaking the difference is barely perceptible). Funk has been through several re-designs but at this point I can't think of anyone ordering it. Squirrel has focused their efforts on larger suits that are more successful for them. That said, the world did move towards larger suits being more popular in general. Usually people view this class of wingsuit as a stepping stone to something larger, not something they plan on flying for a while.
  10. That's half of it. But you completely neglect the benefit of the innovation over the alternative. For example, yes, RSLs have an additional failure mode, some might even say a couple, but those are in most applications drowned out by the positive impact of getting a reserve above your head earlier in the average case. What is so innovative about icon's reserve deployment system that it warrants the risk? I can't think of anything that significantly differentiates them from the other containers out there in this regard. Same goes for racers two sided rsl. Anyone worried about riser breakage is better served by a Collins lanyard. Same goes for rigging innovations magnet dbag. I suppose I could have been more specific. Given equal efficacy, I'd prefer less failure scenarios and less probability of failure over more failure scenarios.
  11. I would posit it doesn't matter. I prefer my gear to have one less failure scenario to one more. I'm really not interested in the pissing contest between jump shack and riggers. There shouldn't be one in the first place, and its existence is already telling.
  12. I think this has run it's course. I'm going to finish by pointing out that the second part of the statement kind of goes against the first, and kind of is a prime example of what I referenced in my prior post.
  13. Has she? I've only seen that evidence of that engagement with regards to an election campaign. No, that's not how it works. The responsibility of leadership positions is outcomes, not attempts. I'm telling you - the outcome isn't there. The numbers aren't fake. And that it's not about me. It's about everyone else. You can stick your head in the sand and say that 80% of skydivers don't even care because we as skydivers are assholes who don't care about anything or whatever you've convinced yourself of. But all I'm seeing a lot of deflection of ownership and refusal to take responsibility here.
  14. If the BOD just seeks to be recognized by competitors and DZOs, not a wonder only 20% care to vote about who is on it. Again, that's on the BoD, not on skydivers. Also, just to throw it out there - Lodi exists without the USPA, and I'm sure there are others.