lyosha

Probably something with more drag and less glide such as a 7 cell. Maybe a Pilot7 or a Spectre? The down side is less flare power. Personally I liked my Sabre2 landings. I have a Pilot9 and I love the openings, but landings aren't as nice.

Yes.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 :)

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.

I thought Linda Waz was in one of the rings but I don't see her name there :-/

Taft in socal

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The FAA doesn't make FARs? FARs aren't laws? But I think I was confused (not a lawyer at all...), thinking we were regulated under FAR 103, but really we are under 105 so it seems USPA may not - strictly speaking - be necessary for skydiving at all and it makes it less an FAA endorsed organization that enables the sport through FAR exemptions tied to membership in a particular organization and more of a lobby group. That aside - forget me for a second - of the hundreds of skydivers I know personally I'd be hard pressed to name more than a couple who I think stand a chance at knowing what the BOD does aside from the E license - and only that because it became a meme due to its absurdity. To be blunt, if I didn't come to these forums I may not even know it existed. That virtually none of the population of the people you serve know what it is that you do - that only 20% care to submit a ballot - that's not on most of the skydivers of America. That's on you. Either the impact isn't being felt, or it is being taken for granted. That the only activity of the BOD that most people know about is the E license (and most - myself included - don't know whether it was even a real suggestion) - only because thanks to the absurdity of it it became a running joke on Facebook - is telling. I doubt I'm the first person to bring this opinion to light.

Decouple the existence of the USPA with the vote for board of directors. I care that the USPA exists. Some organization is needed by FAA law. But have yet to see any evidence of something positive coming from the board in my decade in the sport. So I don't vote. Because why bother?

Skydivers care about the E license. That is a fact. USPA board of directors - shine on you beacon of usefulness and brilliance. I kid - but kind of not.

Russia, Poland have some options. International travel is a pain right now, so you could consider skyventure in new Hampshire. https://skyventurenh.com/2018-tunnel-membership/

Listen to local jumpers and a local canopy coach. The internet is full of well-meaning and often stuck in their ways people that offer bad advice for the situation you are in. I unfortunately know multiple people who have broken themselves by flying underloaded canopies and getting unlucky with winds. And my wife tore up her ankle ligaments by flying a canopy that was too small for her and getting unlucky with winds. All at the same DZ. So there are truly two sides of the coin, the one that you lose on is the one you neglect, and you absolutely should seek the advice of someone that is familiar with your surroundings, can watch your landings and mentor you to a safe progression.

Probably flying the suit too flat - when you approach stalling you start to buffet. Do you get the same at a steeper angle/faster airspeed? Not familiar with the piranha, but squirrel's swift definitely needs to be flown significantly faster than Phoenix fly's beginner suits.

I started loaded at 1.2 on a 190. It's definitely more docile than 1.2 on a 120. But probably not the recommended route. I was stupid. I would suggest you not take advice from random people on the internet who don't understand basic canopy dynamics, and take advice from a canopy coach that does. It's important in this sport to have mentors that you personally know and trust for advice. FWIW almost a decade and about four canopies later I'm still (again) on a 190, although thanks to COVID weight it's loaded a bit heavier.

The difference between the original Havok and Havok Carve2 is minimal really. When my wife and I first got to the tunnel in Stockholm there were people flying all iterations of the suit. My wife still has an early model Havok that she uses. The difference is the Havok carve 2 stayed inflated slightly better through transitions. But unless you're a world class competitor you probably won't even notice. That is probably what the difference will be like with the carve 21. The thing that makes a Havok a Havok is the planform, which I don't think they touched since pretty much getting it right with the original.