20_kN

I assume you mean that in the same size those 2 canopies are too loose for your container? Both manufacturers recommend a larger size due to the non-zp construction so if you did this you should have no issue. I had the same problem and went with a winX in ZP. If you are newer to the sport and haven't downsized over the years then there isn't really room to upsize. I had a 190 zp safire before the winX. I understand the upsize if you are on a small canopy but if you already have a larger canopy than you cant really go that much bigger. I just wanted a new wingsuit canopy not a new rig after buying one 7 months prior. Yep, bingo. These LPV canopies are made with the assumption that everyone downsizes to like a 120 or whatever and now they need to upsize with a wingsuit, but not everyone does that. Some people are fine flying larger canopies and never downsize beyond a 170 or 150. In that case a ultra LPV canopy doesent work as there is no room (or need) to upsize. The other issue, which I consider to be quite legitimate, is that if you are using an ultra LPV canopy in a small container, you're going to have a disproportionately small reserve. Like a 170 Epicene with a 126 PDR or whatever. Personally, I think that is risky. I much rather prefer to have my reserve the same size as my main on a wingsuit jump.

I was thinking of stopping by one of the Perris or SD Arizona Christmas boogies, but I cant go to both as they are happening at the same time. Recommendations for which might be better? I am not too big into the party and get wasted scene. Mostly there for the jumping. Interested in wingsuiting.

I once saw a student on a Navigator 230 WL somewhere around 0.8 cut away a spinning canopy. I dont recall if it was so bad that he was on his back, but it was defiantly in a dive and spinning around. Any canopy can dive under some situations. I learned this the hard way during my FFC. I had bad twists on a Lotus 170 (WL about 1.1), and the canopy instantly spiraled down and put me on my back until I was able to clear it. Prior to this issue I had 275 jumps on the canopy without a single issue. Below is a video showing it (and yes my deployment was bad. I was still a student ). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22g4qCb8OU4 About 80 WS jumps later my deployment technique improved a bit after working with some coaches, but I had the same thing happen. The canopy opened fine, but then I spun a few times under it (bodytwists) and once again it started to spiral down with me spinning around on my back. But this time it was even more violent. It was spinning fast enough that my leg wing started to reinflate. I ended up cutting it away and after that I called it quits with that canopy. Again, this being on a 170 with a WL of about 1.1. I ended up getting a Pilot 7 to try which has been treating me well on openings so far. Anyway, not to hijack, but I've wondered how the WinX and Pilot 7 compare to the Epicene and Horizon in terms of openings. At this point I'm mostly just concerned with openings. I am not really looking for anything sporty. However, both the Horizon and Epicene are LPV fabric and so the canopies wont fit in my rig which leaves me with standard ZP canopies only.

So I noticed that most manufacturers trim the RSL slide cutaway cable longer than the non-RSL side. The benefits of that are obvious--less likely to cutaway the RSL side before the non-RSL side and end up with a main-reserve entanglement due to a partial cutaway. But with the case of an RSL that has a collins' lanyard, would it make sense to trim the cables the same length or possibly make the non-RSL side longer? The collins' lanyard is designed to cutaway the non-RLS side riser and so the advantage here is that by making the RSL side cutaway first (or both at the same time), there is no chance of accidentally cutting away the non-RSL side and leaving the RSL side still attached. This is just theoretical. I have an RSL Skyhook and the cables are trimmed as shown in the manual for the container, but I am curious why the manufacturers trim the cables that way if the rig has a collins lanyard.

I believe the point of airlocks is solely to help prevent collapses and increase stability in turbulence by keeping the cells pressurized. I am not sure that airlocks are intended to have much benefit on performance. I dont see how having them would change the flight of the canopy under normal conditions. Anyway, the Renegade has three sections in the outer cells (as opposed to two in the other five cells), making it unique. I dont think I've seen that before. Here is another video of the canopy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=49&v=BxhfCpOJFjI

Any opinion of the Pilot 7? I agree that pull technique is more important than canopy selection. I had trouble with the technique at first, but feel confident with it now after working with a coach. I can fly the suit straight and symmetrically through the deployment process. Of course there is some argument as to what the best deployment process is as I've been told many different methods to deploy my parachute, but I found something that seems to work fine for me so far. I do plan to get into an ATC once I am ready and so I cant imagine the openings getting any better. If switching to something like a Pilot 7 or WinX is legitimately a waste of money and wont do anything for me, then great, I wont buy one. But I think it's an idea at least worth looking into considering just one cutaway could mean having to replace my canopy where I jump, and the coach that Lyosha said I should get is the one who specifically told me he recommended buying something different (as well as 3-4 other WS guys on the DZ who all told me to get an Epicene).

I recently got into wingsuiting. I went on a trip and knocked out 50 WS jumps (10 on a Hatch, 40 on my Swift 3). Anyway, on my first Swift 3 jump I had a hard opening which lead to massive line twists putting my canopy into a spin with me trying to fix it on my back. I was able to fix it in time (mostly because I pulled at 4500'), but I was getting fairly close to cutting it away. After speaking with my FFC coach and some of the other WS experts on the DZ, they recommended a different canopy if I want to get serious about WS. I did put 50 WS jumps on the canopy and it opened fine without linetwists on 47 out of the 50 jumps, but the heading control sucks. It opens off heading 50%+ of the time on WS jumps and when it does open in serious twists it spins up. I am jumping a Lotus 170 with a WL of slightly under 1.1 to 1. Anyway, I got a brand new Icon I5 which is intended for a 170 ZP main and 175 LPV reserve, which is exactly what I have. I was looking into a Horizon, but its pack volume is so small that I dont think it would fit in my container without a pad or something installed. I asked about the Pilot 7, but most of the WS experts on my DZ said it's not that much better than what I already have and they all seem pretty adamant about recommending a 7-cell with F111 style fabric like the Horizon or Epicene Pro. I do not want to upside to a 190 as my WL is already quite low and any larger would be too large. So what is a good option? Install a pad and go with a 170 Horizon or something else?

I am told that HMA is just the material name for a product called Technora. Does anyone know if this is true? I know that Vectran, Dactron and Spectra are just brand names. Vectran is a liquid crystal polymer and Spectra is a type of UHMW polyethylene. Dacron is polyester. Anyway, does anyone know the differences between Vectran and HMA as it related to skydiving? My understanding is that both lines stay in trim until the lines need replacement (unlike Spectra). So what is the advantage of one over the other? Why would one chose HMA over Vectran or vise verse? I know that Vectran is less prone to spontaneous failure than HMA, but that's the main difference I know about.

I am curious what you think about Brian's training videos. He has several on his website. I was thinking of picking up a few related to canopy work. I have 350 jumps and I am comfortable piloting my canopy in the way that I use it, but I still have tons to learn for sure. Thanks.

I am getting a new Icon and I noticed that the wingsuit option includes converting the container from the standard shape to the long shape. I am not that serious into wingsuiting yet. I am still a beginner and fly a small suit. I also intend to use the container for other stuff like freeflying and such. Accordingly, since I am getting the extended bridle and open corners, it looks like it is the same cost regardless of what shape container I get. If I buy the long version of the rig, is it going to suck for everything not related to wingsuiting? What would be the best option--standard shape or long shape, for an all-around rig that will be used for some low level wingsuiting?

I have looked at the Optimum. However it is $300 some more than the Smart LPV, so I am not sure what the benefit would be. Is the Optimum a better reserve than the Smart LPV? I have an Icon I5. Right now I have a Nano 193 on my old rig. It would probably fit in the I5, but Aerodyne says the maximum they recommend is a Smart LPV 190. Aerodyne says the recommended size is a Smart LPV 175. I have a 170 main, so my options are to try to stick with the larger 193 Nano knowing it will be a tight fit, or go down to the 175 Smart LPV as Aerodyne recommends. My WL is pretty light. A hair over 1:1 on the 175.

Has anyone tried the new Smart LPV or know anything about it? I was thinking of getting one and wanted to know how it compares to other reserves. Thanks.

I am not sure I would be able to double stow with a small band. The small bands are hard to get my fingers in, and double stowing with one would seem really hard. I could possibly triple stow the outer stows and double stow the inner ones? Another option might be to just buy the next size smaller D bag.

I have an Aerodyne Icon I6, a standard pack volume ZP 170 main and 193 LPV Nano reserve. The I6 is intended for 190 - 210 canopies. The d bag is clearly too large, but I am wondering if it's safe to use. The issue is more that I am not sure if I am getting enough tension on the locking stows. I double wrap all of the locking stows, and the two center stows seem tight enough, but the two end stows are barely strong enough to pick up my bag off the ground by the lines (the bag weighs 7 lbs). I find that the two outer locking stows are pulled all the way to the grommet (show in pic). When I first put a new rubber band on, the two outer stows seem tight enough. But after a few jumps the rubber band stretches out enough that the bands barely provide enough tension to lift the bag off the ground (and in some cases I cant even do that). That's with them double wrapped. So I am wondering if the bag is fine as is, I should get an I5 D bag, or I should just downsize my reserve and get a smaller container. I am able to close the rig and have enough tension on the closing loop. I had to shorten it a bit, but the main seems fine in the container with a shorter closing loop. Photos: https://imgur.com/a/eZB918b

He expressed interest in jumping again but he has not logged in since 2012. My best guess is that he never ended up jumping again and he probably has a lifelong condition. This was an interesting thread to read. Too bad the hard way was the only way for him.

This depends on manufacturer. https://www.facebook.com/TheRanchPROshop/videos/1798144140209450/ I can post pictures later if it's at all unclear.Please

Congrats! What is the difference between AFP and AFF?

USPA has no jurisdiction over people that are not USPA members.True, but again how many DZs are going to allow someone under 18 jump? I am guessing zero or pretty close to zero. As such, if no DZ, USPA affiliated or otherwise, is going to allow someone under 18 to jump, then in effect the minimum age to jump is 18.

I have around 90 jumps and I have been getting more into RW. As of now I am using a freefly suit because I am a bit small and so I need something with minimal drag to keep me going fast. However, of course a freefly suit doesent have booties and so after discussing the matter with several other jumpers it seems like I am missing out quite a bit by not using a suit with booties. Anyway, I decided to get an actual RW suit that's (hopefully) tight fitting so it doesent slow me too much but also has booties so I can take advantage of that aspect of the suit. My question is how important is it to have vented booties? I see there are several different types of booties ranging from standard non-vented to full leg competition booties to vented booties and other assortments. One of my friends swears by having vented booties, but the suit I am looking at the moment just has standard booties. How much of a difference does it make by adding vents? If I buy a suit with vented booties it's going to cost an extra $100 and take three weeks longer to make compared to to a suit with standard booties. Is it really worth that just for vented booties?

What does a rubber band breaking have to do with 2" line stows? Anyway, I double stow all my locking stows (semi-stowless bag). However, I tend to go with a bit smaller line bights. I prefer around 1.5" and my reasoning so far has been that I can get 12+ lbs of tension (I measured it) fairly easily with a double stow. However, some of the bag lock photos I've seen occurred when a bight of line got trapped inside the loop of a stow, which in effect required the PC to break the band to release the stow, which in effect caused the bag lock. So I figured that going with slightly smaller stows reduces the diameter of the loop and thus reduces the chances of some random lines getting wrapped up in a stow, but because I double stow I still maintain the 12+ lbs required to release the stow. Thoughts?

Show me where it says that. The tandem BSR refers to age limits with "5) All student tandem skydives must be conducted in accordance with the specific manufacturer’s age requirements for the tandem system used for that jump" I can't imagine Mike intentionally violating a BSR, and if he is not using a tandem system that has a 18 age requirement, he isn't. It says it on this very website. http://www.dropzone.com/forum/Skydiving_C1/General_Skydiving_Discussions_F18/USPA_Raises_Minimum_Age_to_18..._Whatcha_think_P4605117

Earlier my S&TA shared a story of a bag lock he got on a tandem. Apparently some new packer started packing with double stows. Out of the first two tandems he packed, both had bag locks and my S&TA was the operator of one of them. He cut away but the risers did not release and he was not able to get them to separate in time. He ended up having to deploy his reserve into the bag lock. Fortunately the reserve cleared the mess and opened, but then the main opened afterwards. It sounded like some pretty sketchy stuff. If the pilot chute doesent even have the ability to break a small rubber band, I could see how you might have trouble cutting away, especially if you have an RSL and the PC doesent generate enough force for the RSL to pull the reserve cable out. So I guess the question would be then how does a PC not generate enough force to break a rubber band? It seems that even a very worn out PC would generate a large amount of force when flying through the air at 120 MPH. I could see a fully uncocked PC not breaking a band, but I dont really get how an inflated one cant.

What does yellow green light mean? As in yellow and green is on, but red is off? So I presume that means emergency exit?

In the USA the first two jumps in an AFF course are typically tandems anyway (at least they are where I jump anyway). I would not pay extra for another tandem if your AFF courses requires two tandem jumps anyway.

I think what you're feeling is pretty common. You go from having an instructor to being completely alone after you finish AFF. Ultimately, you're a bit limited in what you can do on your own without your license. AFF is pretty limited in scope and is really mostly intended to ensure you can fly safely (e.g. pull on time, remain stable, land at the DZ, ect.) on your own. It is not intended to really teach you organized skydiving, it's entirely safety and stability orientated. The A license expands a bit on AFF in that it adds in some more basic canopy work and it teaches you levels, docking and tracking which are three basic skills you absolutely need to know in order to fly in a group. Once you're post AFF but still pre-A license, the freefall topics you're supposed to be working are intended to help improve your ability to jump in groups. You're mostly working on tracking, docking and levels. Those three skills are required for any form of organized skydiving involving two or more people. The idea is that once you have your A license, you should have the bare basic skills required to jump in small groups. So work on those skills. Get set up with a coach sooner rather than later and get practicing. Once you have your A license, you can practice more with other licensed skydivers.