20_kN

This video kind of fits the bill. They were in control, but had little time to do anything. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCrvQ_xy_LA

It would be nice if you could just enter in a custom altitude and deployment speed. I would like to modify the deployment speed. I think 78 MPH on pro mode for my M2 is way, way higher than I'll ever be going on my large canopy. However, the 45 MPH limit of intermediate mode is a tad slow. I haven't ever hit 45, but I've hit nearly 35 MPH before so it would be nice to be able to enter say 55 MPH. Also, the device activates at only 29 MPH in student mode which seems dangerously low. Even a student doing a few 360s on a large canopy can exceed that speed. I am curious what orientation the m2 rated altitudes are measured in. It says 885' for pro mode, but is that 885' on your back? If so, what would be the rough translation to being belly-to-earth or while in a spin of some sort?

True, but in expert mode the AADs dont fire unless you're going some 75 MPH or faster. If you pull at ~120 MPH and 1000' later you're still traveling faster than 75 MPH, you have a problem and you may need your reserve anyway. Being that you're below your hard-deck at that point, the only remaining option to slow you down would be to deploy the reserve which is what the AAD would do anyway. Or am I missing something here?

hmmm I havent flown either but PD's website would suggest the opposite is true: the PD Reserve needs to be bigger than the Optimum to maintain the same decent speed. If you look at their recommended wingloading chart, assuming a novice with an exit weight of 200 lbs for example, PD recommends a 193 Optimum or a 235 PD Reserve for that weight. The rest of the wingloads on their chart show the same thing: a larger PD Reserve is needed for a given exit weight relative to the Optimum series. Best thing to do might be to call PD and ask. http://www.performancedesigns.com/products/optimum/ http://www.performancedesigns.com/products/pdreserve/

It was a student. Under radio control. The audio is missing now, but in the earlier one you can hear the instructors. One of them was laughing. But not at the end.Sure I get that he was a student. But in AFF they taught me to pull at 5500' and hard-deck was at 2500'. I assume most other student programs have somewhat similar altitudes. So the question is what happened that the guy got into this scenario in the first place? If he was pulling somewhere in the 5000' range, he should have had plenty of time to make these decisions much higher.

It looks like he had a lineover or something similar and decided he dident want to land it. I guess the real question why he waited that long to act. Did he throw his main at 1000'?

I guess what I was getting at was a scenario that I experienced the other day. I did a jump the other day where some guys from my load landed off field as they couldent make it back. We all jumped out on the same load and pretty close to each other in terms of timing out of the airplane, but two guys ended up landing off field as they could not make it back. They were running fairly small high-performance canopies and I was running a large dosile canopy with a light wing loading. I had no problem getting back and when I flew over the spot they landed I still had over 2500'. Now granted I am sure I pulled at a bit higher altitude than they did which helped me get back, but I couldent help wonder if the reason why they had trouble getting back was because they were on small canopies with high wing loadings, and in my case having a large canopy with a low wingloading helped me glide further, or if it was just something else entirely. That prompted the question at to whether higher wingloading increases or decreases your ability to travel further from a long spot. And yes, there was some wind that day. Not enough to back me up flying into the wind, but it was noticeable.

I did. I ask a lot of questions to the instructors and I get a lot of answers, some which conflict with each other at times. I like to use many sources to learn when feasible. Anyway, here is another question. Do smaller canopies tend to have more or less glide for a given pilot weight? For example, two guys with the same exit weight jumping out at the same time and pulling at the same altitude, but one is flying a 200 and the other is flying a 150. Assuming no winds, which could travel further if they needed to?

Are the S Fire and Safire 3 canopies completely identical, or are there some differences? There seems to be an issue with the terms too. I havent seen any manufacturer label one of their canopies as "square" yet, but I see semi-elliptical, elliptical and "fully elliptical" whatever that means. Do these terms have any defined criteria, or is this purely marketing and what one brand might call "semi-elliptical" another might call square?

At one point awhile back when I was speaking to my instructor about buying a first rig he mentioned to get something nice and square and reasonably large. He said to avoid elliptical canopies as they are not suitable for beginners. Well to my surprise I recently learned that several canopies that are marketed as appropriate for beginners are also listed as elliptical. For example, the Safire 2 and S Fire canopies are listed as elliptical on the manufacturer's website and I know the Safire 2 is not that aggressive as my DZ uses them for their students. I'm told the S Fire is basically just another version of the Safire 3 and it's listed as being a beginner canopy as well being elliptical. By contrast, the Sabre 2 is listed as "semi-elliptical" by PD, but I think is understood to be a bit more aggressive than the Safire 2 despite the Safire 2 being listed as elliptical. So what is the correlation between shape and aggressiveness assuming wing loadings between compared products are equal?

I have around 30 jumps. I am 155 lbs and my student/ rental rig has been a Safire 2 209 which put me around a wingload of 0.82 or so. My instructor recommended I get a 170 for a first main. The S&TA recommended a 190 or so. I am pretty conservative and I am more concerned with not getting hurt than I am with aggressiveness, so I figured I'd start with a 189 which would put me at a WL of around 0.91. Anyway, my question is about the wind. I jump at a windy DZ. I have been pushed backwards by the wind on my 209 canopy twice already. I have read that a smaller canopy can cut through the wind a bit better, but how much better? Will a 170 or 190 vs a 209 really make any difference? The other concern is the distance covered. A smaller canopy might do a bit better in the wind, but my understanding is it falls to the ground faster so it spends less time in the air. Thus, will a smaller canopy really travel further than a larger one if it's moving faster but is in the air for a shorter period of time? Seems like you're just trading speed for duration. All-in-all I find it a bit difficult to make a choice because on one hand a smaller canopy supposedly does a bit better in the wind, it's also more difficult to land and control in a malfunction and so I feel that I would just be trading one risk for another. As such I am leaning toward just getting the larger option since it seems safer overall. Since I ran a Safire 2 209 for my student main, I was thinking of buying a new Safire 3 189, new Optimum 193 reserve and a Mirage container to put it in (M6 by the looks of it). That would put me at a WL of 0.91.

I am looking at getting my first rig and so of course the question about AADs come up. Being that I am new to skydiving, I pretty much view AADs as like air bags or seatbelts--they all do the same thing it seems. As such, it seems like it would make sense to just buy whatever is cheapest which is the m2. I know there are a few threads on the m2, but none of which are recent that I found. So the question would be, is there any reason not to buy the m2, or any reason why it would be worth paying $200 more for a Vigil or Cypress?

I am a student with around 20 jumps. During a coach jump today I messed up the landing a bit. The DZ I jump at is kind of small with limited outs in the area and it's often windy. The wind was a bit unusual today and on my final I ended up landing in a slight downwind condition as opposed to my usual upwind final landing pattern. I miscalculated how much the wind shift would carry me and I ended up in the far corner of the DZ with only a few feet to spare. I spoke with my coach and she mentioned that one option would have been to execute the final approach in half brakes if I think I am going to come up long. Half brakes would slow my forward speed apparently putting me on the deck sooner. However, this conflicts with other info I have read which says that if you want to extend your glide ratio and travel further with less decent, then fly in half brakes. I asked another instructor and he said that the effect of flying in brakes depends on the wind. If you're far from the DZ and need to maximize your distance over ground and there is a tail wind, fly in brakes. If you have a headwind, flying in half brakes will make things worse. I am confused and so my questions are: 1. How do I increase my glide ratio if I need to travel further? 2. Without doing risky, low S-turns, how do I decrease my glide ratio if I am coming up long and need to land sooner? Are flair turns the only option?

Thanks for the video, it's was interesting. I am curious why the RSL did not extract the reserve. The video said pilot chute in tow, but right as he was cutting away you can clearly see the main is out of the bag and in the air. Or maybe it did extract the reserve and then it got hung up on something? Either way, good info, thanks.

Also found this: http://www.performancedesigns.com/docs/dualsq.pdf "Cutting away from a side-by-side that does not want to return to a biplane seems to be a safe action as long as no equipment problems exist, and the canopies are not entangled. It must be noted that RSL's were not used in any of these tests. Great caution must be used when cutting away in that scenario due to the varied styles and applications of RSL's." "conclusion: If a side-by-side is present and the jumper has directional control, fly the side-by-side using smooth, gentle toggle input of the larger/dominant canopy. If the canopies do not seem controllable, and are not entangled with each other, disconnect any RSL, if time/altitude permits, and cut away the main canopy." It's still not clear what the RSL has to do with anything when cutting away the main after the reserve has deployed though.

Forgive me as I am still new (post AFF, pre A license), but I have a question regarding the SIM. The USPA SIM states that when jettisoning the main after a side-by-side or downplane two-out malfunction, you should first disconnect the RSL. But why? If you have the reserve out, the closing pin has already been removed so what does disconnecting the RSL accomplish? I asked some of the instructors and none of them could think of a reason to disconnect the RSL if the reserve is already deployed. Here are some notes from the SIM: Page 111, 2. An RSL is recommended for all experienced jumpers. a. The RSL backs up the jumper by extracting the reserve ripcord pin after a cutaway. b. the RSL— (1) must be routed and attached correctly to function (2) when misrouted, can complicate or prevent a cutaway c. RSLs can complicate certain emergency procedures: (1) cutaway following a dual deployment (2) cutting away from an entanglement after a collision (3) unstable cutaway, although statistics show that chances are better from an unstable reserve deployment than delaying after a cutaway (4) unstable cutaway with a helmet camera or other protruding device (5) cutaway with a surfboard (although an RSL may have prevented two fatal skysurfing accidents) (6) cutaway on the ground in high winds. The SIM also says, page 105: 4. Stable side-by-side (choose one procedure): Side-by-side procedure 1: If both canopies are flying without interference or possibility of entanglement and altitude permits: (1) Disconnect the RSL. (2) Cut away the main and steer the reserve to a normal landing. Side-by-side procedure 2: Land both canopies. (1) Release the brakes of the dominant canopy (larger and more overhead) and steer gently with the toggles, or leave the brakes stowed and steer by pulling on the rear risers. (2) Land without flaring and perform a parachute landing fall. 5. Downplane or pinwheel (canopies spinning around each other) a. Disconnect the reserve static line if altitude permits. b. Cut away the main canopy and steer the reserve to a normal landing. 6. Main-reserve entanglement a. Attempt to clear the problem by retrieving the less-inflated canopy. b. Perform a parachute landing fall. https://uspa.org/SIM

Skydive Hawaii used to offer fun jumper tickets and AFF, but they closed both of those doors a long time ago. Now they only offer tandems unless you happen to know someone there or you've been jumping with them for a long time. That's probably fine for a money making operation, but provides no value to the local community in terms of allowing locals to jump.

I completed my AFF course here and was pretty satisfied with it. Up until a few months ago, Pacific was the only place in Hawaii that allowed fun jumpers and AFF students. The other DZs in the state typically do not allow fun jumpers unless you happen to know the staff and so in essence tandems are really the only business mode in Hawaii. Fortunately Pacific is nice enough to break that model a bit by allowing the locals visiting jumpers to do some fun jumps.