nwt

I'm just a noob with only a few dedicated tracking jumps, but isn't this the objective? (as opposed to angle)

I bought his "how to survive swooping" video and liked it so much that I bought his ultimate package with almost all his videos. I haven't gotten into this series yet but what I've seen so far has been excellent. For $100 I don't think you can go wrong: https://www.adventurewisdom.com/store/Ultimate-Video-Package-Download-Streaming-p63409589

Part of me feels like I'm overthinking this and that a PDR126 is probably cake compared to a KA135

That's an interesting point I hadn't considered. Do you think there's a realistic chance of such a delay with a manufacturer-approved configuration? Enough of a chance that it's worth being under a smaller canopy for that unconscious landing? I wonder if, on the spectrum of full fits, this is "less full" than most others being that the two canopies are supposed to be the same pack volume according to PD, and are both usually in the same box according to UPT. Would you mind explaining why? Well, jumping with a reserve I'm not comfortable with isn't really on the table. If I do choose the PDR126, I won't be jumping with it until I'm satisfied I'm ready, and my first flights on it will be with a demo version configured as main. Same for the OP143 because why not? Yeah, Mark from UPT explained that as the canopies get smaller, low bulk becomes less significant because the lines have the same volume. Yeah. That's why I've been leaning toward the OP143. In addition to being larger than the PDR126, PD seems to indicate that even for the same size it should land better. But, even though PD claims they have the same pack volume, that seems to not be precisely true--so I'd like to understand the implications of that best I can.

Sorry, I haven't seen any accuracy specs either. But I have about 200 jumps with it and haven't had any problems. I absolutely love it. e: Also if you go to their website you can hear a demo of what it sounds like.

I'm not really sure what you're asking. I doubt there are any altimeters on the market that aren't accurate.

Oh, I hope it isn't junior jumpers doing this!

Are you sure they don't understand and accept that? It seems pretty obvious to me.

+1 for VOG. I wish they'd add some better logging features, but it's an easy choice as-is.

I'm sure the specifics of our local market are a large factor. Most of our business is college students doing a one-off and we get about 2 AFF students a season. In that context it seems to make a lot of sense to not want to do a FJC every weekend for less money.

Interestingly, I've heard of helicopters being tethered as well for experimental flights. The FAA doesn't care what you do while tethered, unless I guess if you get to the point where you are an obstruction.

I guess the surest way to get the correct answer would be just to ask the USPA. As a private organization I think they're pretty much free to interpret their own rules however they want.

Yup. It all makes sense now.

Ooooooohhhhhhh I get it now. Finally. Thanks for playing :)

Right, but they also could have said "parachute system" instead of "single harness dual container parachute system" if they wanted to. Seems weird to assume they used all those extra words because they didn't mean them.

It says IF you jump a dual-container system, THEN you must have two parachutes in it

It doesn't though.

This says if a dual parachute system is used, then here are some requirements. It does not say a dual parachute system is required.

This doesn't change my response. Defining a term, on it's own, doesn't create any requirements.

I'm sure the precise meaning of that phrase is debatable, but we can probably all agree that it can't have no meaning, right? The clause cannot have the same meaning with and without the phrase. It must be there as a differentiator to tell us that some rigs need to be an approved type and conversely others do not. Perhaps it means "intended for emergency use", but this is an aside from the point I'm interested in.

I've seen this and similar things stated many times, but I've never seen any proof, and I've been unable to come to this conclusion from my own reading of the FARs. Can you cite anything specific that supports your understanding? That's why I'm here.

No it doesn't. It says if it's not TSOd then it doesn't meet their definition of an "approved parachute". I don't see any requirement that a jumper use an "approved parachute".

This just defines the term "approved parachute"--it doesn't create any requirements.

Can you cite a reference?