pms07

Not for most jumpers now days on most modern canopies. Few jumpers anymore are comfortable entering a sink in deep brakes and some modern canopies will provide more drama than needed if you aren't cautious about keeping the canopy flying. '70s and '80s style flying was good for the canopies of that time; 7-cells mostly, low wing loading, less performance. Not so much today. A bit of brakes will typically leave you floating around on final which means that jumpers above you will likely be catching up to you in the pattern. Landing straight ahead with a nice flair, even if you go a bit long, is the best solution in most circumstances.

The FAA can be a pain but the waiver process exists for a variety of issues and really is not that challenging. It will, however, take some time most likely: the FAA is not known for their awesome response time to any request that is asking for an exemption or waiver. I've been through the medical waiver process multiple times as a pilot and it might take several months to get a response, but eventually I was approved. Do the paperwork...

I'm trying to understand what the purpose of your thread is. Sounds like an interesting idea but how do random "Damn, I had a hard opening" anecdotes help? And how do we discern what the possible or probable causes are or what trends exist? Without some sound methodology the data likely will be meaningless. My suggestion is that you be much clearer on what you want to accomplish and how this could be achieved. For the record, I have had several hard openings. I also have 2000 plus jumps on a canopy that has an established reputation for hard openings (Sabre 1) and that was not my experience..and I owned 4 in different sizes.

Is that you "D Squared"? Pm me, we can tell stories about Doc and other good times.

I don't think its been controversial for at least 35 or 40 years. And yes, they still do that. The program consists of 5 freefall jumps with an ~10 second delay. The gear is complimentary, the ground training is intensive compared to any sport application, and each jump is carefully observed and evaluated by an instructor to insure satisfactory performance. Its run as a military training program, not sport or entertainment. Don't try to equate military freefall programs with what we do in the sport. They are not the same in spite of the fact that there are similarities sometimes in gear and techniques...

I only have 2 jumps on a XBO and was talked through packing it many years ago. I remember it being just like a PC...

I welcome manufacturers exploring WS specific designs and options. Thinking about past gear innovations, I remember the first wonderhogs and SST rigs, the first days of hand deploy pilot chutes, 3 ring release systems, ram air canopies, advent of slider reefing systems, the introduction of the CYPRES AAD, etc. Most of these in their infancy were not refined and took many years to arrive at the awesome gear choices we have available today. Likewise, I hope the introduction of the Aurora and ideas other gear manufacturers are working on will continue and make their way to market. You get the option to buy what you want. What "work really well" could be eclipsed by some new WS gear innovation. Some want options to choose from and appreciate innovation.

There was an AC 500 at the first big event at Lost Prairie, 1981 I think but I would have to check my logbook. It was jumped all weekend but floater volunteers were difficult to find. Not a first choice jump aircraft but it can be done... The Air Force Academy also used a pair of Aero Commanders as jumpships in the 1960s-70s before acquiring Twin Otters. I never jumped those but there are lots of jump photos at the Academy. There is a link to an article about the Academy skydiving planes below, called a U-4B by the Air Force. Interestingly, they were used for presidential travel before they went on to skydiving duty: http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/MuseumExhibits/FactSheets/Display/tabid/509/Article/195799/aero-commander-u-4b.aspx

I've yet to see a BOC pouch designed for a 27"-30" pilot chute where there this is an issue. The skysnatch pack volume seems only marginally larger than my factory 30" pilot chute although that is just one manufacturer. Just one person's experience but I have seen skysnatch pilot chutes on just about every major rig made in the USA and have yet to see a problem. That includes some that came from the factory, I believe, with a 24" pilot chute. Something to consider though I suppose...

As you replied to my comment I would note that I never said it was better, I said that it seems to work fine in other disciplines and offers, perhaps, some advantage over other designs for wingsuits. I did ask the following question and have not seen an answer: "Why? Specifically, what makes this design "not appropriate" for the general skydiver on any specific rig? And what manufacturer says it is not appropriate? That's important in determining compatability... " I'm not proposing everyone go out and buy a skysnatch but think it is a good design for wingsuits and works fine in other disciplines. Whether that is worth the extra cost is an individual decision like almost every other gear choice. YMMV...

Why? Specifically, what makes this design "not appropriate" for the general skydiver on any specific rig? And what manufacturer says it is not appropriate? That's important in determining compatability... I've spent some time with a couple rig manufacturers or designers recently and none have objected to the use of this design. The lightweight/carbon fiber handle with low weight and low bridle/pc malfunction potential make the SKySnatch a good option for many, especially those that wingsuit either occasionally or full-time. I jump wingsuits mostly in recent years but also might do demos, rw, low jumps, etc. I've been jumping a skysnatch for at least 18 months and have no issue with this design for other disciplines and it seems to work fine. What am I missing that makes this design not appropriate for general use?

Lizard lives near Pueblo Colorado and is still kicking. He hasn't jumped in a number of years but still stays in contact with the skydiving community and friends.

First of all, I wouldn't jump that bag design. Many gear makers and riggers have decided that magnet closure on main deployment bags isn't a great design in the current configurations we see...as you now realize. Second, pulling right out of a sit is kind of irresponsible. Give yourself the best opportunity to survive when it's within your control...

A good option near Columbia is Skydive Flying V Ranch. Call Van or Emiko: Address: 11101 Old U.S. 40, Montgomery City, MO 63361 Phone: (888) 866-8918 http://skydiveflyingvranch.com/

Answers to your questions: Should there be more wingsuit regulations? NO! And what "problem" are you looking to fix? What is in the SIM works. Various instructors and schools add their own flourishes, just like other coaching programs. There already is a form of standardized wingsuit student program, it's what is in the SIM. Should the USPA make an effort to fix something that is not broken? No... Various manufacturers and wingsuit coaches already have their own coach rating program, as do some other entities--it's been that way for well over a dozen years. That's really where what's in the SIM came from. Leave them to push what they think is best; they are the experts and that's where we'll see innovation and improvements to what already exists.

RWS Vector and mid '80s prior to "safety stow", I owned one like it...

That's kind of a strange accidental reserve deployment. Also, it looked like the flocker above and behind the deploying reserve made contact with the canopy. Anyone?

Gear choices are largely a matter of personal preference and some measure of common sense. I like that typically we have the freedom to choose what is best for our own skydiving needs. With that said, I don't think your choice is a good one and there is lots of history to back that up. I have lots of jumps on Stilettos years ago, probably 1300-1400 jumps, and think it's a great canopy even today. But it it would never be my choice for wingsuit flight. I hope it keeps working for you but 300 jumps really is not many and you should give some thought to probabilities...

As Wickey indicates, there should be plenty of wingsuit action at CSC this summer including the Nationals. Dates are supposed to be 20-26 August. You can see that on CSC's FB page here: https://www.facebook.com/CSCskydiving/photos/a.274192652654075.64109.105107576229251/1052755354797797/?type=3&theater I was looking on USPA's webpage for the dates last weekend and did not see the info posted. I will message USPA and see if that can corrected.

"Not popular with a few Wingsuit jumpers. Who make piss poor excuses as to why they can't keep a distance away from the tandems..." I fixed your comment for you...not all wingsuiters are interested in buzzing tandems. Anyway, tandem flybys are probably not a good idea and it was only a matter of time before something bad happened. When my 18 year old son did his first tandem jump a local wingsuit school owner (and friend) thought it would be cool for he and I to do a flyby, prearranged with the TM. I turned that off and would do the same again. Now we have even more incentive to keep our distance. The BSR and implementation was not as well thought out as it could have been but I think it was inevitable. That is because of the behavior and attitude of some in our own community. We earned it.

You are "tilting at windmills" bro. I'm not trying to defend the BSR, but rather portray the reality. Talk with some of the BoD members, gear manufacturers, TMs and DZOs that are behind the BSR. You will likely find little support for your rationalization. At least that is my experience.

To be fair, there are some in our community that need help with this. And we can rightfully complain about the specifics and method through which the BSR was enacted. But the fact remains that we are, in part, responsible for the course USPA has taken. Self regulation is great but we have not done as well in this area as we could.

I'm not here to defend the BSR but you should at least acknowledge that our behavior, or perceptions about our behavior, drove the decision. We can do better and need to educate both those that regulate us and those in our community that engage in buffoonery. "Are wingsuiters flying by unwilling tandem students and instructors?" I have seen this, both intentional but more frequently unintentional. "Are TIs raising their pitchforks in fury here?" Sometimes, at least at one or two drop zones I visit a few times a year. "but the USPA is trying to solve problems that don't exist." I know at least a few TMs at large drop zones that will disagree, they don't trust us and think we are a problem. Some DZOs, manufacturers of tandem gear, and BoD members are concerned as well. If not, the BSR would not exist. Rather than trying to convince DZOs, TMs and gear makers how wingsuit flybys contribute to their profit, education and policing our own might be a better approach.

I think JP nailed it. The rule is not well thought out and was a hastily enacted knee-jerk reaction by the BOD. With that said, we as a community earned it. You don't have to look very hard to see a wingsuit flight path get too close to a tandem or other buffoonery. Too close meaning you either scared or annoyed the TM. I take the point on being difficult to enforce but there is a lot precedence for this type of distance rule in aviation. Just look at FAR 105.17, parachute flight visibility rules.