rsibbald

Seems to be very comprehensive, I might be borrowing that as a template for my logbook! I'm not sure how relevent anyone feels this is, but how about a section for other environmental effects? e.g. thermal activity on large walls, wind shifts and shears down the centre of canyons, turbulence from weird structures etc.

On canopies as big and docile as the ones described in both posts, weight shift in the harness will have a negligible effect on deployment when compared with the packing of the canopy. Please do not start jumping with loose chest straps etc. especially if you're experimenting with freefly. Ask one of your instructors to demonstrate how easy it is for someone to fall out of a rig in various different freefall positions. Chest straps can be loosened *after* deployment, but until then, they're on the container for a reason! Explain your openings to an experienced packer and they will likely demonstrate some techniques to make your openings more consistent.

So, once someone has managed this stunt, what will be next? Anyone fancy trying to land a sky-surf board onto a ski jump from 15,000ft?

We teach students *only* to make minor heading corrections when low to the ground. We drill into them not to take any one toggle below shoulder height when making a low turn. If they are unavoidably going to hit an obstacle or something, then flare fully, 15ft away from it, be that distance horizontal or vertical.

*idly wondering* Even if you realised high enough to act like suggested, surely if the PC inflated then it would add drag to your body? Wouldn't this in fact work against you and actually inhibit the recovery arc of the canopy and make "digging-out" even slower?

Thanks to everyone that posted on this topic. The canopy has now been relegated to being used as a CRW canopy at the DZ only. I've sent a couple of PMs as well....

Thanks, just the info I was after :)

Fair comment, thanks for the honesty. I'm probably going to order a brand new setup soon - was only really looking at the idea as something to fill the interim period. (400ft+ Spans).

Does anyone have any experience of modifying a Vertigo Dragon canopy with extra cross-ports to promote a faster and more stable pressurisation sequence? I have been told that this improves the opening characteristics of the canopy a substantial amount. I contacted Vertigo who had not heard of the mod, but could see no reason not to go ahead and do it. However, I'm a little loathe to ask my rigger to dig out her hot knife without knowing the exact specifications of a successfully modified canopy. I don't want my one and only piece of F111 to literally blow up on opening! Sorry if this seems like a naive/stupid question to any of the more experienced BASE riggers out there!

Sport. If you look at statistics, it's actually a lack of education about canopy piloting skills which is getting skydiving a bad reputation through injuries and deaths. Edit to add: I can understand your perspective based on certain DZs I have been to, but the wider picture is thankfully safer. It all depends on how it is treated locally.

Have your rig looked at by a qualified rigger and get them to see if it's suitable. As long as the equipment is sound then there shouldn't be a problem. But bear in mind, because of the difference in fall rate, you may have the entire person's body weight pulling on your chest strap, not just a casual finger grip like in RW.

For anyone who does wingsuit BASE, turkeys can often cause premature deployments as they can't balance well on your back in the slipstream. Instead, try using a flying squirrel or a sugar glider as a PC. Both are quite happy living in a leg pouch if you keep them supplied with nuts.

I've got an original Safire I 119 without the flare mod and if you stab the brakes it'll just stop on landing, no plane-out & glide.... just acts like a huge airbrake Edit to add: It is fun to play with up high, and can even do half a barrel roll!

I would not loosen the chest strap if you're planning on playing around with your canopy and testing its limits. Just think what would happen if you were halfway through a barrel roll / one-sided canopy stall and your shoulder straps were loose But if you're just about to join the pattern and land, there's no real security reason not to.

Well done mate! Have you jumped since? Save a pint for me Ross

My Neptune is fine, but my Pro-track makes a quiet noise when it's on. Unless you can hear it over the propellor noise I wouldn't worry about it.

Excellent advice in there, thanks Tom.

The magazine cost is negligible when compared with the insurance premium. Please bear in mind that if the BPA ever loses its insurance, the CAA would have to regulate sport parachuting instead. (That would be very bad!) Look at it this way, if you jump fairly regularly, it's only ~£1 a jump to cover yourself from all sorts of legal fees that could wreck your life. Whinging solves nothing. You can help by either: 1. Persuading any skydivers who are selfish enough to sue other skydivers that they are only damaging the sport for everyone, along with their reputation. 2. Trying to find another insurance underwriter for the BPA.

By the sounds of it, CH1 is going to reward smooth, safe landing approaches onto the DZ, instead of concentrating on accuracy into a pit.

It's open to interpretation, a bit like most of the BPA ops manual..... Some DZs think that "consecutive" refers to only pre-declared landings when conditions are favourable, the others think that it refers to each subsequent jump. Hopefully the new system will standardise this a bit more.

How about every CH1 & CH2 instructor having to do 'X' jumps on student kit every 6 months?

The preliminary manuals for CH1 and CH2 should be working their way around the instructors at your DZ, just ask one of them for a glance at it next time you're there. Hopefully it won't change what most instructors teach too much. I know a lot of others and myself extend the 'risers' brief into a full blown canopy safety lesson.

I believe CH1 & CH2 will save lives. Like Vicki said though, CP1 is likely to become meaningless because of different methods of awarding and enforcing it. CP2.... well there's probably only a handful of people in the UK that applies to. I hope that the people that need CH2 go and learn voluntarily, even if they are grandfathered into the scheme above that level.

What's to say that a CCI knows what makes a safe swooper? I know a lot that will.... but also some that will hand out CP1 to anyone that isn't injured yet

This is long overdue, I'm interested to see how they intend on bringing it in... Unfortunately I can see CP1 qualifications being handed out to unqualified people - unless *every* BPA swooper has to suddenly take a test to continue doing what they've been doing for years. They'll be arguments either way.