dgw

^ This. I have hundreds of psycho packs (and hundreds of pro packs, and various other packs). I've never had a problem on any canopy with the psycho method. I view it as a different folding method. I differ from ufk22 insofar as the one thing that I always do is inspect the slider to make sure it is up against the stops, and pulled out over the nose. Occasionally, when putting the canopy down, it can slip a bit. I don't roll anything, just make sure the cells are in the middle before I fold it and roll it up. I see no problem having a good look at it before you fold it and roll it. However, whatever works, works, for whatever reason.

Not yet available. I sent in a unit for maintenance (its still with Airtec) and requested an activation altitude change. The feature, Airtec advised, is not currently available.

That's essentially what the PD boys were telling me. If the locking stows allow too much stretch, there is the possibility that as the fall rate of the d-bag is slowed by the pilot chute it may partially strip off the canopy until the canopy has slowed down sufficiently. There is, apparently, a danger of disturbing the pack-job during this phase which could lead to a undesirable opening characteristics. The fear that many people have is that overly tight locking stows can lead to bag-lock. I have heard two well-known John's discuss this: 1. John Sherman (above) points out that Mil. Spec. bands should break before a bag-lock occurs. 2. John LeBlanc has said that a bag-lock requires the prompt execution of Eps, whereas slammer openings have killed people. His preference out of the two is for a bag-lock. The bungees resist not the inertial mass of the bag, but the inertial mass of the lines.

Are the insets, standard lens polycarb, or high index? Standard polycarbonate I think.

I suggest that you investigate something like this http://www.bbk.ac.uk/mybirkbeck/services/facilities/support/critical-thinking

I have a pair with RX inserts, with something like -7 in each eye. I think that they are superb, and the best solution I have found, and I've tried a few. I got a foam insert, but I've never used it. I find I get a near perfect seal with the frames. You shape them to fit your head. Mine fit my face like a..... glove... Have you considered the RX insert? I can say, without hesitation, that the field of view in the RX inserts is the best I've ever had in any pair of specs in 30 years of incipient blindness. The only minor drawback is that my eyelashes brush the lenses. It doesn't bother me, and bear in mind that I have thick inserts.

I'm afraid not. It was just a 'regular' weekend at a UK dropzone. The other meet happened three or four weeks ago, but I wasn't there. I'm told there is webpage with a bunch of photos of vintage gear being lobbed, but I have not got the link.

Well, I had a great weekend. I lobbed my French Papillion and an Irvin Delta II Parawing. I was a bit apprehensive lobbing the Parawing for all the usual reasons, compounded a bit by a helpful tale about a Delta II Parawing fatality from back in the day (where else?) fed into my ear just before closing the pack job... I'd had a very good brief about how long the deployment might take on the Parawing, given the way the opening shock inhibitor works. It wasn't necessary. It opened like a lightning strike, which pleased me. Initial thoughts: 'Good grief Chief, it's tiny!! No! Wait! It's far away.' Very long lines.... :-) Tremendous. Thanks to Andrew H who has really helped me out with the vintage equipment.

Maybe not 1000 notes of the realm with an AAD, but there is airworthy stuff around. For example, my partner shifted a Vector 2 with a Spectre main and a reserve, all airworthy, for 600 notes. No AAD. This was a few weeks ago. I see similar sales occasionally. It's worth keeping an eye on uks, and also asking around. Riggers often know of gear, or will keep an ear out. I'd up your budget by 500 quid, and I'm sure you'll find something at that price point.

None of the above, as far as I can see..

Me too, although my understanding is that UPT pitch it as an alternative, rather than a recommended closing sequence. I will, no doubt, be corrected if I am wrong... The additional advantage, in my view, is that you don't have to be concerned with leaving the 'slack' above the pin / closing loop, which is another potential source of a pcit if omitted.

Ah. Smashing. Many thanks Mate. Darren

Folks, I have done a search, and failed. Can anybody point me to the post that had the cartoon of the lemmings doing a five way star off a cliff? A few years ago, I tidied it up a bit and made a great T-shirt. I'd like to replace the T-shirt, because it is used up but I no longer have the image. Also, if there is a royalty required, I will pay it. Thanks, Darren

I have a set of Liquid players with a -7 RX insert, and the light-to-dark lenses. They are superb, in my view. The RX inserts give me the best vision I have ever had with any set of glasses, and I have been wearing glasses for 30 years. The peripheral vision is stellar. You don't need the gasket. They work extremely well, for me, in flat and head up flying. As a very shortsighted spaz, I think they are great, and I have tried other options which worked to an extent, but were flawed. I am very happy with my Liquid solution.

Interestingtly (for me), I test jumped two of the rigs used for the aerial stunts, before the stunts, and approps of just being at the DZ at the right time. They were all black TSE Superfly rigs with Spectres. I will go and see it, just to see if I can spot the rigs..

Just a curiousity on my part - I'm cognisant of why the 'standard' 45 degree rule is not a valid rule for exit seperation. I've always understood it to be 45 degrees relative to the horizontal plane of the aircraft. But, when asked, Brian said it is 45 degrees relative to the horizon, which is not the same at all. Without doing sums, I just wondered about the rational (if any) of this 'new angle' on the 45 degree rule...

Good effort Dude. Read it, liked it. I would have liked a primer like that a decade ago. I think it a valuable and appropriately measured document.

Folks, I happenstanced across this curiosity on eBay. http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Parachute-canopy-/290677863778?pt=UK_SportingGoods_OtherSports&hash=item43adc03562 It's a PD160 reserve canopy without a line set. Any thoughts as to why such a canopy would be lineless? Damage? Decommissioned? (I'm not thinking about buying it, but I have never seen a reserve canopy with the lines removed)

I had a bid in, but not at that level..

A link, but you need $ and a VHS player.. http://www.skydivingvideos.de/index1.htm This one is free...: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znudBmOlWtY

Dear all, A quick update. With the exceptional help of Andrew H, I lobbed my all black Para-commander last Sunday at Langar airfield, Nottinghamshire, England, UK. Mr H fast-tracked the entire process, loaned me a suitable container and a deployment device, and taught me how to pack. I got a very detailed briefing on all things PC, to include working out the spot etc, and the staff at Langar were very helpfull - they even threw a WDI for us (this was the first time I ever really studied a WDI with grim attention..) We lobbed out over the John Deere tractor factory at 4.2k, opening at 3.5k. This next bit might bore everybody with loads of PC lob shitless, but this is what happened next... The opening, after about a 7 second delay, from a 'slag' designed and built by Mr H, was quick but very progressive / soft. The canopy ride was very interesting (to me). I was amazed at how responsive the canopy was to toggle input (it is shortlined by, we estimate, about 4 feet +/- 4 inches). I was similarly amazed that I could get to places - the initial plan was land *anywhere* on the airfield. After about a minute or so of looking about, and pulling steering lines, I decided that I would land at a location of my choosing, and chugged on over to DZ control.. The landing was fine - I just did a bog standard PLF (like I was trained to do ages ago...). I loved it. Many thanks to all for the help and advice, and particularly Mr H, who really made it happen. Darren (The images show Mr H on a Papillion, and me on the PC)

DSE, Many thanks for that tip - it has scythed vast amounts of rendering time for me. It's a real time saver. And, many thanks for the general contribution. I haven't got a great deal of spare time, and I really appreciate the info you put out on this forum. Darren

I have two sets of RX goggles / glasses, with a strong prescription (about -7 in each eye). I used the Adidas elevation climacool goggles / glasses with an insert for about 12 months, and they were fine, but not with the elastic strap provided. I used the 'standard' arms with a sunglasses strap, which worked pretty well. They have snap-on arms, and I had one detach on an exit once, and that was enough, because I need to see to land.. I then got a pair of Liquid Eyewear Gaskets, with an insert - I think the insert was high index plastic, making the insert a bit thinner. I use them without the foam insert, and I am delighted with them. The lenses give me superb peripheral vision, which I have never had with any other (normal) glasses, and they are a windblocker in flat and head up orientations. All in all, I am very pleased with the Liquid Gaskets, and they work a lot better (for me) than the Adidas glasses. They are also considerably more robust than the Adidas effort. I wouldn't consider, if getting another RX set of goggles, going down the Adidas route. Also, they look well cool, and that is very important.... Minor quibble: I found the customer service well intentioned, but fairly hapless. It all worked out in the end with not very significant hassle, and it was worth it. Hope this helps - it's my only area of skydiving expertise...

Replying to Diablopilot, mainly because I like the view.. I'm aware the question is open to personal interpretation, but that is part of the question. I was just curious about how people with a bit of history, and a longer view, consider the issue. The skill versus the hazards argument is a neater way of phrasing the question I had in mind. Thank you. The ratio argument is compelling, but I dislike it only because I see many individual acts of poor skydiving practice regularly, and they don't end up with dead folk. I'm picky... :-) The absence of fatalities doesn't really go to address the 'safe' issue, in my view. Many thanks to all. All good food for thought. Darren

Well, that is a view that I am certainly on board with