Slurp56

Throwing a tantrum to get attention is what children do. Perhaps L&B have no time for children in an adult sport? ________________________________________ I have proof-read this post 500 times, but I guarantee you'll still manage to find a flaw.

I am too. Just look at how secure that bridle is! ________________________________________ I have proof-read this post 500 times, but I guarantee you'll still manage to find a flaw.

I would tend to think that a fat canopy made from low bulk fabric would still pack fat for a low bulk canopy. Your mileage may vary. ________________________________________ I have proof-read this post 500 times, but I guarantee you'll still manage to find a flaw.

20% Less than what? In my experience, Aerodyne canopies generally tend to pack fat. In terms of lowest volume, I would tend to think the PD Pulse with it's low bulk bottom skin would probably take the prize. ________________________________________ I have proof-read this post 500 times, but I guarantee you'll still manage to find a flaw.

The tool I see used most frequently is a hand swager by Loos & co. I'm not sure of the price, but its probably a bit more than you want to spend if you're only doing 1 cable. If it's a smaller diameter cable, you might check with your local bike shop, they have tools for manufacturing shifter and brake cables with swaged ends. http://loosnaples.com/swaging-machines/locoloc-m1-type-i- ________________________________________ I have proof-read this post 500 times, but I guarantee you'll still manage to find a flaw.

A pilot 188 is comparable to a Sabre2 190. A Sabre2 170 is comparable to a Pilot 168. So the answer to your question is "One size." http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2246307#2246307 My experience has been quite different. Your mileage may vary based on container manufacturer. A friend had an Infinity that held a 135 class canopy. There was no way a ZP Pilot 132 was going to fit, she sold it and bought a Sabre2 135 and never had a packing problem again. The point of this post is to remind everyone that a Vector sized for a 150 compared to a Talon sized for a 150 compared to a Wings sized for a 150 will all have different container volumes. The best advice on canopy compatability has always been and will always be the container manufacturer

At 3:27 in the video you posted, it states that you can find all slider dimensions at PD's website Support > Sport > Line Trim Charts. Check it out! http://www.performancedesigns.com/support.asp?filter=sport Also, knowing what size Sabre you are working with might help. Another option to find the info would be to contact PD. They sold me one a few years back and seemed more than happy to tell me the dimensions of their latest slider. Good luck! ________________________________________ I have proof-read this post 500 times, but I guarantee you'll still manage to find a flaw.

People under a fully inflated and flying main canopy. I can tell by your post that the light bulb has not come on yet, hopefully my cryptic response will help. ________________________________________ I have proof-read this post 500 times, but I guarantee you'll still manage to find a flaw.

Hey Tara, As I understand it, what you are reffering to is an Airworthiness Directive (AD). AD's are issued by the FAA and are mandatory. Service Bulletins (SB) are issued by the manufacturer and are considered recommendations and are not mandatory. The above applies to most sectors of aviation, and then you have subpart F, Parachute Riggers. As others have contributed, CFR 14 Part 65.129(e) says pretty plainly that parachute riggers must not deviate from the procedures approved by the administrator (FAA) or Manufacturer. It's a round-a-bout way to make parachute manufacturers service bulletins mandatory. You'd be correct in almost every other corner of avaiation as far as the FAA is concerned. ________________________________________ I have proof-read this post 500 times, but I guarantee you'll still manage to find a flaw.

Don't worry! I believe you! I know it! You should check out the article his company published on the RSL. If you search this website real hard, you're likely to find it in the article section. OMG! Me Too! I never called Bill a fool. I just called him human. I'd be less concerned about bursting the bed than I would be about having broken glass in my pockets. Let alone the inventor believing it was a logical scenario... Until next time, keep drinking that koolaid! ________________________________________ I have proof-read this post 500 times, but I guarantee you'll still manage to find a flaw.

The Inventor is human, just like the rest of us, and just because it's typed on dropzone.com, doesnt make it gospel. I am surprised by the number of people on here that will read something and not even have the smarts to question the free advice they've been given on the internet. Integrity risers have their place in this world, just like everything else. ________________________________________ I have proof-read this post 500 times, but I guarantee you'll still manage to find a flaw.

Part of the environment tests for TSO certification is to precondition the test parachute assembly (i.e. parachute inside container) at not greater than -40 for no less than 16 hours. Then stabilize to ambient and test jump. I would be willing to wager that your container and parachutes will survive just fine, but it might not hurt to send an email to airtec regarding the AAD. I have no idea the environment tests they do on their end. Please share, if you find out. ________________________________________ I have proof-read this post 500 times, but I guarantee you'll still manage to find a flaw.

I am always interested to see other people's perspective. {Disclaimer for those who choose to read my reply: I don't have anyone's product in my crosshairs. I am generalizing. Keep that in mind and try not to focus on brand-x rig.} I understand your argument. Just because no one has posted a video on youtube about these systems, doesn't make the design impervious. For the most part, the length of closing loop between the cutter and the pin still needs to pass through the same number of flaps. With the cutter located below the freebag, there is arguably more loop that must pass through all the flaps on the way out. I would argue that it is easy to visually determine if the closing loop is too long an ANY rig. Just because the pilot chute is enveloped in the container, doesnt make it a mystery. This is hands-down the most common error that I see in the field. I also tend to believe it's exacerbated by the longer 180 repack cycle. I'm not "dis"ing any style of rig. I just think it's foolish to base your container purchasing decision around an AAD cutter location. I believe the video floating around on youtube was a reserve total on an enclosed pc system. I'm not saying the design isnt safe, it's just as safe as all the other major designs out there. I'm certain that you could take a rig of that design and pack it 100 times and do 100 aad cutter test fires on the bench and it would work 100% of the time. It's that 1 time, unlikely scenario, that might get you, and I can't confirm it's impossible to happen on any specific design. Can you? ________________________________________ I have proof-read this post 500 times, but I guarantee you'll still manage to find a flaw.

my bad , I wouldn't use an AAD/Rig combination where a cutter failure would stop me from opening the reserve manually. While I tend to agree with you, know that every design is a compromise. Having the AAD cutter at the base of the loop facilitates the scenario of a total caused by binding of excess loop length. To me, it's somewhat 6 of one and a half dozen of the other. If you actually got low enough to have an AAD fire, how much longer were you going to wait before pulling your reserve? And if you are in a situation where an AAD fire is a legitimate save, then probability wise, it's likely best to have the cutter nearest the pin. ________________________________________ I have proof-read this post 500 times, but I guarantee you'll still manage to find a flaw.

apparently a case of RTFM... With a parameter I do not like. I have personally never read an Argus manual, or seen or touched an Argus. But for my personal preference another reason why I prefer the CYPRES Why? Lets be honest. Most of us have a DZ that we call home, and do the majority of our jumping there. If there is an altitude offset between the DZ and the LZ, it seems rather logical that an AAD would retain a setting in its memory. Certainly more logical than having to remember to set the offset every time the unit is turned on. Perhaps one might suggest it would be convenient for the offset to be displayed on the screen for easy verification? ________________________________________ I have proof-read this post 500 times, but I guarantee you'll still manage to find a flaw.