bofh

I've not read the source, but there has been more than those two. At least one person fell out of the gear at pull time and another inexperienced WS didn't pull. This is just from the top of my head, I'm sure there are more.

Who said that the mesh should provide less drag than current lines? I didn't anyway. The statement I responded to was that it would cause so much drag that it was impossible for the canopy to fly at all and I don't really see that. I think so too. As for the risk of tension knots on reserves that was mentioned, I think a bigger reserve is a better solution. It will of course not eliminate the problem, but at least give you a bigger chance of survival.

How do you know that? There are different kinds of "mesh". At the extreme a fishing net is a kind of mesh that might prevent twisted lines and tension knots (or create more knots, at least if there are objects stuck in the net...). Sure it will be a lot of drag, but maybe the net can be made large enough to prevent linetwists and tension knots while still giving enough performance and not adding too much bulk. I doubt it, but I won't say it is impossible. I don't think "copyright" means what you think it means. Maybe you are thinking about patents, but they don't offer protection for half a century in most countries.

A friend got a JVX where they had forgot to cut the crossports on one chamber, so some things are lacking in their QA program if they have one. It made the openings a bit more interesting.

Isn't Icarus Reserve also designed by CIMSA?

Isn't the flysight's LED synced with the GPS stream so if you turn it on while filming it, it would be easy to sync it?

If you come to Sweden (Gothenburg) you can test my SC-77. Thanks! I consider that. I'm not sure if I'm ready for WL 3.2. Were you jumping that in Näsige last year during the WS and FF boogie? 3.2 might be a bit excessive. I was at Näsinge on the weekend. With a white, gray and orange canopy.

If you come to Sweden (Gothenburg) you can test my SC-77.

I don't think they've ever had it on their English website. Their Russian page is at: http://www.skylark.ua/ru/scirocco/ I've only read about it via Google Translate: http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=sv&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.skylark.ua%2Fru%2Fscirocco%2F Not the best translation, but one gets most of it.

I love my Scirocco, but its a 30 cell. I can't really recommend it for AFF work though, it takes too long to open, just like the velo, only with much better openings. On the other hand, I've only jumped my own and I've got much longer risers than recommended, so others might be different. My recommendation would be JVX. Fast, but soft openings on heading. Flies rather nice, though a bit harder to keep diving if you start too high compared to Scirocco or velo.

Isn't that a matter of how the cover flap is designed? Ie Wings style main protection doesn't seem to suffer as the canopy gets smaller (at least within reasonable limits) while Javelin containers often have to be modified when the canopy gets smaller.

All Javelins are like that. Most Wings are almost like that too - the tongue is fixed at the top too, but there is an option to fit the loop on the bottom flap. Its one more hole to pull the loop through, but on the other hand you can fit a larger span of canopies in the container and still have enough force on the loop/pin. I rather fit a larger range of canopies. If you put the pullup cord through the loop before starting to pack or bag and either hold the pullup cord up or stick it under the reserve pilot cap, its just as easy putting the bag in the container.

Because we know how to pack the other way. And it's quicker to bag the canopy the normal way. Of the fastest packers I know, some fold, bag, fold, others just fold and bag. I don't see a speed difference there, except when it comes to big/new canopies and small bags where the fold, bag, fold method wins. After making the first S-fold near the lines much of the lines and slider are locked in the fold. You lose that if you make the first fold near the bag instead. That's why I don't teach it to students. On the other hand, if you need two folds, your canopy is just too big.

That's nothing. In Sweden they would have been suspended for two years if the rules are followed.

I used to turn the AltiTrack over under canopy to read the digital backside, but with my faster canopy it starts to stand straight out because of the wind and it can't be read. So now I have the AltiTrack for freefall and logging, a Viso on my leg for canopy flight and an Optima in my helmet. I use the combination of beeps and the Viso for flying to the IP and start the turn based on the beeps with a second confimation on the Viso.

I assumed it because of what your profile said. I see you have now updated it.

I probably would if I were to buy a new container today.

Did you speak to SPP about the odyssey? If one or two sets of riser covers are needed, isn't that just a matter of container design? If two are needed, I see that as a point against the design. The simpler the better. What's so rigger friendly about a vector compared to an odyssey? My rigger moans about vectors all the time and even prefer packing wings before vectors (and he does pack more vectors than wings, so its not just a matter of what's he's most used to). I keep hearing "good support from the manufacturer" about all major containers, so I don't think that's much of an issue. I'm not saying vector is a bad container, not at all, but on the other hand I don't think its better than the odyssey either. They each have their pros and cons. The bad points about the vector and Icon compared to a odyssey: * More flaps that has to move away from the reserve PC. * AAD-cutter above the PC. If the cutter somehow traps the loop, the system can't be manually deployed. To the original poster; if you still are a student, try to get a used system instead. You most likely will make a few bad landings now and then in the beginning and it really sucks to stain and tear your brand new gear. You probably also want to get a smaller parachute after a hundred jumps or so and then it might be better time to get new gear. By that time you might have had more time to look at all the different containers out there, spoken with more people and can make a more informed decision about what you value in a container.

'Miscalculate' is a key word here. Fortunately, so far you have been able to correct in time. Faster gives less time for corrections, obviously. She has a valid point. The window of opportunity for making a good landing is larger, you can make a faster flare lower or a slower flare higher compared to a parachute at a lower speed. The timing is probably the same, but most people look at the ground and start the flare at what they believe is the right height, not at the right time and after 50 jumps or so most people are able to make adjustments to their flare based on what they see, not based on some timing. The reaction time is not that critical as long as you are not scared and I think that is the most important thing. Scared people are bad at flying and that's why people should downsize in small steps IMO (as well as doing canopy drills so they have the tools to get out of tight spots without getting scared). Many unexperienced jumpers make small misstakes when landing and end up rolling on the ground quite often. I've seen plenty of people stop tumbling in their landings when they downsize. If you tumble enough times you will get hurt, so in that way a slightly smaller parachute does improve that part of the safety equation. Learning to PLF is another good way to lower the risk of being hurt... Of course, as you say, it comes with a price. If you still are too late, you hit the ground harder. If you turn near the ground, you'll hit it much harder. If you fly into congested areas of the sky, things happen faster and you risk hitting someone. With a bad body position, there is a greater risk of having line twists. But does it take more time for smaller people to learn the advanced skills of looking where they are flying, reading the sky ahead, applying some (more) brakes if the sky still starts to get congested or not doing toggle turns close to the ground? I've not looked at the statistics, but I can't remember seing anyone above 200 jumps turning themselves into the ground by misstake (hooking too low is a different matter). I've seen some people with between 200 and 300 jumps "experience a gust" as they reach for the ground, but then people are already flying horizontal next to the ground so they usually just hurt their pride as they crash and a faster turn would not make much of a difference there. For people with some experience I do believe a downsize can reduce their risk, but I can't honestly say if the total risk really goes down or up if one adds up all the risks.

It is a bit strange that there are no rules against other high performance canopies. Plenty of canopies are more dangerous in the unskilled hands at 1.4 than many of the listed crossbraced canopies. I'd suggest you "import" the swedish rules (the basis for BG's chart) instead. Many from Norway are visiting Sweden, so it would be nice if we have the same rules. That way swedish dropzones will enforce them too (when it comes to gear we allow the foreign rules, but since we don't know them in general we allow whatever the jumper comes with...). What's bad with the Swedish rules is that some people see them as a this-size-rule instead of minimum. Some jump their huge canopies for many, many jumps then downsize to the smallest they are allowed, resulting in a rather large downsize step. When people pass the end of the chart, some start to downsize in quite large steps too (like me that went from 120 to 94 to 77 quite fast, but that's okay because I've got mad skillz). I sometimes think a better system would be to just have a starter weight, then some simple rule like: you are allowed to downsize at most X % after Y jumps. Where X depends on the weight.

Perhaps flying over the cliff would have been a much better day?

I think most people agree about and like the new rules about not poping up. I think that rule is great! As you say, that's more swooping than the old rules and at the same time it prevents some injuries. 14 injuries of 101 competitors is not ok in my opinion. I don't know if all 14 injuries was because of popping up though, at least one was not popping up, but 7m/s downwind landings are fast and people can get hurt because of it. Its the dragging foot on the entry gate that people object to. I don't agree with your ZA comparision, but that doesn't really matter. Its great that the rules are changed to allow "more venues", but does it really do that? A pond is not cheap to build and neither the old nor new rules leaves any guarantees that it can host an IPC competition next year, because the rules still does not say how long the course should be, only how long it should be relative to the performance of the best pilots, when they fly at high altitude at maximum downwind... What evidence is there that the new rules limit the distance enough? I heard some people have performed quite well with the new rules too. Here are my suggestions: Have the new VE rules. Most people think they are an improvement. Remove the foot dragging, I still fail to see how it improves safety for less experienced people. Competitors didn't vote for it, they have voiced their opinion against it via petitions after the fact and via comments on the linked facebook page before the fact. The message is quite clear, most do not want it. Run non-IPC competitions and show pilots that it is more fun or safer first; make them want it instead of forcing it upon them. Change the rules about the length of the course to a fixed length. THAT opens up new venues! That way one can know in advance that an IPC event can be hosted and not get a nasty surprise after a new record is set. Add a new rule that makes it possible for a competition to have a lower limit on the windspeed if needed. If the course turns out to be too short, instead of invalidating the whole course, one can just limit the amount of downwind speed and still use it.

I think the log would show that the skydiver stopped falling at a higher altitude than the ground in that case or that the skydiver kept falling/flying below the ground.

Weird. Mine from 2007 does not. Neither my new PC I bought in 2011.

I agree. They should obviously get a katana.