Jiggs

Hey, Just read your numbers on the PI and was curious if you guys have done much XRW with the canopy? As that speed is a nice fall rate for wingsuiters without the use of trims. I am guessing the PI is like the petra with the faster roll rates though so a bit harder to manage with docks and unintended body roll? Cheers "Don't blame malice for what stupidity can explain." "In our sleep, pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart and in our despair, against our will comes wisdom" - Aeschylus

106mph @ 3.8 on a flysight Normal loadings say 2.4 or so probably around 75-80mph Was talking with Ernesto the other day and he is getting around 30m/s descent rate on the 39 in normal fligh - so not sure what that is in mph "Don't blame malice for what stupidity can explain." "In our sleep, pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart and in our despair, against our will comes wisdom" - Aeschylus

ZP will be fine. You might be able to fit a sail cloth canopy in there but that would be a stretch "Don't blame malice for what stupidity can explain." "In our sleep, pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart and in our despair, against our will comes wisdom" - Aeschylus

Hey, A lot of this = depends. Factors: Exit (what point, what does the formation look like and fly off the door) How the team flies of the door – some are steep and some teams are relatively flat (steep is generally easier to shoot) Aircraft (How close to the door and what handles do you have) Your preference, how far you can reach, etc. What wide angle that you are running I messed around a lot with a bunch of different exits, but ultimately it is up to you in terms of what is most comfortable for you to exit. For high performance teams (say over 16+) I use a mix of leading and trailing depending on the exit point that the team are going through. For less demanding stuff I will usually go with leading as it is a more interesting and useful camera angle, but you can do anything provided you get the shot. Ohh and peeling is easier to get timing but generally easier to bust on grips. You can use it on teams if you have no confidence on the exit cadence but it is generally less useful to debrief in terms of the exit. With intermediate teams I will generally lead – as it is more important to see the exit and the relative plane of each of the people. Generally you can just ask the coach what they would prefer. Whatever you choose, they are generally slow on the transition from the first point so if you muck it up a bit it does not matter. When shooting – steeper is generally better vid, but more risky in terms of burbling. Don’t do this with junior teams as they can be all over the place. With my old team I was always very steep and in the burble but they were very good and I knew where they would be moving. With good teams you should almost always be in the same place. Occasionally I would shoot a bit flatter and on some blocks I also tended to move slightly to minimise the potential of centre point busts, but you don’t have to worry about this! Judges generally prefer a static point as well - well that is what they have told me. "Don't blame malice for what stupidity can explain." "In our sleep, pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart and in our despair, against our will comes wisdom" - Aeschylus

I think that this is right thing to do. I also think that this may reduce some fatalities. I agree DaveL; within a few years it won’t be an issue, this will now just be part of the culture in skydiving. Absolutely part of the problem is people not having the right gear choices / mentality for what they are doing. Sure we can say training is going to be the answer, but will anything actually happen? What is more likely, a simply rule change to affect behaviour vs. some new form of training approach to change behaviour (that is not recognised as a potential problem)? Do I think that H&Ps (or openings) can be done safely from this height or less – of course. I have many openings below 1800 and a number of exits below 1500. But I think that it is much safer to have a bit more margin for error or mucking around. I do not miss my old home dropzones get out at 2k and save $2! Now I prefer more time to deal with something exciting (if I need to) and being able to fly high performance wings. Personally I think one of the issues that I see in skydiving is old farts getting on new technology and treating it as if it is the 1970s. Our wings have fundamentally changed, performance has taken a massive step forward across the board but we want to behave in the same way? Remember when a Stiletto 120 was the hottest canopy getting around? Now we see so many high performance wings in general use across dropzones. Physics has not changed, our adoption of this technology has meant that we still have legacy rules in play. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ With Demo jumps in Australia you can be exit/open by 1500 if you have the right license (Display B). The minimum opening height for experienced jumpers is 1800 (and something higher I think for novices). So perhaps the approach could be something similar for the US approach – maybe tie it in with the PRO rating? Ohh and I call bullshit on any competitive swoopers wanting to go from 2200 or so. From memory, we can go as low as 2500 for comp passes (solo passes) but from past experience it does not work well. Fun wings, high initiation points and RDS means that this is way too much hassle and negatively impacts performance. E.g. normal 450 initiation height is at 1050 to 1400 depending on which wing I use. Also having malfunctions on these canopies can get pretty hectic, so more height is better. If the rule change helps drive the cultural change and a bit more safety for some people, so be it. Get 2 seconds less freefall and get on with it (besides once you get into swooping you realise that freefall is so 1990s anyway! :-D) "Don't blame malice for what stupidity can explain." "In our sleep, pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart and in our despair, against our will comes wisdom" - Aeschylus

dont exceed 76mph normal and 90 odd for speed from memory - to do this, think loadings above 2.3 and larger than 270s rotation. Also consider the density altitude that you are jumping at. at 1.5 - don't worry YMMV (edit to add) - the above is for the normal cypress, not speed. "Don't blame malice for what stupidity can explain." "In our sleep, pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart and in our despair, against our will comes wisdom" - Aeschylus

sorry guys - think you guys are a little off with your speeds. On a 69 at 3.8 I did manage to get upto 106mph vertical. Jay did some similar test a while back and got around the same sort of numbers. Ohh and according to my neptune I have been over 200mph - lol "Don't blame malice for what stupidity can explain." "In our sleep, pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart and in our despair, against our will comes wisdom" - Aeschylus

Really! LOL you must be jumping at a high altitude or I would also think that you have an incredibly long rotation or too long double fronts. Back on topic; You would be far better to stay on current canopy and learn to get 270s consistently. Much better for progression in the long run. Or you can downsize and get only moderate performance on it. 120 size is probably on of the best sizes, large enough to have range, but fun enough to get some awesome performance. You can do very large/powerful turns with this size wing. Learn to fly it well and you will be able to generate good power - it will also have the added benefit that you will be able to move much faster through sizes later if you spend the time learning and consolidating on this wing. This is probably the most important time for you - invest in it now (time, coaching and jumps) and save yourself a ton of time, $$$ and trouble later. You will be a much better canopy pilot because of it. EDIT TO ADD: Just realised I did not answer the original question!: After you were ready to downsize (after nailing the 120) I would think the 107 would be the way to go. If you really learned to fly the 120 very well the skills would transfer quickly. You could put sometime on this and then move to a 96 velocity. I think the key thing is learning about the sight picture, being able to see/predict the corner/recovery arc and be able to fly well/consistently in all sorts of conditions. In order to do this well it takes time and a lot of jumps. (in my case it took me more than 300 jumps to start to do an ok 450) Getting a smaller canopy does not help you do this. It does make us feel great because the canopy is faster while we are slightly worse off. Anyway it is all dependent on you, your training/coaching plan and your attitude, etc. Get a good coach and consistently get coaching and go from there. "Don't blame malice for what stupidity can explain." "In our sleep, pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart and in our despair, against our will comes wisdom" - Aeschylus

Hi guys, Is anyone aware of testing in the durability of line strength under heavy loadings? Historically, most line breakage has been on openings. With higher loadings and even higher performance canopies we are generating even more power and even more stress in the system. I know PD did some but can't see anything published? E.g. has anyone looked at the forces that are generating with on opening and swooping canopies at very high loadings and how this compare to the max strength of the lines? Is there any hard data on this? There are few big boys loading up quite high these days - Is there any info on the relative strengths of the different version of HMA that we actually use? FYI - I am wondering whether or not to reline a 69 sized canopy used for XRW with 500 HMA from the current 300. Current wingloading is 3.6 Or if I was to obtain a smaller main and run with less lead and still keep the thinner line. Thoughts? PS. Will download some data and see if I can figure out maximum speeds from Flysight - might be an idea / proximate on some of the forces? "Don't blame malice for what stupidity can explain." "In our sleep, pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart and in our despair, against our will comes wisdom" - Aeschylus

Nothing wrong with triples as I feel that they provide more "feel" in the toggles. I have one set still setup on one of my work rigs (velo84). --> It is just more a feeling/preference thing. For swooping, it is totally fine to use rears on triples, the only thing you have to be aware of is that it makes the transition to toggles more pronounced than on normal risers. I have also found that I tend to a little bit less distance with the triples (and less power if you need to dig - e.g. no toggle input). I do not have them on my swoop rigs. BTW I fly my other rigs with the brake line through a guide ring through the S-Link - not in the normal guide ring on risers. I feel this gives a closer feel to triples but without as big a transition from rears to toggles. "Don't blame malice for what stupidity can explain." "In our sleep, pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart and in our despair, against our will comes wisdom" - Aeschylus

Hi guys, Just got a pair of trim tab risers made up and a question popped into my head; one of the issues with Trim Tabs is the tendency for one or the other to unitentionally release (e.g. popping). I was just thinking that it may be more likely to pop as additionaly loading through doing a banked turn - e.g. the load on the front riser is greater when you throw out a fast turn - therefore it may be more likely in contributing to an asymertical (unitentational release). Would this logic be correct? Also does anyone know / recommend any companies that have had a bunch of experience in making good quality trim tab risers? I realise that no design is bomb proof, but after having some problems with my current set, I am thinking anything to end up with less issues on the risers! Thoughts? "Don't blame malice for what stupidity can explain." "In our sleep, pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart and in our despair, against our will comes wisdom" - Aeschylus

Yes. And you used to walk 5 miles uphill in both directions to school. Canopy collisions still occurred, but the consequences where generally not as high. A back in the day comparison is not that relevant to the canopies that jumpers use today. A hot canopy back in the day was an X228. These days an average jumper is probably jumping around a 135 main which has tremendously much more performance than a canopy that we now would regard as suitable for students. Even higher performance mains are more common with experienced jumpers. It is not just about "high performance canopies", by the old school definition EVERY SINGLE CANOPY on the load IS HIGH PERFORMANCE. Physics has not changed. Totally agree that the higher the airspeed of modern canopies - the less reaction times. The world has changed, technology and training has evolved, as have people's expectations. The big thing for us to think about is how we adapt our skydiving approach to this reality. E.g. training, looking at seperation, offset jump runs, etc. A greater emphasis on canopy control and flight plans for all jumpers. It seems like you are missing out on understanding that we are all skydivers - and this is a common problem for all. Regardless of jumping a 170 or 79, canopy control and traffic is something that all jumpers need to consider and plan for. How would you feel it we all were forced to go back to jumping rounds now? "Don't blame malice for what stupidity can explain." "In our sleep, pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart and in our despair, against our will comes wisdom" - Aeschylus

"Why penalise the jumper that is doing S Turns. He/she is only being safe. " This is not safe. Unpredictable patterns are dangerous to all involved. Sounds like you are part of the problem as well. Seriously though, good pattern flight is important to everyones safety. Attitudes like that are part of the problem. A good pattern is one of the steps in reducing/eliminating canopy collisions. "Don't blame malice for what stupidity can explain." "In our sleep, pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart and in our despair, against our will comes wisdom" - Aeschylus

Interesting thinking - follow on from an article you posted in Parachutist a few years ago as I recall. As Ron mentioned earlier in the thread, it is about punters building up their skill levels on less demanding and high performance wings. Putting this info out like that makes it sound like you are saying doing bigger turns or getting a smaller wing is being safer - that is just bullshit. Safety for a swooper starts with education, training, good setups and having a good understanding of what is going on and what you can do safely and consistently. The other issue that I see is that with jumpers that have not spent a lot of time working on the their larger wings struggle with smaller wings and carry forward their bad habits which takes even more time to unlearn on a smaller more loaded wing. Some of the errors that I had picked up along the way only really manifested on the smaller wings (or became more noticeable). The other problem is that it takes time to build up the sight picture of how much the canopy dives AND smaller canopies tend to recover out of vertical descent more slowly than bigger less agressive canopies. I agree that having more time to deal with stuff and to recognise what is going on is a good thing. But just getting a smaller / more agressive canopy is not the answer. Sometimes you know before you turn that you are low and need to speed that up, or during part of the rollout that you need to get the hurry along, a smaller canopy in of itself does not give you this. Time under your wing, time on your turn and coaching gives you this. The example that you had given of Adria would definetly have a smaller window of opportunity to get it right for a good swoop. To me it is about recognising what and where she wanted to go and putting in place a plan to get there. If you are running a 270 or larger you should be on a wing that is suited to do it, based on your experience and capabilities. Don't forget there are different types of turns (and how they finish off) - e.g. a very carvey type of turn will not have the same level of commitment as an accelerating finish turn and with a short recovery arc canopy that would be very low indeed. People doing these landings you should know it (canopy coaching anyone?) I think the flip side of the problem is a bigger issue, punters that want to do big swoops with little experience and will use this as I want to swoop therefore I need a smaller canopy and I am safer mental justification for downsizing. Personally, I think that is about the progression which is built up on a series of canopies and turns over time (experience) I like this quote: "In other words, if you want to swoop with the big dogs, you need to dedicate yourself – and your canopy". I agree with it, but think it is more about recognising what you are doing, where you canopy flight is at and what you want to get to. Something we as skydivers are usually fairly deficient at. I do agree that we have a cultural problem in skydiving - people don't spend enough time thinking about their choices of canopy flight. The attitude of I can get a smaller wing because I can get away with it, rather than I want a smaller wing so I can get more X performance on it. (and I am willing to do the time and training to make it worthwhile). Or the I have a 1000 jumps I need to have a velocity kind of thinking (though I just land straight in or do 90s). I don't think we do enough on coaching and questioning of goals. In comp I fly a JVX79 @ 2.65 For work I have an 84 and 90 velo - they are more practical and I don't use a RDS with them. This is an example of making a choice based on activities - ie. the 79 is to much hassle for work jumps. Ohh and you are right swooping is not practical - it is fun however. The same can be said for skydiving (it just depends on perspective) PS. There are some good thoughts in your article but to me, they don't come out as much on your posts. "Don't blame malice for what stupidity can explain." "In our sleep, pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart and in our despair, against our will comes wisdom" - Aeschylus

One of the pro's against this concept is everyone will laugh themselves silly at being a pretender at such a wingloading on a cross braced canopy. It just screams wanker. Another is the cost Another is the shittier openings [Edit to add] Not sure than the distortion on the wing at the low loading will make the cross bracing benefit as large, but there will be benefit. Also would add that the only times I have jumped large cross braced canopies, they have felt like dogs compared to similar sized "normal" canopies. Mods - might be better to shift this to the swooping forum [Edit finished) I do have a friend that is at a similar wingloading but that is because she could not get a small enough non cross braced wing. E.g. she has a 90 velo and there are not many canopies around that size are not crossbraced (and they are hard to onsell). She has about 3000 jumps as I recall. If the chick on the video could get good swoops on a velo at that loading, she could do 95% as well on a katana or equivalent without as many hassles. Trying to justify a purchase? Go invest in coaching instead, it will get you further than a new canopy, will make you a better canopy pilot and will make the next transitions easier when it is appropriate "Don't blame malice for what stupidity can explain." "In our sleep, pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart and in our despair, against our will comes wisdom" - Aeschylus

While wingsuiting in San Diego about 7 years ago I crossed paths with an unmanned drone midway through the skydive. I think at closest approach it would have been between 50-100metres away. No real chance of collision but it does reduce the big sky theory. Fortunately I picked it up much earlier, but for the life of me I could not figure out what kind of aircraft is was for ages (I was starting at it for awhile) I was last out of the otter, as I recall about a minute after everyone else. So I would think it is possible, just not very likely. "Don't blame malice for what stupidity can explain." "In our sleep, pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart and in our despair, against our will comes wisdom" - Aeschylus

"The safety margin, IMO, come's from the fact that distance is no longer about who's willing to pop 35 feet in the air and come thundering in to the ground. " So why not just have the VE rule rather than the drag on entry? That is the component that is adding safety - why in the same stroke reduce safety with the drag? The two changes are not congruent with the same goal = LOGIC FAIL IPC "Don't blame malice for what stupidity can explain." "In our sleep, pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart and in our despair, against our will comes wisdom" - Aeschylus

Not a fan of the changes, I understand the thinking on what was trying to be achieved by the changes but think that they mostly makes things more dangerous for competitors. By requiring people to drag on the power events I think there will be many more smash ins on the water; the whole idea of 5ft gates was to have some kind of safety margin on the power events but now we are reducing that margin to nothing. So my belief is that more people will get hurt/killed trying to bring all the power to the deck. I think it was noticeable at Dubai as a water touch was allowed (and not the score on distance runs) - seemed like a whole bunch more people than normal chowed in hard on distance (not something that you normally see). So for Distance: Benefit - cuts the distance so more locations comply with the course requirements (e.g. size of run-off) Benefit - will possibly reduce the number of people having arse shattering landings having milked their canopies to max performance (maybe) Con - More people smashing in the entry Con - more hassle with course as needing to check for Vertical Extension I think this change is not great but okay. An alternative might be the maximum distance dragged from the entry (including land). That way you get the long water drag and still get the distance (without the smash in landing at the end). Only problem is the The other option I see would be forget the drag at entry and just have a VE rule across the first 50 metres or something For Speed: Benefit: Looks better to the public Benefit: Easier course to setup Con: Straight line sucks balls (carving is fun!) - in effect we are losing a component of flight here Con: More people will smash in Con: Will suck in strong headwinds e.g. drag 50+ metres into 5-7 metre headwinds and see how you go (most people, myself included would struggle over the current ZA of 36m). Who wins when everyone gets a zero? I am told that at the CP meeting at Klatovy competitors voted against the speed changes and for some version of changes to the distance rules. Overall it is probably better for the general public as there will be more carnage and more dragging of water but shittier for the competitor. I don't feel the need to entertain punters by increasing risk for me. If I had a vote I would keep speed the same and can live with the distance change but would prefer it to not require a water contact for the safety aspect. I think the VE rule could restrict the distances and might help with safety. "Don't blame malice for what stupidity can explain." "In our sleep, pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart and in our despair, against our will comes wisdom" - Aeschylus

Awesome post(s) Was very interesting to see so many people doing this in Dubai with some very different results. It does seem that people can kill their power with a poorly/late executed version of this maneuver I used to do it (poorly) and after awhile a coach mentioned that I would probably be better off without it (which has also been true!) One of my team mates does it very well, very smooth and very early on. For him it works very well as he seems to carry his power very well from a 270. I am always amazed and what he gets from it with some turns as some of them do not seem to be very powerful (or might be a bit sloppy). His transition in and out of the body position is very good, very smooth and you can see that while watching the canopy during his transition. In terms of doing it like a paraglider - Scott Roberts has a set of gear setup like this. Was amazing to see him fly it around, the drag reduction appeared to be very noticeable (in full flight with the same canopy/same loading). So it will be interesting to see if anyone gets around to doing this for comp. "Don't blame malice for what stupidity can explain." "In our sleep, pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart and in our despair, against our will comes wisdom" - Aeschylus

Howdy, I used to run triple risers for a number of seasons and still have a few sets of triple risers around (still have one setup on a 84 velo); I used to love the feeling of the brake line not being constricted by the guide rings. Anyway, the big thing for swooping is that triples are kind of crap as; It makes the transition from rears to toggles generally much longer / more abrupt. E.g. you need to do a more agressive transfer as you won't have any tail input when you are on the rears with triples. This generally kills some of the distance that you get. I get noticeably less distance on canopies with triple risers. Also the transition is noticeably larger between rears and toggles. Now I just run normal risers but with an additional set of guide rings on the soft link and run the brake lines through it (still use the normal guide rings for packing). Ohh and one other disadvantage is that it tends to confuse other people when packing or you lend them your gear. "Don't blame malice for what stupidity can explain." "In our sleep, pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart and in our despair, against our will comes wisdom" - Aeschylus

Just to close this off - I got some #8 Swivels (rated to 125kgs) and they have been working great. The larger (but not too large) sizing was perfect for running the lines through the eyelets. Thanks everyone for the suggestions. Cheers "Don't blame malice for what stupidity can explain." "In our sleep, pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart and in our despair, against our will comes wisdom" - Aeschylus

Perfect - exactly what I was thinking of. Any idea's on what strength it would need to be? What sort of force does a pilot-chute at terminal exert? "Don't blame malice for what stupidity can explain." "In our sleep, pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart and in our despair, against our will comes wisdom" - Aeschylus

Good Afternoon all. Can anyone recommend a good swivel that would be suitable for use for an RDS that is often taken to terminal? Currently I do not use a swivel with either of my rigs but am keen to put one on to save on the seemingly endless untwisting that comes after some jumps. Does anyone have a recomendation on what sort of strength would be required for the swivel to hold up to repeated openings? Where did people get their swivels? Any recommendations on load strength? Did you get it from a fishing shop - or elsewhere? Keen to hear on people's experiences, as at the last comp, a friend of mine used a swivel from a tackle place that bent/broke on his first jump - fortunately he could borrow a PC from another set of gear! Cheers! "Don't blame malice for what stupidity can explain." "In our sleep, pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart and in our despair, against our will comes wisdom" - Aeschylus

I like all of the canopies! :-) I am not going to get into brandwar stuff. It is more of a personal preference thing, the big thing I would say is that it feels it is easier to pull the JVX out of a dive if you are low. I think the velo is possibly easier to set up for comp, but with my flying technique is probably better suited to the JVX. Stu: Ohh and on the original post - I kept the 90, relined the 84 and got a 79 JVX. The 90 now feels slow but is super easy to get good performance out of, the relined 84 feels pretty good, but she does not like any rough stuff and drops off power fast if I am not smooth (I would have 300-400 jumps on it now). My JVX (300-400 jumps) feels right to me, but I only run that with a RDS. I am thinking of borrowing buying a small canopy to train on and revert back to the JVX for comp. Your comments make so much more sense now, then when I read them originally, I get what you are saying - thanks! And say hello to Scott for me - he fried my brains just before nationals! - Very good info! "Don't blame malice for what stupidity can explain." "In our sleep, pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart and in our despair, against our will comes wisdom" - Aeschylus

Update to add: After about 300 jumps the canopy feels very similar to the old sail cloth canopy that I was using previously. Size is down to about a 135. Still is fantastic to fly! "Don't blame malice for what stupidity can explain." "In our sleep, pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart and in our despair, against our will comes wisdom" - Aeschylus