fallingfaster

I came to my current canopy, a Vision 132, from a Safire. I think everyone tends to speak highly of a canopy they own. But I really love the vision. I demoed the Stilletto for 10 jumps, and I think the vision is more responsive than the Stilletto without the 'spinetto' bad habits. I've put maybe 200 jumps on my Vision, and had line twists a grand total of twice. That being said, I think it's opened on heading that number of times as well. . . Usually it's a 90, but I've had it pull a 270 or 360 on a couple of openings. The openings are almost always soft, very rarely are they more brisk, but I've never had a slammer with the canopy. I like the Aerodyne riser and toggle setup, esp. with the tru lock style toggle security. At my loading (1.3 to 1.4 depending on weight I'm wearing) the front, rear and toggle pressures are fairly light. So light in fact, that the canopy is easy to hold in a pretty steep dive with front risers and some harness input. Toggles stalls on the canopy are a wild ride, usually resulting in line twists and other fun. I've had it throw me against the chest strap so hard that it's knocked the wind out of me. But rear riser stalls are nice and gentle, canopy collapses and just floats you down. (Though let up on one side while doing this, and the resulting 'Helicopter stall' is ever so much fun!) The canopy isn't very ground hungry, but can be forced into a steep glide with aggressive riser input. The recovery arc is slightly longer than a Stilletto, but still fairly short in comparison to the X-Fire or Katana. I've only landed the canopy straight in with no riser input a couple of times, but when I did, the flare power seems a little lacking. With a 90° front riser turn, the canopy lands very nicely. The canopy lands great on rear risers only, and even with 90° turns it is possible to transition from rears to toggles in the flare. All and all I really like the Vision, it is aggressive but forgiving enough to teach basic canopy flight and swoop skills. The Vision is part of the reason I've come to love the canopy ride more than the freefall. Good luck with your decision!

I just don't understand how this wasn't found sooner. I might have a 'It'll be right" attitude, but a rig manufacturer can't! This issue really wasn't identified in testing?

Most definitely. Wouldn't want to have a launch like that at terminal. Now I'll probably have to visit a shrink/rigger and spend many a session trying to resolve 'reserve trust issues'.

I, like many others, put a bunch of jumps on my rig before this SB. The risk would be exactly the same if I were to jump it this weekend with full knowledge of the SB, as it would the previous months I've been jumping it. Or for that matter, to expose myself to undue risk. Which is why I've unpacked my reserve. Enjoy this video comparing my rig's (a 1997 QII, modified at the factory with PRO and other options 9/2006) reserve openings with the main in and out of the pack tray. I hope you especially enjoy the happy hardcore music that seems to fit so well. . . http://idisk.mac.com/tdauto-Public/quasarreserve.mov Oh, and please note my impressive use of commas, which serves to add clarity to my thoughts.

This is only a question, I have no desire to add excessive risk, but I want to jump. . . As a pilot I know that my aircraft must comply with ADs, but Service Bullitens are only mandatory under Part 135. Are skydivers required to comply with service bulletins?

The context was in a discussion of different landing areas, the value judgment he was referring to was that by flying a bigger canopy, that you are flying more conservatively/safely. I think the quote references people who have "really thought about parachute stability" and that they are the people who have the experience and skill to jump smaller canopies. Perhaps the skydiver with low jump numbers would assume a greater risk by jumping a smaller canopy than by jumping a large one with a risk of collapse in turbulence. Conversely, the more experienced jumper mitigates the risk of jumping a smaller canopy with skill and experience and would be put at a comparatively higher risk by jumping a large canopy in turbulence.

"There is a value judgment implied here that is if you are not going fast you are being safe. Many of us that have really thought about parachute stability choose to come in fast and jump smaller parachutes, a big part of that decision is that parachutes are stable at high speed, now a stable parachute is stable at high speed I should say. So for me it's a safety issue, jumping a 190 in turbulence for me would be a terrifying thing I don't do it, it scares me." - Brian Germain, Skydive Radio #75 As I understand it, a canopy that is flying faster through the air maintains higher pressurization of it's cells. A more highly pressurized wing means the wing is less likely to collapse. I've seen a lightly loaded canopy (less than 1 to 1) collapse at 30 feet in turbulent conditions (winds 15 knots and thermal activity). The collapse was precipitated by the low experience jumper making several large opposite toggle inputs in response to the turbulence. This slowed the canopy down further leading to its collapse, line twists and impact.

Additionally, has anyone seen the cool new riser covers? They've got magnets in them! Very interesting.

Bravo! Bill wins the prize for the fastest, most accurate, authoritive response ever on Dropzone.com! 5 minutes! LOL. . .

Wasn't planning on mixing or matching, I was more curious why they are the way they are. I had seen those other two posts before, my question should have been phrased as more like, "Why are the PCs different, rather than which is best" I'm interested in the data from testing (though I know manufactures guard their data), time from PC launch to inflation, amount of drag required, etc. I bought and am eating up Pointers manual. I suppose I'm going to have to get my riggers ticket some day, if for the sole purpose of learning more about my gear. . . Thanks

I've always enjoyed reading packing manuals, one of the things that struck me about modern rigs is the differences in their reserve pilot chutes. From RW's meshless to Wings' weird looking bubble, why are there so many differences? Are some better at terminal and some better at subterminal? Is there any data available on the internet regarding reserve pilot chute design? I find the subject very interesting, from a casual non-rigger skydiver's perspective. Thanks

I bought my Quasar used, packed it up and jumped it. It's a shortie model and even though I'm 5'11 it fit me perfectly, without hip rings. When I sent my rig in to Strong for updates, they did a bunch of work and packed it up again for practically nothing! They even expedited my request and got my rig back to me before the big boogie! It's a great rig for a great price, top notch first rig. Thanks Strong!

Hi, I've been enjoying packing for a while now (Safire 169), have my times down to 10 minutes, for a nice, neat packjob. I tend to worry about things when packing, so I make sure everything is to my liking. One of my concerns is dragging a line over the nose while stuffing material (or folding it) under the cocooned canopy on the ground. So for the past few jumps I've set the cocooned canopy down, laid on it to remove the air and folded the left and right sides of the cocoon over the top, lay on it again and then fold it up and into the bag. It's pretty much the Wolmari pack job as I understand it. My question is, are there any possible problems with doing this? I've jumped it and it gives great, on heading openings, and when I open up the packjob without jumping it, I find the rear lines well clear and separated from the exposed nose. One packer I talked to said this was the way of the future, the other wasn't encouraging saying that all the matters is maintaining line tension and position with the canopy on the ground. Opinions? Thanks.

Nah, Pulllow! 3000 is what the BSRs say. [Just kidding, obviously, what was said by others above is correct, pull high. Wanted to troll for responses. . . ]

Well looked like a slider up on the reserve, and it was spinning because a brake was out? Would it have been possible for her to pump and get it down or was it stuck?