ficus

The way I do it, it is.

It's almost certainly happening on climbout. Either keep yourself tight to the door as you climb around to the outside, or far away from the door until you're out, then make your way to the back. I'm willing to bet you're hitting the relative wind outside the airplane a few inches away from the door and it's bumping you back against something bruisy made of metal. Even knowing this, I am an idiot and do it all the time. No Monday is complete without an enormous bruise on my left inner thigh.

Damn that's a sexy jumpsuit.

WTF people. His canopy choice has nothing to do with his post. There is an interesting discussion to be had here and you guys are trying to turn it into the weekly newbie-wingloading post. Yes, his canopy choice is too much too soon. That doesn't mean his idea is immediately invalid or not worth discussing. (I'm not talking to people like Fast, who actually addressed the issue and then added an admonishment about OP's canopy choice.)

Can you elaborate on this? Are you referring to main container pressure interfering with reserve deployment? There's no way to know how the main will be packed in the future -- but I suppose an incomplete test is better than none. I just packed a rig for a guy who is coming back from a year layoff. I am really kicking myself for not doing this with him. Thanks for the idea, I will do this in the future.

You can't really do a repack with the main still in the container and fully attached, since the main risers cover the reserve risers. I suppose you could disconnect the risers and leave the main packed in the container, but I don't know anyone who does that. I tell people not to bring me the main at all unless they want me to inspect and repack it.

I disagree with this intensely and am genuinely flustered as to why you would say it. You yourself say that the net effect of RSLs is more lives saved -- yet that doesn't mean it is a good system? Really? This is a very fatalistic viewpoint. Because the system is not perfect, we should accept a greater number of losses rather than use it? AADs have saved many lives, and killed a few people too. Do you believe that they are bad?

Most ground launching injuries don't happen at the bottom of the run. Consider that before you plan on the deep sand saving you. You have feedback from the experienced locals. I encourage you to take their advice and make your own informed decision with it.

I have ground launched a Raven. It can work but you need a pretty steep hill and even then it still kind of sucks. That said -- if your profile is correct, I would spend more time building canopy skills in the skydiving environment before trying ground launching. It is very easy to paint yourself into a corner on a hill with the hospital as your only "out". You really want to have a formidable bag of tricks up your sleeve for flying around close to the ground. The ability to do large flat turns is a must. A few tips: If you aren't ready to skydive with a canopy, you are definitely not ready to ground launch it. Don't go by yourself. You will feel pretty dumb sitting there on the hill with a broken leg and no one to help you, and even dumber when you find out your cell phone has no coverage where you are laying crumpled up in a heap. Since you're going with a buddy, make it someone who's experienced on the hill and knows where the good lines are -- and especially where the bad ones are! Turbulence can hurt or kill you! Have fun and be safe!

Have a rigger put some kind of slider locking mechanism on your risers. Take a look at this post for ideas.

Now that's an idea I can get behind!

Nooooooooooo! Sorry I missed everyone up there, I got shipped off to Switzerland by my job for the last week or so. They didn't have any rope swings there either.

There are also the "drag assistor" pockets, as on the Talon reserve bridle.

I had an AFF L-1 student recently who had a great freefall, but was completely unresponsive under canopy. He plowed in downwind in a field on the opposite side of our runway to the normal landing area. Thankfully, he didn't even break anything. It might have been a different story if he had ended up over an obstacle or even pavement. When he had regained his bearings, he said that he had gotten "tunnel vision". He could hear me on the radio, but he couldn't do anything about it. He then told us that he had a history of "blacking out like this" in intense situations, that of course he did not mention when asked about his medical history before making the jump. He reached the conclusion that skydiving was not for him, sparing us the task of telling him he would not be doing any more AFF jumps at our dropzone. Also see this post about an experienced jumper passing out under canopy.

He's not talking about loading a reserve at 2.2. In his example, he's talking about loading it at 1.08. As Shlomo points out, 254 lbs is the TSO limit. So PD can't really recommend any higher than that. This company can probably help you with any reserve overloading issues.

If they flat turn and land parallel, they have satisfied the #1 priority, which is a straight and level wing. If they are unable to land with a canopy over their head, I would rather they fly straight into power lines than land in a turn. I agree that obstacle avoidance starts much higher than 100 feet.

Or instead of all that, you can go jump the canopy and see how far you have to pull the toggles down before you see any tail deflection. If the tail starts moving the moment you move the toggles, or worse, your brake lines are so short that you are never in full flight, that would definitely explain bucking during front riser input and you would need to lengthen your brake lines. Either you're going to generate extra speed for landing or not. If you're going to, you might as well do it the smart way, whether you're turning 270 to final or just coming in on double fronts.

A friend and I bought a bottle of this stuff a few years back. It tastes almost like a cognac. It really doesn't resemble beer as you would commonly think of it.

IMO, a swoop is an induced-speed landing. Pulling front risers is much more reasonable than what you are currently doing. For a technical explanation (I know you like technical explanations), look into Brian Germain's articles and his excellent book, The Parachute and its Pilot.

OP: Everyone in this post is doing their best to turn your ears off by telling you they won't get on an airplane with you. But if you can take anything away from all of this, please let it be this bit I have quoted from skybytch: I don't think your attitude is based in malice. I think perhaps you just did not realize the consequences of "spiraling until your eyes pop out", which is that while you are doing that, you cannot fulfill your end of the bargain in looking out for others. Remember that your "playground" is everyone else's too, and you are not the only one there.

This has not been my experience. Personally, when I am first down, when I decide what to set up for, I will consider who else is on the load. If our normal light and variable landing direction is a 4-5mph downwind, and there are a few 50 jump wonders on the load, I'll set it up the opposite way. In the same conditions, if the load was tandems and camera flyers on swoop canopies....surf's up and I'm leaving my video camera on. Anybody who is "flying a spec" should be able to make this kind of call with no problem whatsoever. If they are scrubbing in low-timers left and right on downwinders, someone talks to them about it. (Or maybe the low-timers realize it's not that big of a deal to do a light downwinder!) This kind of stuff seems like basic common sense to me when the "first one down" rule is in effect. But then..."common sense isn't."

My only real intention in quoting from the book was to invoke someone with a little more credibility, since I (perhaps understandably) don't seem to have much. I'm sure Brian G. would be the first to point out he doesn't have all the answers, and I don't see his book as infallible. Put enough speed into the canopy and it will. That doesn't mean it's the most efficient way to land it though (letting it totally recover), as that's another discussion altogether. In theory, sure, enough airspeed will create enough lift to plane the wing out or even cause it to climb without input. But does that mean that any design at any loading will necessarily be able to create that much speed? If you haul around a 450 degree harness turn (or whatever it takes to maximize airspeed) on a Velocity, will it climb? I'm not being rhetorical here -- I am very much under the impression that it will not. Al seemed to take exception with my statement that I was "underloading" a Katana at 1.4. To continue your Ferrari analogy, I was driving it around at 10mph. The Ferrari's engine is obviously going to be tuned to output power most efficiently at a certain gearing and RPM. If the car is boring when I drive it around at 10mph, of course there's nothing wrong with the car. It is not designed to be driven around at 10mph. I tried a Crossfire at 1.35 and didn't care for it. It didn't dive enough for my tastes and it was less responsive in the harness than I liked. 400 jumps or so later, I tried one again at ~1.75 and bought 2 of them. This is all I really meant by "underloading". I read Al's reaction as him thinking that I was saying "I need to downsize so I can get a better flare!" or some other such nonsense. Ficus

The Parachute and its Pilot, p. 80: Perhaps you misread my post. I said "needs input in order to plane out". It would seem that some canopies do need this. So a canopy wasn't designed to fly in a particular wingloading range? I'm not saying the canopy stops flying or anything, but does a Velocity 120 really fly the way it was designed to with a 95-pound girl under it? Why does Icarus recommend the Crossfire be loaded at 1.4-2.1? Why the condescension?

The course is a course. An obstacle course.

I have been told by some swoopers that their canopy needs input in order to plane out (e.g. Xaos 27 @ ~2.2). My Crossfire 2 will plane out on its own, (the Katana did too in my experience, but that was underloading it at 1.4). However, if I am just a hair low and I give a very small amount of rear riser input, I do feel that "slingshot" effect and it does seem to really improve my swoop. I am not talking about bailing to rears, digging out on rears, whatever you want to call it -- just a little tap outward.