danielcroft

Thanks for the response mate, appreciate it. What happened is that I turned the flysight on at about 10k (which is what I've been doing and it's been fine, I do terminal jumps btw), this time I was Chicago as opposed to SoCal so it probably took longer to get a solid lock and didn't get above 2.5k. I'll look up how to process on the command line, didn't realize that was an alternative.

Other than "swoop better", is there something I can do about the "could not detect pattern entry" error?

I remember, was sitting here racking my brain trying to work out who you were!

When you say "very last" jump, you make it sound like you're out of the sport... my organizing must be MUCH worse than I thought. To me, people doing 18 ways should be safe enough to do 18 ways. So, if I have someone with say, 100 jumps who says "I want to get on this 18 way" I'll obviously be a bit suspicious of them and want to know their experience and likely say no. Now, if they say they're a tunnel instructor with 100000 hours in the tunnel, I'll want to find out if that's accurate and then I'll want to know what wing they're flying, etc, etc. For an LO, I'd want to have some idea of what they plan on organizing etc, etc. I'm not going to write them off because they have 100 jumps. Now, at the same time, I have enough experience to be safe and make (mostly - lol) good decisions so that's how I view other people. If you have 500+ jumps (not "the number" just for argument's sake) you should know how to be safe even if you're being "organized" by someone who isn't. Fact is, for the extremely good tunnel instructors, I can deal with exits and tracking myself. I know what to do with canopy stuff and am not shy speaking up if the "plan" isn't safe. I can think of plenty of scenarios where a very inexperienced skydiver with 10000 hours in the tunnel can be dangerous but "the exits funneled", "they took too long in the door" or "individual jumpers were flying shitty patterns" aren't something worth grabbing torches and pitchforks over. I do need to learn to tone it down at times but it all depends on your audience, right? Depending on the event, the debrief may not be necessary. If it's straight LOing, there's not often a need to debrief, at least, it's not part of the role. If it's event organizing, again, it depends. If you're a solo person doing an event with 100 jumps and heaps of tunnel time, then if the participants have enough experience then no but I sure as hell wouldn't want that 100 jump tunnel instructor organizing at an event for new jumpers. That's the trade off in my mind.

If we're just talking about the theory of it and you're not sure about actual numbers, I think my point still stands. Pick any world champion tunnel flyer and try to work out the minimum number of jumps you'd want them to have before you consider being load organized by them. For me, that number has very little to do with my own jump numbers and a lot to do with what I can learn from the experience. Clearly, I don't want to be put in danger but that's true regardless of jump numbers. I know and have learnt from people who fall into this category and am glad of it. You're a grown ass man and welcome to your own opinion, I just think you're wrong. I spent literally MINUTES in the tunnel learning how to fuck up other people's exits even when they weren't on my jumps. It's the skill I'm most proud of! Well, that and being annoying on the internet.

Imagining the you have nothing to learn from someone who has tens of thousands of hours in a tunnel because you know more about exits and parachutes is what's ridiculous, even if I DO grant you that there weren't other LOs at the event who have multiple thousands of skydives (which there were). I've learnt plenty from people with less experience than me. I'm not too proud to admit that I can get it wrong and think things that are incorrect. Nor am I too proud to adjust my beliefs when they're shown to be wrong or incomplete. Specifically with this event, there was more than one organizer and several of them are world record holding skydivers with thousands of jumps and have competed at nationals etc. Who's really "good enough" when we set the bar above that?

I'm with Busto on this one, try talking to people before you throw your toys on the ground online. As far as "I won't take advice from anyone with fewer jumps than me" - that's an extremely short sighted attitude. Your experience allows you to recognize good ideas and use them, it's wisdom that you learn with experience, at least it should be. I've been on plenty of jumps with extremely experienced organizers where exits don't go to plan, should we pull their "organizer" card? It's happened when I'm LOing as well, is it a failure of the LO when someone doesn't perform? It could be, sure. I know I haven't explained well enough on occasion but I also know that human nature dictates a certain failure rate, it's natural. What would be more useful in terms of evaluating whether there was some issue with the way the event was organized (I know a bunch of people who went, I know the organizers and I was going to go but for some other plans I had) is whether or not the important points of landing directions and canopy safety were discussed and whether the skill level of the people attending the camp were in need of further pointers AND whether or not, after poor landing choices, the organizers spoke with the people in question. After failed exits, how was that addressed? There's more than enough experience among the organizers to address these issues without requiring some magical jump number be reached. Of course, if it were me, I'd talk with the people who were making poor decisions myself before I'd feel like an DZ.com or facebook post was the right way to address the issue. On the other hand, if the OP just came here to rant and not achieve anything, I suppose I should just say "you're a grown ass man, you can do what you want".

I've had the same experience but was told that this will vary depending on the size of the wing (slider size relative to wing size).

It's a message to everyone that, when they're the higher canopy, their ability to avoid a collision is substantially higher than a canopy that is lower than them. Taking into account the restricted visibility a lower canopy has that are caused by the wing above someone's head, this is even more the case. It's not just to assign blame, it's a real consideration of the restrictions and limitations that people have.

It's also worth remembering that turn initiation height can be well over 1000ft so you can think you have plenty of time/space but you really don't. We have a separate high performance landing area at my home DZ but people still land there (as is their right), I generally try to remind people not to land in the courses that are set up at all and that, even though they could be the low person, they should be looking at that 700ft+ for potential traffic. It's still on the high person not to hit the low person but why make that job any harder than it needs to be?

Yeah, for sure. I'll be waiting for an updated sensor before I get one but, for a lot of people this is an excellent camera.

According to iFixIt, it's the same (or similar) sensor in the Hero so, probably no software fixes are possible without a sensor upgrade... i.e. to their latest generation sensor. https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/GoPro+Hero4+Session+Teardown/44307

FlightShop in Scottsdale AZ is "currently waiting on approval of construction documents". I wanted to amend my comparison of iFly and ISG tunnels that, according to people I know, the drop off in airflow at the newer iFly tunnels isn't good for first timers either. Additionally, iFly has got their first ground level flight chamber tunnel in Houston and there's meant to be more of them (I think Kansas City is one as well). The Houston one allegedly has trouble with condensation which makes sense if you think about the climate there and temperature differences between above and below ground somewhere like Houston. Not to mention the humidity!

Well, given PD's MO, we'll see the new hotness when they're good and done testing! I can't imagine they'd want to let NZA update the Safire2 and not do the same but IDK what their plans are. It'll be interesting to see how the Crossfire3(s) and Safire3 will be accepted in the market. I'd say they will be popular based on all the hype around the VK/Leia but there's more at play than that, of course.

I have to disagree with the assessment that the KA is the best non-cross braced canopy on the market. I think it's important to note that, for people who don't swoop (this isn't *just* a swooping forum), the KA is certainly *not* the best non cross braced canopy and, even for people who do swoop, there are many considerations to include when making an assessment as to which canopy is *best*. My personal experience with the KA (135 @ 1.2 and 120 @ 1.4) was that it opened really well, flew really well and landed like a champ. I really enjoyed flying it and was able to come to my own conclusions about the wing that *didn't* include "ground hungry" or "scary openings". I would also have similar things to say about the Stiletto but that's a different discussion, I suppose. Having said that, the wing requires you to fly it every second it's open and, in that sense (and others), the KA is a very high performance wing that asks a lot of its pilot. In swooping terms, my opinion (as ill informed as it is compared to many people on this forum) is that the step between a KA and a VE is not a big one. You're talking about similar recovery arc and responsiveness (loading dependent of course) to a VE without the efficiency of a cross braced wing. What does that mean? When you're trying to dig out after making an inevitable mistake (we're all human, it happens) which is going to help you more? I feel pretty strongly that people treat the KA like an intermediate wing between the SA and the VE/VC when in fact it's not. The KA will reward a very active and diligent pilot but it's not going to help you with a short recovery arc or positive recovery cycle when you screw up. The Crossfire 2 is a much more "intermediate" wing that has excellent openings and really fun flight characteristics. Harness input is quite responsive *and* it's a wing that will allow you to relax once it's open much more so than the KA will. I will disagree again that the KA and XF2 openings are similar. My average opening on a XF2 were good and, I suppose, in line with what StayHigh said, the *real* XF2 openings were incredible and somewhat equivalent to being gently nudged awake from a nice snooze and then hugged. Seriously. I've had enough of those openings on a XF2 to know they weren't flukes. As far as the comment about the rears, I always felt that the XF2 rears had more power in the them to the KA but I could be mis-remembering. The XF2 (119 @ 1.4 and 109 @ 1.6) *will* help you when you mess up by having a shorter recovery arc and a positive recovery cycle but you'll likely pay for those with "oh shit, I've popped up on recovery, now I'll have to stab out as the wing sinks" moments, I sure did. To the original question of this thread, we're aware of wings being developed by both PD and NZA. The Katana2 (or whatever they're going to call it) has been teased by PD (we need more INFOS!) and has been shown to have a more Schuemann-y planform (more taper in the leading edge, 0 in the trailing http://spieltek.com/sunbirdsoaring/soaringarticle/schuemannwingplanformarticle.pdf) that is meant to increase efficiency of the wing over all. I'd like to see it with a slightly shorter recovery arc to make the step between the SA and KA a little less extreme. You'd surmise that the use of the Schuemann planform comes directly from experience learnt from the PI/Petra/VK/Leia. NZA is talking about two different versions of the Crossfire 3. They've said one will be in keeping with the Crossfire 2 and one will be higher performance which makes a lot of sense to me. They've also mentioned the Safire 3 and shown that it will incorporate the "new hotness" in skydiving wing design (Schuemann etc.). Let's hope that PD will be competing against those wings with new designs as well. Of course, I'm happy to be corrected on these points and do make it a priority to actually TRY different wings to see how they fly. Chris, I'd suggest getting yourself to an event where PD has demo wings and talking to them about it. Also, this:

Flying outside outside video on an 11 way CRW formation. Here's the video if anyone's really bored. Includes a dock on my VK and some other fun CRW stuff. It's 6+ mins long, you have been warned. https://vimeo.com/132628254

It's a good suggestion but having a mount on my helmet reminds me that I have a flysight.

They're both pretty but I'd probably say Tsunami is prettier than Skydive San Diego, although that's not to say that Skydive San Diego isn't because it is. San Diego allows big turns if you're swooping. Otherwise, I think that either is a nice spot to jump.

I have a few hundred VC84 (2.0:1) and 50 or so on a VE90 (1.9:1) with Thrill-Inc's Chupacabra removable. The openings are fast at terminal, for sure but I didn't find them painful and I certainly wouldn't call them "slammers". PD definitely doesn't recommend it though and for that exact reason.

Interesting idea although, I'd be afraid of losing it if it wasn't mounted somewhere that's properly enclosed. I did buy the cookie mount in the end and mounted it on the back of my helmet. It's been working well so far.

The Ranch doesn't do AFF anymore, they're tandem progression allegedly. STL or maybe Sussex?

I'd suggest the person contact the Ranch and the other dropzones around NYC since they may do AFF but not advertise it as much.

I don't agree that the landings are better with a safire, it really comes down to learning your wing. Certainly worth a demo to get a feel for how it flies.

Thanks for your continued work. :-)

Nice comparison/review, thanks.