pchapman

The plain Evolution, I believe that was F-111 style fabric - still should be good for some hundreds of jumps. The later Super Evolution is ZP on the top skin. I put some jumps on a Super Evolution 140 and still have it. Fun to play with and it was someone's regular canopy... but these days I'd say it is so weird that it isn't worth using regularly. I can't recall what all changed from the original Evolution, but they went to a conventional slider and ZP. Pilot chute controlled reefing was a thing in the early days of squares and ParaFlight gave it one last try it seems on the Evolution. But companies were able to make sliders work reasonably well without the complexity. (Not that all normal slider equipped canopies open well.) The Evolution's lines cascade side to side instead of front to back, attaching to every chamber. Bit of a pain in propacking where one faces 10 lines to each side when flaking... but one just doesn't try to be exact and count. (Some sizes had 23 not 21 chambers though.) At least one only has A,B, and C lines, no D lines. It is made for those old (unreinforced) triple risers, and mine uses a 6 grommet slider. So putting it on regular risers might be a little odd, even though the A and B risers I think stay close together. My Super Evolution tended to spiral a bit on opening, like a Vengeance (though even that is a dated reference!), but always came out fine. (ie, it would FLY in a turn at the end of opening and not try to twist up before turning) The lines are a very soft, thin Spectra which also makes packing messier. They are rated to 600 lbs so there's no strength issue. Since the front risers connect only to the A lines, pulling down the front riser only can easily tuck the nose under. Great fun at altitude as one can do a quick turn by collapsing the nose, spinning around, and then letting it recover. Don't "front riser" down low though. They fly with a flat trim. The selling point back in the day was that it had a great glide ratio, because of an efficient airfoil and trim. Glide ratio wasn't a marketing thing later on. They pack "big" I think, partially because ParaFlight used an odd sizing calculation. E.g, for my "140", they call it 140 without the drooped outer chambers, but with them, it is a 154. But those outer chambers are really part of the canopy as seen from above so should be counted. And some packing charts show the "140" to have a greater volume than a Sabre 1 170. So expect some bigness. Good luck!

From an outsider's perspective, it seemed like it was just too much specialized gimmickry, that wasn't easy to get started with, combined with the lure of advances in freeflying. Plenty of fun stuff to do not on one's belly, that didn't need a board or the restrictions that came with it. Although I wasn't into skysurfing, it also seemed that the skill level had gotten so high that there wasn't much more to be accomplished. (Usually that isn't technically true in most things though.) The best guys could for example do controllable spins at a ridiculously high speed. Hats off for their great skill, but they still looked like spinning idiots. Certainly the loss of the X-games was part of the reasons. In the 90s whuffos would ask "Do you do the thing on the board?" whereas nowadays they might ask "Do you do the thing with the squirrel suit?"

Interesting, as I have almost never heard of a reserve closing loop breaking in the era of Cypres style closing loops. It must have happened out there, after all, one does occasionally see a pretty fuzzy loop. How many pack jobs or jumps was the loop in the rig for? (In some places loops get replaced all the time without notation, in other places riggers tend to note on the card if a loop was replaced.) It is a reminder that closing loops do wear not just on top, but on the sides of the eye (from dragging between grommets on a very tight pack job), or inside the eye (possibly from rough temp pins roughly inserted again especially in a tight pack job). And in your case maybe a rough grommet. Of course with good technique one can minimize such wear, but the tendency is for loops to take more of a beating in this era of tight rigs. (Heck over the years I've had a couple times where I put in a brand new loop, then scraped up the loop so much in trying to close the container with maybe a slightly too optimistically short a loop setting, that I've replaced the loop again, before finishing the pack job more carefully.)

Just to note for anyone not checking the actual page, that's the New Yorker's Borowitz Report, which is satire. Yeah I know, hard to tell the difference these days.

@ Rush: Don't you even try to provide information to back up your claims? A coherent defense would make the right seem less crazy. People agree that Hillary was pretty arrogant and dumb about the way she handled things with her personal email server. Comey didn't like what he saw, but as BillVon keeps saying, the FBI didn't find anything criminally proscecutable. For example, this summary of Comey's speech on the email scandal in July 2016, from the LA Times: Very careless, sloppy, not just her but the whole State Department...that all fits, and I think people across the political spectrum agree. But your chant of 'Comey found crimes!' doesn't fit.

I can't recall ever staying with the plane when others jumped. (When not with a student who needed to stay. And I have asked for and done a go around due to weather.) But I like a bit of adventure -- off landings, lower than legal altitude, clouds, crazy winds (short of an actual thunderstorm) -- so it isn't always the best thing to do. Plenty of legitimate reasons to decide it might be PRUDENT even if not NECESSARY to stay - gear issues, medical, weather - and the waste of paying for just a ride won't be a big deal in the long run. It can be tricky when one doesn't want to let a group down -- there it helps if the organizer makes sure everyone is on the same page about possible choices before takeoff. I've had it where we're doing a 16 way into 100% cloud cover close to dusk with a likely bad spot. That was pushing things as it required off-landings in dark conditions. But I also remember a similar situation where enough people spoke up that the group jump was cancelled, so some stayed and some jumped but solo.

Good to see that. While one can't always do everything at once, next step will be to update the web site!

I was wrong in my prior post(but nobody mentioned it yet). Easy to lose track of all the different modes of the different AADs. So to review for you and me: The Mars M2 doesn't allow any permanent firing altitude offset, as opposed to the similar landing altitude offset. That as you see is annoying. Early this year I heard that they would soon have the M2 "Multi", and so have all the various modes in one device (Student / Intermediate / Pro / Swoop / Tandem), and also have firing altitude adjustment. I forgot that this was still not available; it was supposed to come sometime this summer. Mars wants one to cycle the power any time one doesn't move on level ground between landing and takeoff: So when there's an altitude offset Mars just does the shutdown automatically. Annoying if one is using the offset to bump up the firing altitude (say for personal preference or jumping over hills), but are landing right back at the takeoff point (so there's no up and down travel on the ground). =========================== Meanwhile Vigil says for the Vigil II: (manual 2.0.6 of 2013, current start of 2017) (not the Vigil 2+) and So it doesn't shut off... but you are supposed to do so anyway if the ground isn't nearly level. The Vigil II's "altitude correction" setting is permanent, and doesn't shut down the unit after a jump. There is just a single mode for any adjustments. ================== The Vigil 2+ still has the same altitude correction idea, but now they mention it can be used both for landing at a different elevation, and increasing the firing altitude for regular jumps. The arming on the way up is also different, no longer at 150ft but at 1000ft (more like Cypres' 1500 ft behaviour). The bit up above about turning off and on if more than 150 elevation difference is now 90 ft for the 2+. =================== Meanwhile the Cypres II: (early 2017 manual) They have the Dropzone Offset and Firing Altitude Offset as two separate functions. The Dropzone Offset if for one jump only, although when restarting (on C2's with newer software) there's a way to quickly access the prior offset. The unit does not shut itself off. They say to cycle it off and on before takeoff, when landing and takeoff altitudes differ. The Firing Altitude Offset is separate and stays fixed with no limitations on further jumps. (And has been of more interest on the Cypres since it pioneered modern electronic AAD's and started with a lower activation altitude that others later did, and is now considered to be fairly low.) Although the Vigil was always stricter about car travel (and indeed in the early days had units firing in cars when doors slammed), Cypres also wants the unit to be cycled if there are altitude changes between landing and takeoff: And this is for the Cypres that had long been marketed more as "set it and forget it" than the other AADs. Not everyone remembers turning an AAD off and on again for any model, when there are moderate altitude changes around the DZ in case of off landings.

That was a traditional limitation of the M2. Offset for one jump only. The newest models now allow a permanent offset. Check with factory on getting a software upgrade? (Not sure about the 'turning off' part though)

In this case the workaround was easy, at least for me: Turn off Javascript and reload. (I keep an Extension button on my Firefox toolbar to do that)

Interesting, something to watch for. Red dyes have traditionally been worse at running in clothing for example.

[sarcasm] Yeah, it is really useful for a newbie to read up on the NAA Elder Statesman of Aviation award, or FAA change of address requirements, or ADSB equipment. Or even the D license study guide, Demo jumps, Advanced Canopy Piloting Topics, or Night Canopy Formations. [/sarcasm] Yes, kat00 was dismissive and inviting pushback when they said "You don't really need to study the SIM." Still, one needs to prioritize and see what's important at the stage one is at. When they have spare time they can 'read ahead' and get some background on aspects of skydiving that don't concern them right now.

I'd like to know just what the Canadian gov't could have done. Send a stiffly worded letter of protest to the US embassy? Invade Guantanamo to free our citizen? I'd want to know more about the exact ways his rights were violated, the story behind all the headlines for and against. I wonder how the payment compares to those for innocent people who are accidentally put in jail for for raping and killing a young person. Which happens from time to time, and may not be the healthiest thing to be in prison for. Still, he was actually a combatant. I don't blame him much for being made into who he was made into as a teenager, but he happened to get tied up in the odd war on terror where it's a bit unclear just which laws of war or peace apply.

I have mine on the outside of the helmet so I don't know if yours on the inside might take the edge off any fluctuations a bit better than has been my experience. From a post of mine 10 years ago: Explanation: As for that spike when I start to track, I know my track isn't diving or otherwise weird; I have been on various 50 -100 ways where such things might well be noticed. I think the sudden change of head position and body angle fools the device. Again, I don't know if having the Protrack inside the helmet might help.

Huh! I just looked at a couple Strong PEP manuals (of different ages) and see that all they really say about the pilot chute is "For ease of packing, we recommend compressing the pilot chute on a closing strap and locking with a locking rod." (And later a bit about using a fid to tuck away any excess fabric hanging out from the external PC.) That's it. Nothing about where the fabric goes. That could be improved. Guess some riggers, not sure about what's normal in the industry, "roll it up into a ball" as they compress it., wrapping the fabric up inside. Well that sure avoids having excess fabric hanging out!....

I've been charging $60 Cdn for a while. Why do I charge a fair bit? Because it takes a long time to deal with the rig, plus I think I have a decent system worked out to do the job well, plus most jumpers don't like doing that job. (If there were a bunch of immigrant ladies who wanted to wash rigs... I'm sure they would be willing to do it cheaper. Supply and demand exists.) Although I've also heard of the machine method working, I do it by hand and I think customers like that. Washing isn't a quick job -- I find it takes some time to deal with the soaking and agitating and scrubbing (soft brush) and more soaking and more scrubbing, and a bunch of rinses, hanging the rig up with a box fan blowing on it, checking and turning it to get the fan blowing at other angles to the rig, and then putting AAD etc back in the rig. So it isn't a task that's just done at one time; there's a lot of starting and stopping the job. I don't remove the reserve, but have the lower lines and thus reserve risers hung up with a bungee from overhead the laundry tub, keeping the risers partially out of the water. (Reserve is in a sturdy bag off to the side.) Works well for me.

Or could one say, a rigger might have no idea whether it will comply and thus might refuse to pack it? Unless the paint affects the material, it is still the same material.... just with other stuff on the outside and embedded between the woven strands. What about a rig with dirt in it, or that got into salt water and dried? Maybe the relative impermanence makes those less of a problem -- those do wash out. Is paint actually destroying the strength of the material? What if you paint a brand new rig, is that any less like the TSO configuration than an old sun faded rig with fuzzy webbing and scraped fabric? Although I might be a little argumentative, I'm not really disputing the notion that it is not at all recommended to start spray painting rigs...

Fair enough about vested interests catfishhunter. As soon as things are opened up, who knows how things will change. So nobody wants to open things up to start from scratch unless they know ahead of time what changes are planned. And I've seen small general aviation have to fight, fight, fight over the last decades to keep things from getting worse for it, to keep the bigger & stronger interests from steamrollering them. Which makes small general aviation wary of the "free market!" So of course USPA and other general aviation groups will fight it. (The Canadian experience has been mixed, and certainly one can question some of the decisions, but it probably has streamlined Nav Canada.) If someone came up with a clear plan ahead of time, that could make for a good debate rather than just straight out opposition. I don't know the specific issues and plans in the US so I can't comment more.

300' might be a number that gets mentioned a lot as an altitude to start being on final; perhaps avoid starting much lower than that for a newbie. But it isn't like a requirement in all cases. So if you are working on adjusting your accuracy, it should be fine to set up further back and higher. Due to DZ's with big planes and digital altimeters, there has been more emphasis on particular numbers in a circuit than there used to be. That's OK, but numbers can get overemphasized.

"I didn’t explain this well, but the visual transition when moving at 90 degrees from the target has no relationship to the glide ratio when moving toward the target and the accompanying visual image. " I have also disputed TK's take on this, being able to come up with scenarios where the up or down movement of the target is not consistent with what changes one should make. At least, I think I did. So when I have done canopy courses, I have included his document as a reference -- but with caveats. Other than that stuff about up or down while on base, the rest is a good explanation. As an example: You are flying a canopy that will have a 30 degree descent when flying into wind that day. As you go downwind past the target to the side, maybe 45 degrees down from you, it is moving UP all the time as you go further away and the angle becomes less. That doesn't mean you'll actually undershoot. You just haven't gotten to that 30 degree flight path yet, extending out downwind from the target. If there were no wind, one could think of it as a 30 degree cone from all sides converging on the target. (If there is wind, then the cone becomes an oval and calculations of the shape get messier.) Same when you turn on base - If planned right, you'll still be above a 30 degree angle to the target. Thus, the target is moving UP as you get to a lower angle from the target. But that doesn't mean you are undershooting. Don't turn in on final yet, unlike what the document says. (If the wind has increased and you actually should turn in now, while a little off the wind line, well, you don't know that for sure and could only guess from seeing more drift than you expected.) If done right, you'll be getting close to the 30 degrees when you are nearly downwind of the target. Then you turn in, and assuming you accounted for some altitude loss in the turn, you can end up at the perfect 30 degrees (for this day's winds and your weight under your canopy). NOW if the target moves up you'll undershoot unless you can extend your glide a little. Before getting on to final, you need to guess what angle of approach your canopy will give you that day, and try to intercept that angle of line downwind from the target. You can update your plans during the downwind and especially the base, as you gauge your drift speed. But it is still a bit of a guess when to turn in. (A longer final gives you more distance and time to make adjustments, if that is part of the plan. But if you aren't going to be allowed to change much in the flight path, then a shorter final helps, as a given error in angle will result in less of an error in the landing spot. ) Yes it can help if the turn-in is gradual and close to the line downwind of the target -- then one can to a greater degree use the concept of seeing whether the target is going up or down and adjust from there. I'm not sure of the math off hand, but turning based on whether the target is moving up or down I think really only works well when one is close to flying directly towards the target.

You're an analytical guy and I can see how it would be frustrating. I haven't checked your numbers but you see the flaw in the "ideal" situation. There is the concept of not having to do anything on final, as the sort of ideal. That is, make your corrections during the turns to and from base and on base, but accept your final as is and use the skydivers "runway", no longer "shooting for the target" -- because nowadays one is often sharing the air with lots of people with different speed canopies. No longer 3 or 4 others from a C-182, who all jump canopies of similar low wing loading. But is "no changes on final" actually in the US accuracy requirements for licences?? I don't know the US system. Generally one is expected to "do something" on final in order if one is trying to be accurate! One is expected to use brakes in different amount, maybe even a little S turning. Maybe the DZ does have a target in an area suitable for students where there isn't a lot of other traffic. If one is shooting accuracy in an off landing or a demo or in a competition, one is expected to do some maneuvering and braking on final.

@ format: Most people buy an audible altitude alert these days...pretty standard equipment. In the old days it was just a matter of mental timing, that got better at using allowed altitude, as one got more practice. But one can flip a wrist during a track and check one's alti. Quite possible if one has a good track to begin with. See attached. And there are chest mounted altimeters too - old school on the chest strap, new style on the mudflap. (Looking forward is however usuually important for most of the track.) Edit: (The attachment - Most others were deploying already but I was only just about to reach and pull. And I had a mal on my crossbrace that jump. Fun times.)

The Brits were busy dealing with Napoleon at the time who had been taking over most of Europe; the US war was a bit of a sideshow they dealt with in their spare time. So we (Canucks) didn't get taken over, and you (Yanks) stopped getting your sailors impressed. But yes it made Britain respect you upstarts more. You rebuilt the White House (already previously whitewashed), and everyone pretty much just called it even...

I kind of thought that was a problem around the world where different cultures meet. Explorer comes along and asks one group, 'Who are those guys in the next valley?'. From then on those people are called the Whatishesaying tribe or the Thievingbunchofgoatfuckers tribe...

So while there are a million sometimes overlapping features & options for the Icon, Icon A, and Icon V, for riggers it is simpler. I had forgotten this stuff but got feedback from Jennifer Dillon at Aerodyne. The neXgen ones are went into production from mid 2013 onwards. Rigs are identified with IX- as opposed to IN- serial numbers. The main visible difference is the last 2 reserve flaps close in opposite order. Top flap last, rather than bottom flap last as on traditional Icons. While there are various upgrades (eg, RSL held in a channel and not by velcro), the flaps are the only substantial rigging change, so I think one doesn't have to obsess about what might have changed between manuals.