DaVinciflies

My vote is no. If the canopy goes left - go with it rather than fighting it. If your feet and knees are together, not only will you be symmetrical in the harness, but you will also spin quickly with the canopy should it turn. If you turn at the same rate as the canopy, then line twists cannot develop!

I would recommend that you don't "fly the openings" with risers. Just be neutral, symmetrical in the harness and if the canopy goes, go with it. That's what I do and am on my second Katana with zero occurrences of line twists (knocks on wood).

I did a headdown jump yesterday and forgot to close the face on my Revolve and it was absolutely fine. I flipped to a sit and closed it with one hand and continued the jump with now drama. Great lid!

I think we maybe talking about different things. I totally agree that a swooper going downwind should not be setting the direction for a large load, but my point was that if a downwind pattern is set (for whatever reason - wind direction change, for example) then all experienced jumpers owe it to themselves and others to be OK with landing their chosen canopy downwind instead of flying against the pattern or doing a low panic turn to get into the wind.

Are you trying to steer the openings with the risers and/or harness input?

To me that's a pretty good indicator that someone is on too small a canopy for them. If they're too scared to do a planned downwind landing into an open landing area, what happens during a forced downwinder into a confined area?

This. My own experience was that jumping a 200, 190 and 170 were all fairly similar. I felt a big change to a 150, then another big change to the 135 (because I also went fully elliptical at that stage) and not much of a change to the 120 which is where I am at now. Everyone's perceptions of a canopy differ and it is a very personal thing. IMO the sensible thing to do is to demo a 170 at sea level and see if it gives you what you want. If it does, buy one. If you still think you want more performance - demo the 150. If that one scares the shit out of you, then go back to the 170. Be honest with yourself about whether you feel like you're flying the canopy or just hanging in terror under it and dreading the landing. Option (b) means you're not ready. Personally I always ensure I can downwind and land on the rears only as well as doing accelerated landings before I downsized. If I can land my existing canopy in an accelerated flight mode, then I am happy that I can start on the smaller one with straight in approaches and build up from there. With any downsize, it's "back to basics" - relearning all the skills and characteristics of the new canopy, eg: stall points, flare, riser pressure, performance enveloping etc, etc, etc

The comparison between wind tunnel time and aircraft simulator time is so flawed I can't believe that it is even being used. Aircraft simulators can replicate anything that can happen during an actual flight whereas wind tunnels can replicate falling straight down. That is ALL. They cannot train the following essential skills for an AFFI: - spotting - exits with a student - recovering a student that has "got away from them" - deploying a student's canopy in an emergency - altitude awareness - canopy skills and assessment I am sure there are others I have missed (feel free to add to the list) My view is that the freefall requirement should be increased and tunnel time should not count formally at all.

LOL - nice work!

I take this one stage further and avoid saying cutter/cutting. I explain that the AAD "releases" the reserve parachute in the event of an emergency. All mentions of knives, cutters, explosives etc are avoided! It has worked for me on three continents so far!

I have taken a rig through O'Hare numerous times and this is either not true, or is a massive generalization. The TSA can be dicks, and some individuals make them 100 times worse. There must be a lot of rigs coming through O'Hare around the time of Summerfest and the TSA guys I have spoken to there certainly at least recognized a skydiving system and were good about not touching it. Have you considered the possibility that your friend is not an airport-friendly skydiver?

I have had my doubts about the sanity of some of your thoughts but this is just plain wrong. You are preaching an absolutely incorrect technique. Please do not go around telling people that s-turns are "safe" or even acceptable.

There are semi-stowless bags available without magnets.

So therefore it is a pointless bandaid? Nothing more than a PR exercise? No. Bigger turns require better judgement, more accurate setup, and give greater speed. There's less margin for error on them. That doesn't make 90s safe, but they are somewhat safer (or perhaps less dangerous would be more accurate). They also are a lot less dangerous for other traffic in the vicinity. Not turning into a blind area lowers the risk for a collision. I disagree with most of this (apart form the greater speed part). You have more time to bail on a bigger rotation. Nobody should be turning into a blind area. Every turn should involve a check to clear your airspace regardless of the turn performed.

So therefore it is a pointless bandaid? Nothing more than a PR exercise?

Well we are a welcoming bunch of c*nts, aren't we?

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4304701;page=unread#unread

Sounds like a very Mickey Mouse company. "Sorry we're all away right now, we'll get back to you when we have finished having our jollies around the world". Can you imagine PD or L&B or Sunpath behaving like this? I don't think so.

Nobody has done it in the past 20 years...what makes you think something has changed now? I don't buy this argument. However, I do agree with the sentiment - that something should be done. In my opinion the answer is to introduce a "type-rating" for canopies with education and training before someone is allowed to jump into a higher performance class of canopy. This way the big boys get to keep their toys and over the years, the jumpers using that sort of equipment will become progressively better and better trained/educated. What I don't understand is where the objection to that progression (modeled on other forms of aviation) is coming from. Maybe it's just apathy?

The min recommended WL for a Velocity is 1.0, so 1.6 is well within the manufacturer's limits.

So if you REALLY want to stop this, the answer is to reduce or eliminate access to HP canopies. The ongoing incidents prove that a ban on -- or severely restricted access to -- HP canopies is the only thing that would be effective. People keep talking about training and mentoring, but that alone is not working. It's just more talk. The time for talking has come and gone. It's time to DO something. To which the traditional response is "Why not ban skydiving then?".

http://www.lulu.com/shop/katie-jo-cooke/the-broken-leg-book/ebook/product-17576986.html

That's not a situation I have encountered but if that was genuinely the case then I would address it myself (and have done in the case of misrouted cheststraps etc. But again, not on the internet!! Thank you. Very constructive.

Absolutely I'll speak up. But I'll do so through the proper channels - DZO or S&TA. And I will NOT go posting it on the internet so anyone who feels like it can add another kick in the ribs to the offender.

If you read back some of my posts you will see that I have given my suggestions, but for your sake I will summarize them here: 1. A friendly, reasoned approach is the best first option. 2. If that doesn't work then by all means offer firm, blunt advice based on facts. 3. If the problem still persists then it should be up to local authorities (DZO, S&TA) to take action including grounding and/or banning the offending jumper. 4. What I disagree with whole-heatedly is the use of overly aggressive language which alienates the "offender" and offers no explanation other than "because I said so and I have more jumps". This reduces the usefulness of dz.com. Fair enough?