sacex250

I think you're going to need 600 bags, double-bagging for those heavy items. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

And, don't forget that saftey should be your first priority when jumping a Stilletto. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

In what way? I haven't posted a single personal opinion, I've merely referred to the published FARs. 91.307 When parachutes are required. 91.111 Formation flying. - It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

What if? Smaller? Like what if you actually rounded the number down to three decimal places? It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

It can be thought of the other way around: There is no time that parachutes are required to be worn on an aircraft; the only exception to this rule is that if the aircraft is occupied by anyone other than a required crew member then all occupants must be wearing parachutes if the aircraft exceeds 30 degrees of pitch or 60 degrees of bank. The training exception in 91.307 doesn't just apply to spin training for commercial pilots, it applies to any training by a CFI or ATP for any certificate or rating, such as unusual attitudes for instrument training. Required crew members who are the sole occupants of the aircraft are not required to wear parachutes for aerobatics. In regards to the OP, there is no requirement that pilots wear parachutes when formation flying, test flying, or parachute dropping. I've never personally seen an STC that requires pilots to wear parachutes with a modified door open, so I can't comment on that requirement. - It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

Out of curiosity, what FAR's require pilots to wear parachutes while formation flying, flight testing, or dropping parachutes? As a pilot, I'm only aware of 91.307 which only requires all occupants to wear parachutes when carrying non-required crew members if the pitch or bank angles exceed 30 or 60 degrees, respectively. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

Bill's point demonstrated a complete misunderstanding of the point of this thread. His comment makes about as much sense as a whuffo asking, "shouldn't you pull the reserve ripcord before the cutaway handle, isn't the reserve more important?" If a student asked that you'd all be rolling on the floor laughing. Well, here's a whuffo rolling my eyes because someone of Bill's experience, and reputation, would say something so completely useless; and that you think because he said it it must be important. It wasn't! It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

To quote your own profile: "And I LOVE telling people how it really is - which usually involves telling them that they are whiny spoiled brats. I also like to rub people's nose into the extremely one-sided, borderline hypocritical statements that so many like to make." You don't have a monopoly! -- It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

Perfect example of what I was talking about in my last post. This is a completely idiotic post from a highly experienced skydiver and moderator. It's outright embarrassing! The 254 limit is the STUDENT maximum recommended limit, the Navigator 260's MAXIMUM weight limit is listed as 336 pounds! What does TSO C23c have to do with PD's 254 pound recommended weight limit for students? Answer, NOTHING! The inconsistencies on the chart are not rounding errors, and thanks to my "research" I'm more than aware that a smaller canopy is more maneuverable than a similarly designed larger one at the same wing-loading. I guess I should start planning that scuba trip to Micronesia. -- It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

I have read and studied the SIM, and I can't find the part about how you have to have failed pre-algebra to qualify as a skydiver. Really, I find it disappointing that something as fundamental to skydiving as the weight to canopy size ratio (wing-loading) would cause experienced jumpers to run for cover. What happens when someone wants to discuss the fuel mileage of their cars? If anyone just thinks I'm being pedantic (look it up), you can thank John LeBlanc at Performance Designs for that. I've found that PD has the best information on their website, and every article written or video made by LeBlanc does an incredibly clear and thorough job of intellectually discussing skydiving concepts without talking down to anyone about it. I was obviously mistaken when I thought "average" skydivers would have the same grasp of basic skydiving concepts as he does. While I know that other canopy manufacturers produce quality products, I think I would find it difficult not purchasing PD canopies as my first gear. That said, my OP and my "research" was never intended for selecting a first-jump canopy. I've simply been familiarizing myself with different canopies from different manufacturers, how else does one learn the differences between a Fusion, Stilletto, Safire2, or Omni? And, if that seems wrong to you, let me just say that it's USPA, DZO's, and lawyers who have determined that I am solely responsible for my own safety, training, and equipment. The shut-up-sign-the-form-and-pay-me-money-attitude of the skydiving industry, SO PROFOUNDLY DEMONSTRATED IN THIS THREAD, requires that I participate in this sport with nothing less than the desire to become an expert in every area of skydiving knowledge. What I don't know could kill me or someone else. It's people like "davelepka" and "likestojump" that leave me wondering if perhaps my money would be better spent on scuba diving trips or building a sport plane. Simply, skydiving interests me, skydivers don't; well, except those like John LeBlanc who clearly know what they're talking about, and can do so at my intellectual level, I actually passed pre-algebra! -- It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

Thanks for making me laugh, that was funny. Okay, I'll ask a better noob question: My exit weight is 220 lbs, would a Katana 107 be a good canopy for my first AFF jump? And, at what AFF level should I downsize to a 97? There, that'll give Dave something to rant about. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

I'm still stuck on why. Your personal choice of canopy should rely more on what you've already jumped, and the reccomendation of the instructors who jumped with you. If you haven't jumped yet, your instructors will deciede what canopy to give for your first jump, and make further decisions based on how well that first one goes. With all due respect, and at the risk of sounding like a noob Skygod (I've never jumped), how is my question in any way confusing to a 15 year, 5000 jump, D-license holder? This is a fairly simple student level question. Why is there such a huge jump in maximum recommended wing loading between a Navigator 240 and a Navigator 260 at the student and novice levels? I've also attached the wing loading charts for the PD Silhouette and Spectre, just click the tabs at the bottom. You'll notice, as would be expected, that the maximum wing loading stays the same based on skill level for those parachutes. The Navigator chart by comparison is inconsistent and counter-intuitive based on wing loadings. It looks more like a printing error. If I have an exit weight of 220 pounds and then look at the chart: Maximum Recommended Student Weight Navigator 200 = 130 Navigator 220 = 154 Navigator 240 = 180 Navigator 260 = 254 Navigator 280 = 270 Navigator 300 = 289 It would seem to me that at 220 pounds I SHOULD BE exceeding the maximum recommended weight for a Navigator 260 even though the chart says that although a Nav 240 has a max. wing loading of .75, I would do okay on a 260 at a .84 wing loading. That doesn't sound like a reasonable increase in wing-loading, actually it sounds like a very large theoretical downsize for someone who hasn't even made a single jump yet. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

I took the maximum weight recommendation chart for the PD Navigator from the PD website http://www.performancedesigns.com/products.asp?product=na and computed the wing loading for each size of canopy and skill level. The weight limits and wing loadings didn't work out consistently between sizes and skill levels for the three larger sizes of canopy (260,280,300) compared to the smaller sizes as they do with other PD models or other manufacturers. My Excel worksheet is attached.

I have a question about the Navigator Wing-Load Chart on the PD website. I was trying to compare wing loadings to size an appropriate canopy (220 exit weight) and discovered something strange about the Navigator maximum recommendations. The student maximum exit weight recommendations for the Navigator are: 200sf @ 130 lbs = max wing loading .65 220sf @ 154 lbs = max wing loading .70 [24 lb increase] 240sf @ 180 lbs = max wing loading .75 [26 lb increase] 260sf @ 254 lbs = max wing loading .977 [74 lb increase] 280sf @ 270 lbs = max wing loading .964 [26 lb increase] 300sf @ 289 lbs = max wing loading .963 [19 lb increase] Here's my chart of computed max wing loadings: (sf) - Student - Nov - Int - Adv - Expert 200 - 0.650 - 0.700 - 1.000 - 1.200 - 1.200 220 - 0.700 - 0.750 - 1.000 - 1.200 - 1.200 240 - 0.750 - 0.800 - 1.000 - 1.200 - 1.200 260 - 0.977 - 0.977 - 1.077 - 1.292 - 1.292 280 - 0.964 - 0.964 - 1.071 - 1.200 - 1.200 300 - 0.963 - 0.963 - 1.067 - 1.167 - 1.167 The 200, 220, and 240 sizes are consistent (like other PD canopies), but there's no consistency or pattern to the 260, 280, 300 sizes. It doesn't make any sense that the max recommended wing loading would be the same for students and novices, or that the max recommended wing loading would actually decrease on the larger canopies after making such a huge jump between the 240 and the 260. Just looking at the chart I would be inclined to believe that the chart is misprinted, but the numbers are the same between PD's website, catalog, and Paragear.com. Can someone make sense of this for me?

Could it be that your arms are just too short? Sorry, couldn't resist. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

Thank you. Just wanted to see if there was anything that changed significantly between the versions. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

Hi guys, new member, first post. Just a quick question here: I've been doing a little web window shopping for altimeters and audibles and have a question about the L & B website. Regarding the Solo/Solo II, Viso/VisoII, and the Optima/Optima II, L & B only lists on-line manuals as available for the original versions, ie. Solo, Viso, and Optima. Do the manuals also cover the "II" versions as well? Thanks. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.