uer16

I've personally landed with an RSL disconnected and dangling after a jump. Part of my gear-check is to make sure that RSL is connected before exit, which means the red lanyard it got somehow snagged in freefall, or it wasn't fully latched on that rental rig. That incident completely changed my POV on RSLs/MARDs.

Nancy, your current website doesn't seem to agree with that. Would DOM affect volume as well if there were changes made?

That might explain the discrepancies. Is it known at what year did they do this? Tried calling but they're closed for the day. I really do want it specifically so trying hard here.

Thank you Kelly for your insight! Based on Unstable's data point, and that Id have to ship the reserve back if it doesnt fit and eat the cost, Ill probably go with one of the other 2 that are known to fit and play it safe, even if its a worse deal. I vaguely remember reading about more reinforcement and a lot of 1/2 tape on Angelfires, which might explain bigger pack volume.

Because its not as clear to me as it somehow is to yoi? Clearly the I-33 is made for 150 sized F111 reserves, so the assumption is that it will fit a reserve of that size from a different manufacturer. In this case ot might not be true after digging into their actual volume. But where does it say that am extra 40 cu.in. will break compatibility? Gotta love how everyone gets up in arms about container sizes here, I didnt even mention main sizes and yet there's recommendations for that?? And yes, its a container first case with options for PDR143, Tempo 150, or angelfire 150.

Angelfire 150: 390 cu. in. Things that I-33 is made for according to sizing chart: PDR-143: 338 cu. in. Optimum 160: 331 cu. in. Tempo 150: 294 cu. in. Smart 150: 346 cu. in. R-max 148: 333 cu. in etc.. So the Angelfire is 13% bigger than the biggest recommended reserve. I also heard it packs tight with a 150 main. So am I overthinking it and it's close enough and it would fit, or would it be a pain in the ass that's not worth it?

Thanks! Hah I wish, the label is clearly sticking out from under the tailpocket, around ~10% of it can be seen (the boilerplate warning text). That is a good point though, I do need to thoroughly inspect it before jumping.

Wish I knew, it has a tailpocket sewn over the label. I *believe* it's not dash-M or Super Raven.

Awesome info in the thread! Still would like to know the dimensions before jumping it with a slider from a Sabre though..

Hmm didn't realize they have bikini sliders. The goal is to safely skydive it as a main. So the appropriate sail slider dimensions would be ideal. I think dimensions of the bikini slider grommet-to-grommet would be a good start (i.e. a sail slider of the same size shouldn't open any harder).

Would someone be able to measure approximately the size of an original Raven 2 (PIA 218 sq. ft I believe) slider? Thanks!

My risers (using as an example here) are manufactured in such a way that excess stowage is the opposite from what you describe as "correct", what would you suggest?

Goal: get into/develop swooping skills. Question: will doing so create bad habits and/or bad sight picture. Canopy doesn't go very far, but front riser pressure is very manageable, and is very responsive to harness input, how bad of an idea is it to keep it for the next 200-whatever jumps while working on inducing speed. I don't care for looking cool and doing mile-long swoops at this point in time which is why I'm considering this. Yes, I should ask a canopy coach, get a course, etc etc... Not a lot of people know about these canopies, hence my post.

Does someone know/can measure the distance between the brake line cascade and the brake setting loop. And also between the brake setting loop and the toggle? One I bought came with ~2 inch difference between left/right brake lines. It might be possible to figure out which one's which, but confirmation would be comforting.

Lee, is there a contact for that guy in Europe?

A canopy I have was dragged against something sharp in the trunk of a car during a break-in, causing a pinky-sized hole, and a bunch of abrasions/pinholes over a certain area. I would avoid putting a full-sized patch since it's an older canopy that's worth as much as a patch or 2 would cost. I do want to jump it for the next ~200 jumps, and want to use ripstop adhesive tape for a quick temporary-ish repair. The bigger hole is no problem, parachute rigger's handbook says "For holes up to .5-inch in diameter or a tear, a double-sided patch is necessary", and the hole is smaller than that. I'm more worried about the pinholes/abrasions: it would require about a 10" piece of tape to cover the whole area, I believe one-sided would be sufficient. Are there any issues with that much tape being applied to a canopy? Would it be a good idea to just not do anything and see if it becomes worse? Remember the "repair" only needs to last ~200 jumps at which point the canopy is a car cover. The hole+abrasions are on the topskin of an end-cell near a non-loaded rib if that helps.

For the Vigil, it says to shut off if "this landing zone becomes your new take-off zone", but that is not the case for this DZ, since we still take-off at the airport. Conclusion: don't have to turn off Vigil 2. Wish the wording was clearer.

Hi Sam, Skydive Hollister: +400ft-ish landing area, get back to landing area airport via limousine with open windows. I seem to be the only one with an M2. AFAIK nobody resets their Vigil AAD on every jump, which seems to be OK since the windows are always open in the vehicle.

You misread my post. I know exactly how my AAD works. My questions were: A) Whether that's standard across other AADs B) Whether it's acceptable for people to completely disable their AAD due to this issue. And I agree 100% on all your points

Jumping at a DZ where landing area is at a significantly different altitude. I've found that the device shuts off after every jump and one has to re-do the convoluted altitude offset routine every time. Do other AADs shut off after every jump? I find that there is a real chance of setting the offset incorrectly given how often it has to be done, and potentially have a premature opening. Would it be reasonable to keep it off entirely for convenience and to prevent incorrect settings or am I talking out of my ass?

After some time on/off working on this I think it might be almost ready for public consumption. I called it OpenSky

Moreover, some airlines (like Delta) only accept rigs as carry-on.

Great answers, you seem to have your shit together, wish you success in your endeavors

Sounds very ambitious... How would you distinguish a sitflyer staying in a sit for the whole skydive 'til 1K from a plane diving down from altitude at the same speed to 1K? To me the acceleration and pressure profiles would be programmatically indistinguishable. What hardware design standards do you use? What software design and implementation standards to you use? Static analysis? MISRA? More importantly, How do you model the flight modes? How do you design algorithms that take sensor inputs and spit out what mode you're in? How many states can the device be in, how do you test all possible state paths with 100% coverage? Sounds like an awesome project, and I'm sure it's possible to make it work in 99% of situations, but to me that kind of complexity makes the device generally unverifiable. In life saving equipment you can't beat simplicity. IMO, if(altitude < 900 && speed > 78) { fire(); } Is the way to go.

Related: http://www.unitedparachutetechnologies.com/PDF/Support/Rigging/09122RubberBand.pdf