IJskonijn

I don't see any need written in the manual to check M2 pressure readings relative to an aircraft altimeter or to check the altitude lock release during climb. I would consider such checks beyond the annual inspection, unless the annual inspection shows reason to suspect the device of malfunctioning. But in that case I'm already contacting the manufacturer about it anyway. The text in the M2 manual (as of 10-7-2024) is: My own procedure is thus to check the device reading ("P" in the info menu). Since I am most often in Hilversum, the closest weather station in the Netherlands is De Bilt, so I check its pressure reading in the list here (https://www.knmi.nl/nederland-nu/weer/waarnemingen). I assume the 10-minute average published there is close enough to the direct measurement. The published readings there are corrected to MSL, and Hilversum Airport (EHHV) is just 1m above sea level so I expect the M2 to read approximately 0.1 hPa lower (my home is at 5m ASL, so ~0.7 hPa lower reading). The remaining deviation is sensor deviation + lateral deviation due to weather systems. The isobars in a weather map will give an indication of the latter, but with a +- 15 hPa allowed deviation I rarely even bother with that step unless the weather is truly wild (=very close isobars). As I've said, so far I haven't seen more than 1-2 hPa deviation in any device (M2 or Vigil) that I've checked. Checking these units may take some figuring out for a rigger's specific situation, but once figured out it's really easy. Adds like 1 minute to my flow of an entire I&R. Oh, and to get back to the original topic: Cypres maintenance is voluntary since units made in 2016. In my opinion, all three major AADs are sufficient, and a Cypres is the priciest option for slightly more quality and slightly better track record (open to discussion). If you pick the priciest AAD on the market anyway, I suggest to not cheap out on the factory maintenance and do it anyway even if not mandatory.

Mars has it in their current manual (p38), with a limit of +- 15 hPa allowable deviation. Few of the units are around in the Netherlands, I own one myself and I check it during every repack by comparing it to published barometric pressure of the closest KNMI station (our national meteorological institute). If you go that route take into account both your own altitude (ASL) and station altitude + whether or not it is corrected to MSL. Since at sea level 1 hPa pressure difference is approximately 8 meters altitude difference, I find +- 15 hPa quite a big allowable range. I've never seen any differences larger than 1-2 hPa. Vigil can also show current barometric pressure, and I check them the same way as I do Mars AADs. But their manual says nothing about checking the pressure reading, and they responded by e-mail to me that the pressure does not need any checking by field riggers... The physicist in me finds that baffling, because why else would you include the ability to read out the measured pressure? In practice, I've never seen any Vigil units with more than 1-2 hPa deviations either. To my knowledge the Cypres doesn't offer any way to read out the actual air pressure measured.

True, better to reach the ground softly anywhere than crash hard in a nice field. So chopping the main if possible remains the best option. However, that was my take on a situation in which the winds might be a factor of consideration. And if a side-by-side is kept, the advice is to keep it together by actively giving both canopies some inside rear pressure (basically rear-riser turn both canopies into each other) to nail them tight.

The choice between keeping a side-by-side or trying to get it to a biplane could well be wind-related. It appears that a side-by-side has quite good lift-to-drag and therefore reasonable penetration into headwinds, while a biplane is a lot more sinky compared. (No personal experience, but based off the seminar that Jim Cowan gave). Thus, I can imagine a situation where you have a two-out, strong headwinds, good landing fields ahead of you and Mordor behind you. In that situation, keeping the side-by-side might be safer than trying to work it into a biplane.

Not all EU countries have a 1-year repack cycle. For the Netherlands, the repack cycle is 6 months. However, if you are a foreign visiting jumper (not a member of the Dutch KNVvL) with your own gear and your own association has a repack cycle of 1 year, that 1-year cycle will be honoured in the Netherlands.

Call me conservative (you'd be right) but I feel that the step from a Spectre 150 to any crossbraced 135 canopy is a very big one, and likely to get you hurt. Better to step down in size first (Spectre 135 or similar) before moving into crossbraced canopies. And have a plan for what you want to do and achieve with it. In my opinion, downsizing for the sake of downsizing is overrated. My personal experience with a Sabre2 150 is that it's boatloads of fun (I'm at exit weight ~95kg so only slightly higher WL). Long recovery arc & good flare. I find the openings slow and twisty but my point of reference is about a thousand jumps on the Lightning which has never heard of that new-fangled thing called snivelling, so take that with a lot of salt. But because they are rather popular they tend to be pricey and quickly gone on the second-hand market.

There's a better way than "blindly" chopping your main in a two-out scenario. For one, if you are unlucky enough to have the main and reserve risers entangled, chopping it can be certain death. I've had the luck to sit through Jim Cowan's Dual Out briefing recently, and his breakdown of possibilities and options is top-notch. It's also on youtube, so I highly recommend everyone to watch it. As for the specific effect of a much larger reserve than main, I would guess that the reserve is much higher over your head (providing more lift) while the main flies a lot more twitchy. My gut feeling would be that you might have to rein in the main flying it in deep brakes or rears (if half-brake is still set) to keep the two cooperating. Cutting the main away IFF it's not entangled would probably be your best bet, secondary to keeping both canopies nailed together down to landing.

Do you have photo's of this particular situation? If the RSL is installed wrong in its entirety it should go back to the rigger rather than try to field-solve it. In general I'd be worried about the RSL shackle or tab interfering with a proper disconnection of the 3-ring system. This gets worse if the shackle is hooked to the harness D-ring (then it WILL be in the way) and exponentially worse if connected to the riser in any other way than the RSL-ring on the riser. I hardly ever use the RSL on my rig, doing mostly CRW and flag jumps. Mine is tucked away deep below the reserve risers, in the same space where the RSL lanyard runs (Paratec Next rig). Often I see RSL shackles connected to the release cable housing below the 3-ring system and tucked away behind the mudflap cover.

I haven't had much luck with portable machines, even with the old fashioned cast-iron ones with a very loose definition of 'portable'. I still have two of those, Pfaff 332 and Pfaff 260, that both are in dire need of some electrical work and a good squirt of oil due to insufficient use. My sewing machine woes all but disappeared when I bit the bullet and purchased a Pfaff 138-6 machine. It cost me 550 euro, but that one machine has done everything I asked of it so far. Very reasonable straight stitch, good zigzag, easily handles e-thread and has managed to punch through 6 layers of square weave (for toggle manufacture), albeit with some difficulty. Bartack imitation is also quite good, I typically first do a straight stitch, then turn the work around and do a zigzag overstitch. I found one with a good clutch motor, but one with a servo motor should be possible. The motor connects via external V-snare to the machine head, so if you're handy enough you could change out the motor yourself. My only beefs with the clutch motor are the noise and higher difficulty with fine control (if I want just one or two stitches, I prefer to handcrank it).

I disagree. If learning high performance landings is the goal, a turn rig is a NoGo in my opinion. You can get the same harness type and harness size yes, but not the same canopy. Sure, same type and size canopy is doable with enough money, but no two canopies will fly EXACTLY the same. It's all a bunch of fabric stitched together, and minor differences exist. It's unlikely people notice it in normal day-to-day jumping, but we notice it in CRW with different Lightnings flying ever so slightly different. And with swooping having a narrow margin of error, I fear the difference between two same-by-label canopies could well increase the risk of unintended lithobraking.

Time in the sport is also valuable. Raw jump numbers aren't everything, but being on the DZ and paying attention to what happens, listening to the stories and advice of other jumpers is also a good way to learn and get better. Typically I see turn rigs being used for higher-level competition teams that want to knock out 10+ training jumps per day. At 115 jumps I honestly doubt that a turn rig is worth it.

It's quite interesting how quickly this thread derailed from someone asking for cloud regulations in different nations towards a general FAA bash-fest... Anyway, to add something relevant to the original question: The regulation in the Netherlands is based on the "Regeling Valschermspringen 2010" https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0027968/2022-01-01 (note, in Dutch so you might have to use online translators). Specifically article 3.1.d, which boils down to VFR only. No formal jumping through clouds allowed.

For me, size is a big factor. I do lots of CRW, and having something on my hand or arm that can easily have a line snagged on it is no good. So my choice for a viso 2 (with elastic wrist-mount that I carry practically near my elbow) is primarily for its very small size. Maybe the altitude takes a fraction longer to read than an analog dial, I wouldn't know. I've never had issues with it, even on the sporadic freefall jumps that I did.

There is no way specified in the manual to clear the flight counter. All other variables (DZ offset, activation offset, unit, etc.) can be freely changed. If you want to keep track of your own jump numbers with the unit, write down the displayed flight counter before your first jump with it, and subtract that number from any later reading. If you wish to start from zero, buy a new one.

For the first-time CRW coaching jumps (always 1-on-1, occasionally with an experienced CRW camera flyer behind us), I use a hard-deck of 3000ft for accepting docks, and 2000ft lowest break-up altitude. This is with Lightnings, I flat-out refuse to do CRW coaching without using proper equipment. If my student is heads-up, flies nicely controlled and predictable, and feels up to it, I might fly a 2-plane down into the landing pattern by the time we reach jump 5. Of course, with more experience & trust among the jumpers involved, these minimum altitudes become more fluid. Especially with @Baksteen we've routinely flown a plane down to near flare-height. And because we know each other and each other's skill well, I will happily accept a dock below 2000ft from him. But by the time we reach pattern altitude ~1000ft, I'll keep what plane we have but not accept anything new.