Anachronist

So the AAD saved his life? Mission accomplished! Sarcastic, but you get the point. To me, raising the activation ceiling makes more sense than changing the fall rate setting. The reason being, you have no business pulling at 2,500ft or less (if you are, then you shouldn't be using an AAD) and to have an AAD fire because of a 1,300 ft floor means something went really wrong, even with a 1k ft snivel. But with speed, you have to continually avoid activating it after being deployed. And you can plan to fly nice and conservative but there are a lot of what if's (traffic, obstacles, needing to make a big course change, canopy collision, etc) So all of those things become potential problems, but with altitude adjustment, only failure to pull is a problem, and in that case you want it to activate. What I am saying is that during a jump, using altitude, the AAD is removed from the equation after deployment (ideally), using speed, it becomes a liability after deployment. 99.9999% of deployments will be successful (with or without EP's) so you are creating potential problems on 99.9999% of your jumps rather than the extremely unlikely event that you would actually need it (unable to pull and falling slow). So basically by setting it to student you are "creating a potential problem on essentially every jump, in fear of something that will probably never happen." (lose/probably will never win) By upping the altitude you are "increasing your safety margin with the caveat that you can't low pull, which also increases your safety margin."(win/win) Several hundred WS jumps and I still pull at 4k every single time. I use to pull at 3k but a pierced bridle resulting in a PC in tow cured me of that. (I use an AAD but set on PRO and without an altitude adjustment). I'm more concerned with it firing when it shouldn't than not firing when it should. But I don't fault an altitude adjustment.

Woah, this thread is still alive I've found that wingsuiting with tandems can be significantly improved by talking with them as simple as "Where/how are you landing?" "Ok I'll stay out of your way." And then after a jump "Hey man was that OK?" even if you know it was ok. Just tipping the hat to them and showing them you aren't an arse goes a long way. Probably not the case at a lot of DZs though. Also this, as it pertains to the SIM...

Makes sense about the mounting. I don't see any harm in "steadyshot" or "BOSS" style stabilization though, it just improves the quality but if you point it the wrong way or let the jumpers get out of from... it is still pointed the wrong way and the jumpers are still out of the frame. Unless they are just cutting off any and all future tracking software/hardware to avoid a debate of "does it stabilize, or does it track?" Either way, for competition, who cares? For records though, it would be silly to deny one because it was "filmed with extra precision." But I assume that is not the case.

The Sabre2 is solid, I would even say the "gold standard" to which other non-swooping 9cells are measured against. But that also makes it popular, and preserves its used price. 170 is also the most popular size of any non-swooping canopy from what I hear. Other new/intermediate fun jumper canopies include the Pilot (Aerodyne), Pulse (PD), and Prime (Fluid Wings). They will all be tamer than the Sabre2 and you will be disappointed by the flare of all 3 if you are use to the Sabre2 (assuming the one you have been jumping isn't ragged out). I've jumped all three and have nothing but good things to say about all of them. A little off the radar is the Firebolt (Parachute Labs / aka Jump Shack). It is the only canopy I've flown that has a more powerful flare than the Sabre2, it is obvious why, the brake lines affect a larger portion of the tail. As far as flight characteristics (it's been awhile since I jumped one) but it is in the same ball park as the Sabre2 and would feel familiar. The snivel is quite long also. If you can find a 7 cell cheap, the Spectre and Storm are good options (PD), I've heard a number of people say they love the Triathlon (Aerodyne) as well but I have no personal experience. I'm sure someone will disagree, but I wouldn't turn you away from a 7cell, but I would also tell you not to hunt for one. They are much more stable in flight and generally lack the forward speed of 9cells. If that is something someone is looking for (some wingsuiters for instance) that's fine. But it is a bit of a crutch. Anecdotally, I've seen people come from long first runs on 7cells and when they get something sportier (Sabre2 for instance) they are intimidated by the speed and responsiveness. There is an adjustment period as it were, I have not seen the same for people going from a 9cell to a 7cell, other than "Wow, this is much tamer than what I am use to."

Here's the real deal. If you skydive and aren't a tard, there is a good chance you will have at least one significant injury if you stick around long enough. Broken leg, torn ligament, road rash, etc. I would even go as far as to say "probably." If you are a tard, then the frequency and severity both increase dramatically. If you get into BASE, they both skyrocket. That said, most people who have suffered an injury (me included, broken leg) keep jumping. So to a lot of us the reward justifies the cost/risk. For the crippling/dieing stuff, the chances are a lot smaller. Some folks get crippled for life and others die. Right now the fatality rate in the US is about 1 in 2,000 jumpers per year(this doesn't take into account number of jumps) Source It is an almost certainty that if this becomes your thing and you stick around more than five years, you will have someone you know die. The risks are real, but that is part of the attraction isn't it? Oh, and if you stick around long enough, you absolutely will have a cutaway, or two, or three, or more. It is a terrible metric to assess risk by.

Might be referring to freestyle or VFS, or maybe RW too. Part of the competition is the camera. So in FS and there is judging on how well the jump is filmed art/style points or as they call it "camera work." So anyway, I could see some neat gadget that makes the camera fliers job easier causing some problems. Just a guess though.

Would have been interesting to see a back facing video. Maybe the stows were hanging it up some? Do a double stow test for posterity? Someone I know was having hesitations on a X-Bird and turned his GoPro around, turned out the PC was pulling the pin and the bridle (6ft) going to full extension but didn't have the umph to pull the bag out. The PC was inflated the whole time but we suspect in the tail end of the burble and experiencing slow air flow. I think the record was 6 seconds with the pin pulled before extraction.

Yeah the brand wars are getting pretty old, partially fueled by fan boys who would wet themselves if they got sponsored or even got to buy a suit 30% off, and partially fueled by the brands' marketing. And some of that is because the owners' personalities invariably get involved, and none of them have good ones. Tony and Robert are megalomaniacs and Matt is a walking 2 year old temper tantrum. It's a shame there isn't a 3rd party reviewer(s) that can give an overall assessment not geared toward "which one is better" but rather "this is how this suit feels/flies, and how it differs from this other suit" then the viewer can decide what they like or don't like about it. I'll volunteer, I think all of the major WS owners are shit bags but they all make decent suits. I can be "fair and balanced" because I don't care about any of them. Send me a Freak, a Strix, and whatever Tony has this week, and I'll tell everyone what's what. I'm only half joking... if the manufacturers want me to do a honest review and comparison w/o any judgement calls I'm willing, just send me a suit that fits and give me a month or two to play with it.

Don't try an over do it, the crazy weird stuff will cause problems anyway because even experienced people will miss it irl. Stick with the most common i.e. most likely to occur and therefore most dangerous. It's better to learn a few things well than a lot of things poorly. And totally my own 2 cents, "ready to jump" on a mannequin isn't great. If you put a rig on your body you should be ready to exit with it, and inspecting someone else's gear on their body is far less important than inspecting your own gear before you put it on. Just put it on the ground with some common mistakes. Also, the best way to learn what is wrong is to learn what is correct. Make them hook up a main and thread the leg and chest straps. Then their understanding of how and why will be better. As opposed to "that looks funny, but I'm not sure what's wrong with it."

The cage mounts to the camera's tripod mount, and then it also has a tripod mount on the bottom, so you then mount the cage to whatever you would mount your camera to. Check your inbox, I'll pm you some pics of mine. They also make these cute little cable holders if you are into that.

I don't understand the question. Apex, as in the "top" or "highest part," not the company. Putting a vent there reduces oscillation (they did the same thing with rounds back in the day). The only thing interesting about the snatch is the shape, that probably produces more drag and snatch force over a given diameter. But is completely unnecessary for skydiving. The reduced oscillation comes from the apex vent, not the shape, and most BASE PCs are also apex vented.

Get a cage? I'm the only person I've ever seen use one (I think most people don't know they exist) but I like it a lot. Allows for the whole minor adjustment thing and gives you something to fix the tongue switch cable to so it isn't jerking around in the camera's port. Also protects it somewhat from bumps in the plane and door. example

Also, the oscillation thing is a joke for skydiving. As long as the bag doesn't rotate it doesn't matter because the whole canopy is released from the bag virtually instantaneously. The reason BASE jumpers care about it is because there is no bag, the PC extracts the center cell and everything else follows, so the oscillation can pull the center cell around in relation to the rest of the canopy during deployment. In BASE, the wing is unfolding and starts inflating before complete line stretch, in skydiving that is not the case.

If it was better you would see swoopers using it, for sub terminal deployments on very sensitive light weight wings the PC is much more important. Never heard anyone say "The SkySnatch makes my hop and pop deployments so much better." And that is precisely the situation it would be best suited for. I'm not saying it is bad, but as mentioned, mostly marketing and riding the "BASE is best" train. Sure apex vented pilot chutes are more stable, and the shape probably produces more snatch force. When 50ft counts, sure, gimmie a snatch, but in skydiving it doesn't, and there is no evidence to suggest more snatch force = better deployment on a skydiving setup at any speed. More snatch force could equal more line dump and a more rapid deployment, which might mean asymmetrical inflation on an unvented wing. It could also mean a more violent/less stable extraction from a skydiving rig. Again, not a bad thing, but also not worth the extra cash IMHO. Don't forget, a regular PC can punch a closing pin through a bridle (sometimes 2 layers of it), I would consider that to be "sufficient extraction force."

Neato, but most useful for novices (who might not know their gear weight), so weigh some gear and put approximate reference weights there. Like rig with 260 main and reserve (30lbs) rig with 190 main and reserve(25lbs) etc Just guessing there, don't quote that, lol.

Guys, gonna drop some realness, all these sponsored people are trying to sell you stuff, or are so far down the hype rabbit hole they can't see the Sun anymore. It is all about packing and body position. There is no magic one technique or size that fits all, you just have to be aware of what you are doing and notice what works and what doesn't. And no matter what equipment you have or how you pack, you are going to have a wonky opening every now and then. Also, some of the stuff that migrates over from BASE is helpful, but they make sacrifices too that aren't suitable for skydiving. If you wanna talk BASE, there is BaseJumper.com for that. Otherwise, why isn't everyone free packing BlackJacks with mesh sliders on skydives? (Done it, it sucks). You can wingsuit EVERY 9-cell on the market, that isn't geared toward swooping, from EVERY manufacturer, reliably. Yes some are more forgiving than others but there is no magic bullet. For instance, double stows, sure they are good and I had good results until I started jumping a big suit, then after my flare slowed me down to hop and pop speeds, I've have better results single stowing; but that is just me, with how I fly and how I pack. Someone else on the same gear could have better results double stowing. Another "for instance," I really like my semi-stowless bag, but I jump with some folks that use a traditional bag who consistently have great openings. There is only one consistently important gear thing that comes up, bridal length. Once you get bigger than a mid range suit (Funk, Havok, etc) a 6ft bridal has a large probability of causing hesitation. Is there a diffrence between 9 and 11ft bridals, probably not, and you can burble both of them with a crap throw (seen and done it). Learn to fly the opening and pitch properly, and also take a extra couple minutes to pack well and consistently, then all this wonky opening stuff goes away. Consistently good openings I've had with 7 and 9 cells on large wingsuits include: Navigator (don't ask, lol) Spectre Saber2 Firebolt Pulse Prime Pilot Storm* was wonky for me, apparently it happens to some folks, but too many people love it to deny it works well. So demo a canopy just like any other and pick one that you like its flying and opening characteristics (not WS related), and if you can't WS it, the problem is you, not the canopy.

Anyone who is a die-hard "I only support one manufacturer and support them blindly" has completely invalidated their opinions. There is zero evidence to suggest such superiority in the WS market. It is just like the Cypress/Vigil is the only AAD worth having camps.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a SQ fan boy. My C2 is the only SQ suit I've ever owned and other than the discontinuous zippers, I really like Phoenix's whole line. Tony's stuff is decent enough too but I think he is loosing ground, time will tell.

To each their own, I don't doubt it, so much of this is "feel" anyway. It's just like how you like your rig to fit, or how you like a clutch; there is no one "right way."

Ahhhh the ol' flux capacitor, I should get mine checked too, I'm having some space-time anomalies.

Hahaha indeed, or for a student/inexperienced jumper, just don't bleed off all your speed when you are coming in on final, save it a little longer (in gradual, small increments until you become comfortable with it). I think there is an error in how canopy flight is taught, everything is based on as little competence as possible and over simplification, mostly to prevent catastrophic errors for inexperienced jumpers (a very low turn), which is justified, and then putting the brakes on would be swoopers who have no business trying such maneuvers, not justified. You can't fix stupid, and if you treat everyone as stupid, then you get poor results. A better approach IMHO would be to give new jumpers a deeper understanding and more tools to work with and if the would be swoopers decide to pound in, well there is no way to prevent that anyway. For me the pendulum was a keystone in understanding the flare, and I only ever had one competitive swooper explain it to me after I had around 200 jumps. The improvement was immediate and substantial. I had been around loads of AFFIs and swoopers and no one ever bothered to bring it up. Maybe because it was "too advanced." It also does not seem to be common knowledge among newer jumpers (

I could punch out of my Colugo 1 just fine. Colugo 2, nope. Arm sleeve fit tighter than the one on my new Sukhoi. I know the RAD cut is supposed to still let you get to toggles but didn't really work for me. Looks like of their current range of big suits only the A2 has enough stretchy stuff on the arms to be a genuine 'punch out' suit. wasatchrider and I took our pissing contest off the thread, so I'm not trying to start that up again. Just wanted to say I agree, I can't reach my toggles on my C2 (even without padding), it is the tightest arm I've ever flown (and the suit was built for me), I've flown other suits that were way too small and basically painted on, but the arm still wasn't as tight. With the two padding options for the C2 I haven't ever taken the thick one into the air, and it was several jumps with none at all before I started using the thin one. Even still, after breaking it in, the pull with the thin padding requires a lot of effort (more than any suit I've ever flown), not because of wing pressure but because of the tightness of the arm. Makes for great precise control and feel during flight, but comes with some drawbacks. For me anyway, in freefall the C2 feels amazing, but at any other time I feel like it is a boa constrictor. The price we pay for performance The Freak probably would have been a better choice for the flying I do (I hear the fit is a bit looser) but wasn't out yet when I ordered my C2.

Whew, jumping in here a few months late :P Thought I would share my own experience and what I think would have helped me a lot more as a student. Especially as a big boy, people jumping 150's at 1:1 are going to have a different experience. I had a similar issue, great landings on a 240, crap landings on a 220, and good landings again on a 190. Well after AFF, I'm 250 out the door so I used a 300 for my first 30 or so jumps. Anyway, I had two big learning moments. One was when I was taught that at full flight you have 100% flare available to you, when you use a little bit to slow down, maybe now you only have 80% left, and if you take a long slow finish stoke (even if you finish it all the way), you maybe only have 50% for the final bit when your feet touch the ground. This got me about half way to good landings. I learned to "keep more flare in the bank" until I needed it, and not be so scared of the ground speed. The second big learning moment was with pitch. The deflection of the tail with toggles is only a small portion of the lift, the biggest part comes a little bit later during the pendulum, when the angle of attack gets much larger. So on a big canopy, the flare is delayed, because the pendulum takes longer to happen. If you give a really long slow flare, you can't pendulum very much at all (there is no inertia to carry you though); and if you stab out, you pendulum really hard, which is dangerous, because then you drop, so if your feet aren't right above the ground when you are pendulum'd fully forward, you are going to land very hard. Learning to time the pendulum as well as maximize it is how I really dialed in my landings. When you are jumping something big, bleeding off all your flare power to slow ground speed is ok, because your vertical speed is so slow the landing is still ok. But when you get smaller, you have to use that energy in a shorter period of time to reduce your vertical speed (and forward speed). Long story short, speed is your friend, because it means more power when you need it (think about a swooper, they maintain level flight for several seconds, and have the ability to climb during that time). But the margin for error gets smaller. So while you are learning, in very small increments, start flaring closer to the ground and more aggressively when you do, so you get more power right before your feet meet the ground. At around 500 jumps I'm no expert, and my accuracy could definitely use some work, but my flare is pretty good. I've found that if I'm landing in no wind, or downwind, I wait even longer to flare, and burn up all my energy in a much smaller period of time, reducing ground speed and forward speed as much as possible. In a head wind I can take a nice long slow flare and ground speed isn't a problem. The only issue is, if you mess up, the consequences are greater. So it is something to be approached with caution.

There is a really long discussion about this on BaseJumper.com. They get into some really nitty gritty stuff about technique and comparing his jump to others on the same line using video time tags. Long story short, for anyone hoping to fly proxy some day, the decisions are incredibly nuanced, and any mistake will put you into terrain. The final verdict seemed to be his speed was ok until the last few seconds, trying to get too much lift w/o enough air speed = sink. He went from totally fine to trees in just a few seconds with a single mistake, after which there were no outs.

This is a really good point, if you are crabbing, you are not flying with the air mass, and the initial variables at the beginning of the turn change, thus changing the recovery arc. And depending on the jumper, the turn itself is also altered because they are basing their input on cues from the ground. So like it has already been said, in a perfectly smooth column with the exact same input, the arc is the same regardless of wind speed, but neither of these conditions are met in a real life application. The air column is not perfectly laminar, and input changes as well. I see this same kind of thing with chemists, "but the calculations show that x should happen, what is wrong?!" well, the conditions of the calculation fail to reflect the real conditions your reaction is occurring under. You gotta embrace the unquantifiable variables, "embrace the chaos" as I like to say It is important to remember as well that aerodynamics are rather poorly understood, which is kinda what makes the field so interesting! To my knowledge there is no mathematical model that allows insects to fly, but they still do it, we just don't understand how (on a mathematical level anyway). And as far as I know, the real nuance of flapping flight is still elusive.