hokierower

Yea...stick to the sabre2, however I don't see the reason to get rid of the spectre. Great canopy, and it can be plenty sporty if you use it correctly.

http://edge-eyewear.com/united-states/#/GLASSES/DAKURA-POLARIZED I have the black frames with the copper lenses. They seem to do the best job for both low light and bright light.

I wear a $22 pair of Edge construction safety glasses with my open face and a set of croakies. They're polarized and fit my face better than anything else I've ever tried on. Best thing is, if I lose them, they're only $22.

How so? Pretty sure Orange has been hopping the last 2 weekends.

PD has a great 2-part video on PRO-packing a large canopy. I changed my technique after watching it.

No need to call or email PD for the trim specs, they're right on the their website. Here's the Katana's http://www.performancedesigns.com/docs/linetrims/KA-083-0170LineTrimChart.pdf Measure the lines off of that. As for the riser issue, someone else can correct me if I'm wrong, but different riser lengths will not change how much you can pull the FR without deflecting the tail.

1. Arm length is not an issue. 2. Toggle range is not necessarily an issue unless I increase the brake lines, at which point I'll no longer be able to fully flare. 3. There is little if any deflection in the brake lines, i.e., the first couple of inches are not pulling the slack out of the lines, they're starting the flare. 4. Yes, I can stall the canopy with my arms fully extended and rolling the wrists to get the last little bit. I know that I'll never need to stall it, but knowing where I can get every inch of flare that I need is the goal. 5. No, lineset is probably mid-life, but I haven't measured trim on it.

As I was getting adjusted to a new canopy (Sabre2 150) this past weekend I was performing usual manuevers, i.e. toggle turns, toggle flare, riser turns, riser flare, almost stall on toggles, almost stall on risers, etc. and ran into an issue with my front riser turns where the instant I touch the fronts, the canopy bucks. Looked at the brake lines during the manuever and sure enough, there's barely any slack in them and I'm deflecting the tail as soon as I thick about my fronts So in order to properly execute my eventual landing, I need to lengthen the brake lines (2-4"). Unfortunately, doing so will decrease the bottom end of the flare. To counter-act that, my initial thought is to get longer risers (currently using 20") so that the brakes can be longer but the bottom of the flare remains in the same point. My question is what will this do to the canopy's characteristics. Searching through old threads I saw that increasing the riser length will increase the recovery arc, but is there something else that I need to be concerned with?

Not always the case...especially when we are talking about a specialised product with a specialist market. The manufacturers can pretty much tailor their product in whatever way they like, and not give the consumer a choice. Limiting small reserves would not mean the end of skydiving. People would continue to jump what was available. And the manufacturer could be found liable in a court of law if he made a product (like cigarettes) which normal use would likely result in serious injury or death, and he was cognisant of that fact. Pray tell, how would they be found liable when from FJC to the day the jumper quits/bounces the importance of wing-loading and canopy flying are drilled into them. Section 6.10 in the SIM discusses "advanced equipment", downsizing progression, design progression, and wing loading. PD's website (since everyone seems to pick on them because they're the biggest) has a detailed wing loading chart for EVERY canopy & size, as well as a link to the interpretations of those wing loadings and THEN they also have a dedicated document describing how the canopy flies and reacts to inputs. When an individual purchases a PD canopy there is no way that they can say that there was no information readily available that could explain to them how the canopy would fly. You cannot legislate against stupidity, but you could possibly legislate against some other link in the chain where people are killed or seriously injured. And that is why the USPA is in place, to lobby for the skydiving community (at least in the USA) to prevent these kinds of legislation from becoming law. Would you care to give an example of said link, since you, like Marisan, like to speak without offering solutions? And small canopies are an easily identifiable, common factor, in the chain of injury and death... 5 deaths caused by low turns in 2011 out of 25. Not to be callous, but in the grand scheme of things currently going on in this country, 5 isn't even a number worth thinking about for the idiots on Capitol Hill. Skydiving is somewhat unique, because as an aviation activity, it is subject to several levels of control that motorcycles as an example, are not. Bullshit. The DZ's might have several levels of control to worry about when it comes to operating the aircraft, but for a skydiver and their gear, there is only one level, the TSO for containers. The FAA stopped out at Orange on May 5th. They inspected the aircraft and it's logbooks (Level 1 for the DZ) and the reserve cards of the jumpers (Level 1 for the Jumper). That's it. Motorcycles on the other hand require licensing & insurance. There are no extra layers that skydiving is subjected to. Skydiving is a relatively soft target for hard ball legislators....and we simply don`t have the numbers (or votes) to put up much of a defense..... If we're such a soft target, why hasn't it been done? Provide answers rather than questions, at least that way it won't look like you're talking out of your ass.

Does the entire container system (i.e. Vector 3) fall under the same TSO or does each container size (V314 vs. V316) require it's own TSO rating? Wouldn't this prevent someone from calling up UPT and asking for a main tray capable of holding a 120 but a reserve tray capable of holding a 170? My relative short time in sport might show here, but how is jumping different than riding a motorcycle in the given context (i.e. acceptable fatalities). Any Joe can walk into a motorcycle dealership and walk out with a 600/1,000 CC supersport and 15 seconds later be plastered across the median. The motorcycle community as a whole is much larger than skydiving but from 1994-2010 there have been on average 3400 deaths every year, yet large volume engines aren't outlawed or restricted yet? Those manufacturers aren't held responsible for what the idiot on the oversized bike did...why are the skydiving manufacturers different? Is it because this is a smaller sport with fewer individuals? As said above, I'm a newer jumper and I realize that there are many things that I do not know, but why does everyone jump straight to MORE regulation when someone augers in? The sport is inherently dangerous, as is riding a motorcycle, but you don't see sales of those dropping because someone got cleaned up on the side of the road. Marisan...what is all this "you guys" shit that you keep throwing out? You used to jump but no longer do? So do you consider yourself a jumper or are you merely on the outside looking in now, only you have nothing better to do than spout doom and gloom and threaten that if we don't make the sport the equivalent to watching TV on the couch it will no longer exist? You seem to like to speak but never offer a solution.

I've worn a snowboard helmet half-shell since I got off of AFF. It doesn't look as cool as a built for skydiving helmet, but it works well. For eye protection (I also wear contacts) I wear a pair of tinted safety glasses that I got from a subcontractor on my last job. They cost about $15 and fit me better than anything else I've ever worn. I've even worn them on tracking dives and not had an issue.

Not disagreeing. I think the time I've spent on the 170 has been very educational. I am guilty of skipping a size when downsizing, as I went from a Spectre 230 when I was a student (16 jumps) to a Spectre 210 (4 jumps) to a Spectre 190. I didn't skip it entirely, but I didn't fly it long enough to really fly it. The OP should demo before he makes up his mind and commits money to it. But I also believe that jumping down 40 SF is a bad idea, which is why I threw in the density altitude comment.

That's your experience, mine was different. I had planned on going from a Spectre 190 to a Sabre2 150 at about 200 jumps. Talked to a couple of very experienced TM/Canopy Pilots who recommended spending a bit of time on a 170 first, so I went to Spectre 170 @ jump 105. It was a smooth transition and the first time I jumped it I had a smile on my face. I'm DS'ing to a Sabre2 150 very soon, but that's after landing it downwind, crosswind, on an incline, carving to avoid an obstacle during my surf, flat turn at low altitude after my set-up got altered, etc (all landings stood up except for the downwinder, that was a slide on my butt). Spending 200-300 jumps on a 190 would have driven me nuts. Harness input doesn't result in anything, front risers 90 landings don't shed enough altitude to be safe, wind penetration isn't that great, and it was a thick wing so gathering speed was difficult. I would suggest that the OP demo a Sabre2 170. You won't have to buy the canopy and it will give you a feel for how the canopy reacts differently at sea level. If it's still slow, demo a 150 and see how that works. Don't forget, the density altitude at a East Coast DZ during the summer can get pretty high so even though you're at sea level, your canopy will fly like it's at a much higher altitude.

I'm hoping to avoid outlandish beer costs at Carolinafest by bringing my handle of Johnny Black. That should do the trick. I've set aside a grand for the 5 days I'll be there, most of it on jumps since I'll be sleeping in a tent.

My parents were a little taken aback when I started, but they don't have any problem with me jumping. Their only request is that I give them a phone call/text at the end of the day/weekend letting them know I'm alive and in one piece. My mom was a little more panicked when I told her I bought my gear and it was all used. She wanted to know what was wrong with the canopy that had caused the owner to sell it.

It all depends on how well it's been maintained. Going off what I was told when I bought my used Wings, the initial owner put 1800 jumps on it, 2nd owner put 200, and I've put 150 on it. ~2150 jumps and it looks like it's only got a few hundred because it's been packed inside and on a mat for the majority of its life.

I was at CPTS 3 with Greg & Ian Bobo and can't say enough great things about the entire weekend.

It is San Marcos and that was Catfish as the "mentor"...not a bad choice when it comes to that sort of thing.

On hops and pops, N3 on my right mudflap, Solo II in my helmet. Full altitude jumps is the same plus a Galaxy on my wrist.

Guy I rode with in TX got a Black 848 Evo when they first came out, gotta be one of the most beautiful bikes I've seen, but at the same time, one of the meanest looking. I personally decided to go with a 2011 Triumph Street Triple R in Blazing Orange. About 2 months ago I got my tires swapped out at the local Duc dealer and was walking around the showroom slobbering. Unless someone comes up with something better, that Street Triple will be the replacement for my SV when the time comes. Can't go wrong with a triple. I've had the urge to sell the Street Triple R and go with a new Speed Triple R but then I remember that the Street is more than adequate. If you want a naked bike, you stick with the Euro manufacturers. Forget any of the japanese bikes.

Yea, it's oh so light and flickable, and it makes riding a lot of fun, regardless of where I am. Once the weather gets warmer it'll be my main method of getting to/from the DZ.

Guy I rode with in TX got a Black 848 Evo when they first came out, gotta be one of the most beautiful bikes I've seen, but at the same time, one of the meanest looking. I personally decided to go with a 2011 Triumph Street Triple R in Blazing Orange. About 2 months ago I got my tires swapped out at the local Duc dealer and was walking around the showroom slobbering.

Well then, that's a job that the USPA needs to do a better job of doing, I merely made a suggestion for holding the DZs more accountable.

Fair enough and makes perfect sense to me. The only thing that I can say is that I plan to progress in a reasonable and sensible manner using the guidance that I receive from canopy coaches. Any thoughts on the suggestions I made to the ISP?

All valid points, but how do you work currency into that equation? I'm looking to hit 200 jumps by end of May, which is 200 in a year. Based upon your earlier statement, I have no more knowledge, no more skill, and am no more "advanced" than a jumper with 200 jumps, but who took 2-3 years to get there and may not have taken a canopy course...that doesn't make much sense.