TommyBotten

I would also recommend optical stabilization. It makes it easier to spot small movements on the skydivers input and/or canopy response that would otherwise attributed to a shaking camera.

Our DZ has used the Ares 2 since March for student and rental purposes. We have not had any students, instructors or funjumpers report any issues with them. The Ares 2 is a civilian version of their military spec altimeter and as such, I would be surprised if L&B have not fixed the issues they used to have with the 2nd. gen Viso2.

Also note that there is another post on the Ares 2 that has some more information.

As I travel a lot with my rig (for safe keeping, not for a bailout scenario) I must admit the idea has humored me on several occasions.


If the aircraft were to have a catastrophic failure at cruising altitude (33.000 - 40.000 feet) the time of useful consciousness for a non-trained person performing physical work can be down to a few seconds in a depressurized cabin. Even a trained person and with a low (25.000) cruising altitude will likely not have more than 30 seconds of TUC. And no, comparing it to holding your breath at sea level won't work ;)

If you are able to get your oxygen mask on it will help, but you may still end up unconscious especially if performing work, as the mask are merely designed to keep you alive until the pilots can get the aircraft down to lower altitudes. You are also likely to face heavy fogging in the interior of the aircraft for a time as the cabin air cools and the relative humidity rapidly changes.


If you are able to handle all this and miraculously get your rig on, you need to get out of the aircraft. Since you mention catastrophic failure, I'm going to assume that there is a big enough hole in the fuselage to get out. This will most likely also mean that the aircraft is not behaving as usual, which means moving around in the cabin and getting to the outside will be eventful. Depending on where the fuselage rupture is will determine how easy it will be getting out and not getting caught in an engine or struck by the tail as you exit.

Great. You made it. You are miraculously outside the aircraft with your rig on and if you had a calibrated altimeter, it would now show 28.000 feet. Now what? Even if you have not up to this point, you are very likely to faint within the next few seconds. If you deploy your main right of the bat, you will be spending too much time in a low pressure environment and will likely die. If you don't, well, you'll faint and it's unlikely that you will come to before it's time to deploy. But how about turning on the AAD before you exit the aircraft? That won't work either, as any modern AAD will self test and calibrate as you turn it on, and it will not be amused by the fact that you are in a (very) low pressure environment, quickly descending. Unless you have one of those mechanical AADs, in which case, congratulations, you come prepared.

So what can you do? Perhaps pulling your PC holding it in your hand until you faint is an option. You will be unconscious anyway by the time you're slammed by the hard opening caused by low air pressure and high opening speed. And maybe you will survive and even come to before landing, so that you may hook your 270 into the local college campus and impress the girls. Or maybe not. Either way I wish you luck!

Awesome that you guys are active on the forums!

If you don't mind me asking, what is the GPS update frequency on the X2? I've had good results with the old flysight revision at 5hz using Dan's gswoop software.

They've been saying that for at least four years now.

My two cents are also on the Vector, albeit I'm a bit biased since my last three rigs have all been vectors. In addition to them being one of the more freefly friendly rigs, they also have some of the best customer service I've experienced for any skydiving related company.

Seems like the soloshot3 is finally shipping. There are a few reviews out, and the results looks varied. From the very negative skydiver who films his swoops on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z66ZYX8zXu4 to the more positive and somewhat relevant drone tracking on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Co5-NQXcAU.

Are there any other hands on experiences with this device and skydiving?

Hi!

I haven't rummaged through the flysight data to support these claims, so take them with a grain of salt.

I find that it varies with wings. The Petra/HK/Peregrines can be loaded quite heavily and I like them best around 3.1-3.2. The VKs i like at around 2.7. Tried a 67 with 3.5 which was not my taste. As for VK-PS, I've only have around 50 jumps on them with a few different WLs, but I think it's right up there with the PI, perhaps a tad lower.

I have the same experience with mine. The VK with ~800 jumps feels even more worn than my old VE at 2000 jumps. The VK with 400 jumps feels comparable to the VE, but as you mention, the canopies still flies nicely. Easier to pack though ;)


I did get to test a side-by-side comparison with two same size VKs, one at 350 jumps DOM 2016-12, the other brand new (less than 10) DOM 2017-04 jumping every other for two days, about 15 jumps. The difference was bigger than I expected. It's hard when I don't have any numbers to tie it to, but the newer canopy felt crisper, faster and more rigid. Do note that there were differences in colors (and possibly fabric batch) that also might have an effect.

PD themselves say that the degradation of the sail fabric in the internals are less than or equal to that of the ZP used in their regular VKs, which in imho makes sense.

Better or worse is hard to answer. They are different canopies with different characteristics. In my experience (on a zulu 122/xf3-119 at about 1.7) the zulu has a lighter and more responsive toggle stroke and almost feels a bit twitchy whereas the XF3 has a longer recovery arc and much more input responsiveness and power on the rear risers.

Thanks for the link. I'm familiar with the SIM, and I believe it has been a source of inspiration back in 2007 during the last revision.

I've attached the source lesson plan and a rough translation using google translate.

I'm looking into updating the Norwegian federations material for teaching first time AFF and static line students to fly their canopies, including pattern, observation and landing techniques. I'm hoping to find a sufficiently simple yet good enough way for our instructors to go about the ground course that gives the students the tools they need

We currently have a 10 hour ground school where 1.5 hours are used to practice pattern flying, observation, landing technique, control inputs as well as the simple theory behind downwind vs upwind flying. We do not currently use radios on any of our DZs. Our entire lesson plan can be read using google translate on http://nlf.no/sites/default/files/fallskjerm/dokument/vedlegg_1_600_juli_2013_elev_grunnkurs_line_og_aff_1.pdf . ymmv.

Any tips and tricks on how people out there are organizing the ground course in this respect and if applicable any standard lesson plans from the DZs and federations out there would be greatly appreciated. Any language is interesting.

Add to your list that the cutaway and reserve handle will likely move from the position you know and have trained for and further back. I recommend watching Brians take on this as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PU1mL3YLOIY

Not at all. It's merely a personal preference, and many, if not most CP competitors have their favorite direction of turn :-)

Even with a quick rotation, no surge/double fronts it _sounds_ a bit low...

A few right hand 450s from my first half of 2016. No swoop training jumps as my competition/training turn is left. My setup is 1350 for the VK-PS ([email protected]) and about 100 feet lower for the regular VK([email protected]).

https://youtu.be/PSd1LH6zl8E

I got to do 6 jumps on a 67 terminal HK. I had video of one of the jumps, but I can't seem to find it :-(

The HK is a 9 cell with a stiffer material than ZP, although not the same as the Petra or PI. I believe FW called it FF-30, but don't quote me on that.

As for flight characteristics, it's more similar to a Petra than a Hybrid VK/Leia. The rears are very impressive, even compared to a petra, and it's a bit more rigid as well. I experienced the shutdown as somewhat weaker though. It dives nicer and more eagerly/consistently than a Hybrid VK/Leia.

Openings where nice, but harder to handle than VK/leia/airfwolfs. I hope they kept the multiple brake settings option as well, which seems awesome in a competition setting.

I don't think it's crazy, since I've always had names for my canopies - although I have gotten a few reactions to it ;-)

My storm 120 is named Stella, my VK90 is Vilja (Scandinavian name meaning willpower) and my VK75 is Vimse which again is a Scandinavian name, which can be roughly translated to fluttery.

I'm currently doing that, and I'll post my findings when I have a big enough dataset.

We have been using Navigators for a long time. We did try to switch over to the Solos two years ago, and although they flew well, we had a lot of issues with their sub terminal openings on SL and hop and pops. Aerodyne also uses untreated spectra line which is a bad match with our velcro brake stowes.

After a little back and forth with Aerodyne, we sold them and are currently using Navigators.

I have the http://www.rehband.co.uk/force-ankle-brace-light . They are a bit of hassle to get on and off, but offer good support.

Pobrause

I have to agree, AoA is not the correct term when talking about stabbing out of a turn with toggles. Change in trajectory would be better.

But does not the change of trajectory come from the change in AoA? As far as I have come to understand, most of the resulting trajectory change comes from your rears being "pulled down" as a result of you (the suspended weight) being put in front of your canopy, not the exposed fabric/brakes.

Pobrause

Of course one can expect full sail modern wings to perform better and more stable even when close to a stall on rears. They are build with a much more stable material and aerodynamic shape.
But as skow pointed out, you can only change the AoA with rears so much before even they stall. Of course it takes more force as they fly faster and hold their shape better but eventually they will stall.

The thing with toggles is, when in a turn you can't stall your canopy, no matter how much force you apply. If you feel, the change in trajetory is weaker with toggles than on rears just apply more pressure on the stopping strings.

I totally agree on the premise that any wing will stall given enough change in AoA. But what my feeling was/is, and what I somewhat hope to be wrong about, is the efficiency of either input on given wings under given circumstances will vary.

The only thing I can offer here is my own experience on these wings that points to two things:
* Toggle input, even when given sharply has a small delay (~ 0.5 seconds) before really kicking in.
* Sharp inputs on rears _seems_ to give more G-forces (i.e. experienced squeeze into the harness)

Pobrause

From an aerodynamik point of view it also makes no sense in trusting your rears vs toggles.
The smoother the airflow on most parts of your wing, the better your inputs will be converted into a reaction.
And close to a stall on rears there is not much airflow left attached to the canopy and thus can't support your inputs.
Brakes (or flaps for that matter) however don't disturb the airflow on the majority of your wings surface area, slowing down the canopy much more efficiently, swinging you forward like a pendulum and changing your trajectory in the process much faster and more reliably/ safer than rears.

Or at least that is how I imagine aerodynamics to work, I've been wrong before...

I don't know enough about aerodynamics to have a meaningful discussion about this, but I would like to restate that the rear riser input I've mentioned above is quite far from the stall point.

Thank you both for your insight into this.

Toggles are more efficient in a bail out scenario as the toggle input rapidly slows down the canopy and puts the pilot (thus the suspended weight) in front of the canopy, leading to a sharp increase in angle of attack.

Rear risers are usually more gradual, as it does not swing you in front of the canopy as toggle input does.

For the last six months I've been trying out various competition canopies to much enjoyment. One thing that surprised me is the feeling that bailing on rear risers actually gives more response than stabbing out on toggles.

On the hybrid VK and Airwolf it seems to be somewhat more efficient to use rear risers, whereas on the HK/JPX/PI it feels much more efficient. Could this be the case, or am I way off base here?

I kept testing this up high for multiple jumps, and while I am aware of the potential for high speed stalls, my impressions is that it is very hard to trigger on these canopies.

I've also discussed it with various other CP pilots and coaches, but there doesn't seem to be a consensus. Any insight and experiences are very much welcome.

Do note that my tests were conducted up top after an initiated turn.

Tromsø fallskjermklubb are open most weekends, although the summer might be slow. When are you thinking of coming? There is a midnight sun boogie ( http://www.msb.no/ ) not too far away, which is really good.

Voss is also really awesome. Try to time it with "Ekstremsportveko" :-)

-t

Your container system maunal/web page describes the various sizes of mains and reserves that will fit your container. Generally speaking, the bigger the better, so I always recommend people getting the biggest reserve that the container manufacturer recommends.

As to downsizing, it's never recommended to skip a step. Get a canopy coach to get some coaching and discuss these things.