Reserve Size

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

I was originally thinking that I wanted a smaller reserve to fly better with my main in case of a two out situation. However it seems that the likelihood of an elliptical main flying stable with a reserve even of similar size is fairly low.

The deployment brake settings may also affect things. Canopies have been rigged to open everywhere between just short of stalling for the owner (where lighter people open in a stall) and full-flight.

Each step beyond identical Super Ravens in both containers is going to make things less certain.

[packing_jarrett 0]

Quote

I've got probably 2200 jumps on Lightning 113's, and probably close another 2000 on Triathalon 99's. The Dash-M 109 I sold after its first use - it stalled at my shoulders.

I'm surprised you had this kind of experience with the Raven 109 after so many jumps under small f1-11's. I have both PDR 99 and Raven-M 109. While the PDr obviously has better flying characteristics than other reserves the one jump I had on my 109 was easily manageable and landed me nice and soft on my feet. Loaded at 1.5 though.

Na' Cho' Cheese

[winsor 236]

Quote

Newbie question.

Why are reserves so often smaller than mains?

Mine aren't.

Regardless of what I have in the main container, I put the biggest thing I can get my hands on in the reserve pack tray.

In the rigs that I routinely jump, the reserves gravitate to wingloadings appropriate for BASE. The mains vary from Sport to Unlimited wingloadings.

I don't give a lot of thought to two-out scenarios, since I make a point of staying out of the basement. Even with a gunslinger cutaway, it does not take a lot of effort to time the reserve pull with the ka-ching of the cutaway.

When a main loaded over 2:1 misbehaves to the extent that I go to Plan B, I have had enough excitement for one jump. It is time for something that is so predictable that it is close to boring.

If you have a reserve sized so that you can do personal CRW with your Xaos 92, that is your choice. I'd rather get something over 200 sq. ft. overhead, having jettisoned the offending main.

Among other things, I would like to size my reserve so I can survive (without much injury) a landing if someone, say, kicked and broke my collarbone on exit. Even if I could steer one of my Class VI canopies to a flat, open area, if I can't flare, I had better have my Blue Cross card clenched in my teeth upon arrival. An ICU is the best I can then hope for - if I manage to survive.

As Bill noted, I have never looked up at my reserve after a mal and said "ah, I could have gone a size smaller."


Blue skies,

Winsor

[Bolas 5]

What you say makes alot of sense. Thanks.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[ryoder 1,590]

Quote

Among other things, I would like to size my reserve so I can survive (without much injury) a landing if someone, say, kicked and broke my collarbone on exit.

I was on a dive once with a woman whose right shoulder was dislocated on the exit. So she deployed the only thing she could: The reserve. She wasn't able to properly flare, so the landing resulted in a broken femur, which was worse than the initial problem. I'm pretty sure she would have liked a bigger reserve.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[Pulse 0]

Quote

Quote

Among other things, I would like to size my reserve so I can survive (without much injury) a landing if someone, say, kicked and broke my collarbone on exit.

I was on a dive once with a woman whose right shoulder was dislocated on the exit. So she deployed the only thing she could: The reserve. She wasn't able to properly flare, so the landing resulted in a broken femur, which was worse than the initial problem. I'm pretty sure she would have liked a bigger reserve.

This brings up a GREAT point that I don't think many think of. Since your reserve is going to be used in less-than-desirable circumstances. It seems it would make sense to get a reserve that could land you if you were incapable of flying it. Could each of us REALLY say we would be safe under our reserves if we couldn't touch the toggles?

"Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

[strop45 0]

Quote

Could each of us REALLY say we would be safe under our reserves if we couldn't touch the toggles?

I take your point, but.....if you are unable to steer, then regardless of what size reserve you have you will NOT be "safe". I estimate that around my DZ only about 5% of the land is suitable for an uncontrolled landing. The rest is covered in orchards or vineyards and is often surrounded by tall hedges. Without steering you be hurt, its only a question of how much.

Having said that of course a larger reserve will reduce your speed and damage on impact.

The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits." -- Albert Einstein

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Among other things, I would like to size my reserve so I can survive (without much injury) a landing if someone, say, kicked and broke my collarbone on exit.

I was on a dive once with a woman whose right shoulder was dislocated on the exit. So she deployed the only thing she could: The reserve. She wasn't able to properly flare, so the landing resulted in a broken femur, which was worse than the initial problem. I'm pretty sure she would have liked a bigger reserve.

This brings up a GREAT point that I don't think many think of. Since your reserve is going to be used in less-than-desirable circumstances. It seems it would make sense to get a reserve that could land you if you were incapable of flying it. Could each of us REALLY say we would be safe under our reserves if we couldn't touch the toggles?

...which is starting to sound reminiscent of the "round vs. square reserve" debates we used to have.
Oh, well; dead horse.

[Pulse 0]

Quote

Without steering you be hurt, its only a question of how much.

Having said that of course a larger reserve will reduce your speed and damage on impact.

My point exactly.

Though this has been discussed many-a-time in the round vs. square debates. It comes down to the fact that there are times that a round is more suitable. But for the vast majority of times that skydivers use their reserves a square is just fine. Even a fairly small one at that. It comes down to playing the odds.
But make no mistake about it. Someone jumping a tiny reserve is taking that extra chance. If that's what they're willing to do, that's fine. But if I hear that jumper with the tiny reserve say they only have their AAD for if they're unconscious....I'll be all over them. I myself would want a round in THAT situation.

"Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

[riggerrob 643]

I still think that you are better of under a large docile square than and round reserve, and they have about the same pack volume.
Squares are better because of their angle of arrival. Most of the time, squares impact at an angle, which gives you several yards to gradually decellerate.
Finally, squares are more reliable than rounds.
(See statistics published by Butler when he introduced the Sombrero Slider).
Mine is not just a theoretical point. I have about 70 jumps on rounds, including three ride son round reserves.
I also have more about 5,000 jumps on squares and have deployed 15 square reserves.

I also tell the same thing to pilots looking for pilot emergency parachutes.
I came to those conclusions - twelve years ago - while test-jumping prototypes of R.I.'s P-124A Aviator pilot emergency rig containing a large, docile square canopy.
... and I am far too old and far too grumpy to change my opinion now!!!
Tee!
Hee!

[billvon 2,991]

>if you are unable to steer, then regardless of what size reserve you
>have you will NOT be "safe".

Well, no skydive is safe. If you are unable to steer normally, however, you can often still steer by using one toggle at a time (if one arm is disabled) by leaning (if both arms are disabled) by pulling on risers (if you cannot reach the toggles, or if you don't want to unstow them.)

>The rest is covered in orchards or vineyards and is often surrounded by
>tall hedges. Without steering you be hurt, its only a question of how much.

Tree/bush landings are actually one of the better scenarios, since most people are not hurt when they land in a tree. (Most tree-landing injuries occur when trying to get _out_ of the tree.)

>Having said that of course a larger reserve will reduce your speed and
>damage on impact.

Agreed. I've been using PD126's for a few years, but the rig I just ordered was sized for a PD143 - and if PD creates an Optimum 160 that fits in the same container I might switch to that.

[Andy9o8 2]

I'm itching to debate a couple points; but as I said, been there, done that; moot point; dead horse. Anyhow, I need to conserve energy to provoke people in SC.

[strop45 0]

Quote

Tree/bush landings are actually one of the better scenarios, since most people are not hurt when they land in a tree. (Most tree-landing injuries occur when trying to get _out_ of the tree.)

Yes and no.. My point was concerning vineyards and orchards. The orchards have low trees with wires strung along rows. Vineyards are full of wires and poles and not much else. The wind rows around the orchards/vineyards are taller trees with the branches removed from the sides. If you fly in a uncontrolled manner (i.e. unable to steer in any way) into them you probably end up on the ground, maybe after your canopy has been collapsed or turned by the wind row, or maybe after hitting a wire or pole holding the wires up.

If forced to land in such a place, the pros at the DZ recommend a full mush and a prayer...

The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits." -- Albert Einstein

[Pulse 0]

Quote

I still think that you are better of under a large docile square than and round reserve, and they have about the same pack volume.
Squares are better because of their angle of arrival. Most of the time, squares impact at an angle, which gives you several yards to gradually decellerate.

We are in closer agreement if we're comparing rounds and 'large docile' squares. Not if we're looking at what people are jumping today. If you hit an object and don't have that several yards to roll out you're going to be worse off with the higher speed of a ram-air. Especially with a downwind landing.

Quote

squares are more reliable than rounds.

No disagreement here. But when round reserves were the norm, people weren't going in year after year from malfunctioning reserves. I've seen them used enough in drop tests, unstable deployments of other jumpers, and off my own back to have a fair amount of faith in them. Seems we have about the same jump numbers on both, but I don't have as many reserve rides.

I guess my point is that I see rounds as being able to handle a 'passive' passenger. You don't see ram-airs deployed in any situations without some sort of guidance system.

I'm not trying to change anyone's opinion. Just giving a point-of-view.

"Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

[Andy9o8 2]

Well, yours are basically my points, too.

[2shay 0]

guess I am just waiting on the bigger optimum or optima reserves whatever you call them to come out. So I do not have to switch containers to have a larger reserve. Mine right now is fine to land if concious, but I might be in trouble if I am lights out while landing

don't try your bullshit with me!!!

[JerryBaumchen 1,363]

Hi 2shay,

Here is a thought; everyone who is waiting for bigger Optimums should drop PD an email asking for them.

It might just work,

JerryBaumchen

[2shay 0]

Maybe. I am in no rush, it would just be one more plus.

don't try your bullshit with me!!!

[riggerrob 643]

No disagreement here. But when round reserves were the norm, people weren't going in year after year from malfunctioning reserves.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Just enough people went in that we lost respect for round reserves built under the "low speed" category of TSO C23B.
It only took one SoCal jumper tearing a Phantom for National to issue a Service Bulletin requiring sewing extra Kevlar reinforcing bands on Phantoms.

Do you remember sewing narrower diapers on Phantoms?
Thank God the worst of those light-weight, low-speed reserves got grounded by acid mesh.

[ryoder 1,590]

Quote

No disagreement here. But when round reserves were the norm, people weren't going in year after year from malfunctioning reserves.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Just enough people went in that we lost respect for round reserves built under the "low speed" category of TSO C23B.
It only took one SoCal jumper tearing a Phantom for National to issue a Service Bulletin requiring sewing extra Kevlar reinforcing bands on Phantoms.

Do you remember sewing narrower diapers on Phantoms?
Thank God the worst of those light-weight, low-speed reserves got grounded by acid mesh.

The guy I knew who spun in under a malfunctioned Pioneer Tri-Conical wasn't very impressed with them either. He was lucky to impact a soft plowed field, and got away with just a broken arm and broken tailbone.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[Pulse 0]

I'm not saying we should bring rounds back. I already stated that under the vast majority of situations square reserves are good. I made the original round comment in reference to skydivers telling me the only reason they have an AAD is for if they're knocked unconscious. This line:

"I trust myself. But I have it in case I'm knocked out."

If I saw them with a large, docile square on their back that would be one thing. But that's not it. Usually they have a ridiculously small reserve that they would need to fly.

It's very simple. Would I rather jump off the back of a pickup truck when it's standing still? Or when it's going 40mph? If I had to make a jump where I could not control the canopy would you want a round or a square loaded at 1.9;1 fps?

"Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

[riggerrob 643]

I have got to agree.
Al Frisbee - got to love that dear-departed crusty old bastard - refused to pack a few tiny reserves.
He told skydivers - to their faces - that the combination of tiny reserves and AADs were worse than a waste of time.

[airtwardo 7]

Or how about a hand or arm / shoulder injury.

I landed my G-3 with the brakes still stowed some years back...might have been able to stand it up but was more worried about my ouchie.

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[JerryBaumchen 1,363]

Hi Air,

And this is not directed at you; you're just the last post.

Anyone know what Al Krueger was loading his reserve at; since he could not control it during descent? And he is a VERY experienced jumper.

JerryBaumchen