Reserve size/wingloading for newer jumpers

[catyduck 0]

Apart from the "smaller rigs look cooler" phenomenon, there seem to be two basic pieces of advice for choosing a reserve size:

1. Pick something that could (not "will definitely") land you relatively safely even without control input
2. Don't choose something smaller than your main. If you're not comfortable with the canopy size in normal conditions, don't try to make things worse when you're stressed

The people giving this advice are in many (not all!) cases very experienced jumpers loading their reserves north of 1.2. Novice jumpers are generally required/recommended to stay with a WL around 1.0. So...is this saying that a novice flying a reserve to the ground is potentially more dangerous than a reserve landing an unconscious jumper?

Oh, and a second question. The USPA considers any canopy 150 or smaller high performance, simply based on length of lines and number of air molecules that can fit underneath. Reserves have different flight characteristics than mains, but...is this still true? Do reserve packing method and flight characteristics mitigate the effect? (And if an Optimum handles more like a main, is a smaller Optimum then "high performance"?)

[monkycndo 0]

I bought a new rig and chose to go with a larger Optimum instead of a smaller container. When the fit hits the shan, no one ever says, "Damn, wish I had a smaller reserve!!!!"

Yes, the Optimum is a great reserve, but more fabric over your head is always better.

50 donations so far. Give it a try.

You know you want to spank it
Jump an Infinity

[mattjw916 2]

if you want a smaller rig with a bigish reserve get the biggest Optimum your rigger won't curse you for...

keep it under 1.2 and anything over 170 flies like a boat

carry on

NSCR-2376, SCR-15080

[riggerrob 643]

monkycndo

I bought a new rig and chose to go with a larger Optimum instead of a smaller container. When the fit hits the shan, no one ever says, "Damn, wish I had a smaller reserve!!!!"

Yes, the Optimum is a great reserve, but more fabric over your head is always better.

..................................................................................

Good advice

[riggerrob 643]

" ... Do reserve packing method ... mitigate the effect? ..."

...................................................................................

You lost me ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

[catyduck 0]

Sorry to be confusing.

I'm wondering why a 150 sq ft canopy can be considered "high performance" on the basis of size alone (USPA SIM), but people are okay jumping sub-150 reserves and expecting to land all right with them even if they are unconscious. Is it flight characteristics? Packing method? etc.

(To be clear: I have my reserve and am comfortable with its size; I am not looking for people to tell me I'll be just fine under something smaller. )

[riggerrob 643]

Anyone landing a 150 square foot reserve - unconscious - will have ample opportunity to meet ambulance drivers, surgeons, nurses, physio-therapists, etc.

[NWFlyer 2]

catyduck

but people are okay jumping sub-150 reserves and expecting to land all right with them even if they are unconscious.

Most of them aren't expecting that (except perhaps the ones who are light enough to load a sub-150 reserve at or about 1:1). Or if they are expecting to be able to land in one piece unconscious on a small reserve at a high wingloading, they're deluding themselves.

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

[councilman24 37]

riggerrob

Anyone landing a 150 square foot reserve - unconscious - will have ample opportunity to meet ambulance drivers, surgeons, nurses, physio-therapists, etc.

or grave diggers.

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

[catyduck 0]

Thanks for the help, everyone.

I did not realize that "Me? I'll be fine" means the same thing as, "A good reserve size for you? Well...how many bones are you okay with breaking?"

[GLIDEANGLE 1]

This is a relevant discussion:

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4524110#4524110

The choices we make have consequences, for us & for others!

[airtwardo 7]

catyduck

Thanks for the help, everyone.

I did not realize that "Me? I'll be fine" means the same thing as, "A good reserve size for you? Well...how many bones are you okay with breaking?"

About 30 years ago...

I got hit by a guy diving the formation, it dislocated my right shoulder. I had round reserve & thought about using it, but my square main being MUCH larger would be better - I thought.

Since I was 'one armed' I left the brakes on and used rears to steer...doing a PLF at landing. REALLY rocked my world...

SINCE then, I'm a firm believer that ya want as much material over you when you are down to the last bullet as possible!

My main is a 190 - - my reserve a 220. only because I jump Strong Ent. gear & that the biggest they make!

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

[RiggerLee 61]

A couple of thoughts. a twenty ft diameter reserve is SMALL. I mean it's really fucking small. Only a small or very brave guy will want to land a 20 ft reserve canopy and he'd better know how to PLF. That's over 300 sq ft. The smallest reserve that was actually popular was 26 ft in diameter. any decent sized person can land it but no fatties. that's like 530 sq feet. Ok, you say that's cheating. Let's talk inflated area. I'm too lazy to look up the numbers but let's just call it a himispere. that's like 235 sq ft for a 26. And that's some thing that's coming down with your legs under you not something crussing along in only half breaks or less creaming you in to the ground ass over tea kettle breaking your kneck. Break setting are normally designed around opening caricteristics not min decent rate or min forward speed. The only canopy I can think of that even addressed that was the Aveator specally built for a pilot rig.

One of the big topics of disusion at PIA one year was the issue of over all flight speed for reserves with the breaks set. The FAA seems to want a standard and the manufacturers do not. It would be the kiss of death for small rigs. There is no reasonable expectation of survival with out injury or even just survival under the average reserve with breaks set and no imput.

Another thought. This one always gives me a chuckle. People buy super small, super tight rigs that are uncumfertable because they just can't fly with a heavier rig on there back. Then they come to me and buy a weight belt because they can't fly fast enough. They get a rig with so much stager, so high on there back that they have totals because they can't reach there PC. They say the weight of the rig has to be that high so they can fly correctly. Then they buy one of my weight belts and wear it low around there waist. I know people that will not jump with out there belt. They wear it on Every jump.

So riddle me this. If you're wearing extra weight why not carry it as a larger reserve? If you're wearing a belt around your waist why not have a longer rig with a larger reserve that comes all the way down to the bottom of your back? With a longer reserve tray and more space around the pilot chute cap it might actually be able to clear the rig with out hesitating. Do you think they did there testing with the smallest tightest container in there line. It was a mid size to large container that passed the TSO. Any thing smaller then that... you a test jumper.

I'm a CRW dog and a base jumper. When the shit goes bad there is absolutely no replacement for enough wing above your head.

Lee

Lee
lee@velocitysportswear.com
www.velocitysportswear.com

[gowlerk 2,216]

Anyone contemplating landing any parachute unconscious or too disabled to control it has no reason to expect to survive the inevitable injuries. That is not what the system is designed to do. You may get lucky, and you can increase your odds with more nylon, but if you require this sort of protection you should not skydive. It does not exist.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[RiggerLee 61]

Now that's not true. A decent size round, 26 and up, will give you very good odds of survival but I wouldn't lay odds on the odd ankle.

And this begs the question of what is up with all these cypresses in rigs with 126 reserves being jumped by 170 lb guys?

Lee

Lee
lee@velocitysportswear.com
www.velocitysportswear.com

[mattjw916 2]

I was going to point out the irony of someone who does BASE and CReW complaining about the levels of risk other people accept when they jump small reserves but my head just might explode if I try.

NSCR-2376, SCR-15080

[riggerrob 643]

Rigger Lee,

I agree with your logic, but may I add a few numbers?

National packs their Phantom 26/AeroStar 26 round canopy into a "National 425" pilot emergency container.
Similarly, I packed an awful lot of XTC 500 canopies for Mr. Butler. Now he sells HX 500 and HX 600 round canopies.

In comparison, I often jumped 520 tandem mains made of F-111 fabric, but these days am more comfortable jumping Icarus 360 (tandem) mains with ZP top-skins.

[gowlerk 2,216]

Quote

Now that's not true. A decent size round, 26 and up, will give you very good odds of survival but I wouldn't lay odds on the odd ankle.

I suppose that may be correct. However skydivers no longer use these reserves. The point is that the OP should not be thinking that her reserve is designed to be operated while unconscious.

Quote

And this begs the question of what is up with all these cypresses in rigs with 126 reserves being jumped by 170 lb guys?

CYPRES saves seldom result from being unconscious, unless you count lack situational awareness as being unconscious.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[RiggerLee 61]

That's actually very true. I guess my sarcasm didn't show. The vast majority of saves are not from unconsciousness. And it has done an admirable job of saving people from their inattention on numerous occasions. There are an even larger number of two outs, but that's a seperet subject. My point was that I can count on my fingers more "true" saves then I can count people that have admitted to me that they have a cypress because they do not trust that they can keep track of their altitude. They all say that it's to save them if they are knocked unconscious.

Numbers... You know I never really knew where the nomenclature of the nationals came from. I think it's a 30 deg conical in which case the skirt diameter would be 22 .5 and an area of 398. Inflated, less so I'm really not clear on where the hell the name came from. Enlighten me, I've found yet another hole in my knowlage.

Tandems. I'm guessing that you're talking about how you could sink in the older high lift strongs even with a fairly high load. I'm not sure that's a good analogy. It was a very high lift canopy and you were very deep when you finished the flare and sank it like that. Nothing resembling and opening config. And you were into the wind. And using all the toggles not just the outer set. And big canopies are just way more eficent. I mean the aviator was a unique design built around that concept. But a canopy like that would be just as alien as the idea of some one jumping a round today. I still say that modern canopies that we fly are dependent on the idea of being able to dynamicly flare them into the wind. I think that was the FAA's point. That there has developed an expectation of this capability and that there should be a total speed limitation. The problem being that virtually no reserve can achive a survivable number at the loadings that we jump them.

And by the way a few years ago I knew a guy that traded in his square for a round. He was a CRW dog on a record attempt. He hunted every where but he found him self a sweet K-26. He was worried about nasty wraps and having to fire his reserve in to them.

Lee

Lee
lee@velocitysportswear.com
www.velocitysportswear.com

[potatoman 0]

Forget unconscious. Cannot plan for that.

Highly loaded reserve thoughts:
You are probably low
Different flight char from you normal canopy
You have not yet flown with the brake setup (You might stall this bad boy quickly, or no flare at all)
You cannot land into wind
AND
now you have to land this thing in a back garden, built up area, trees etc???

Take the left shoe off and shove it.

You have the right to your opinion, and I have the right to tell you how Fu***** stupid it is.
Davelepka - "This isn't an x-box, or a Chevy truck forum"
Whatever you do, don't listen to ChrisD.

[NWFlyer 2]

gowlerk

Anyone contemplating landing any parachute unconscious or too disabled to control it has no reason to expect to survive the inevitable injuries. That is not what the system is designed to do. You may get lucky, and you can increase your odds with more nylon, but if you require this sort of protection you should not skydive. It does not exist.

I have always said about my AAD "It can take me from guaranteed death to possible survival." I expect nothing more from it. But I like my odds with it a lot better under my big reserve than I would under something fun-sized.

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

[airtwardo 7]

Quote

Forget unconscious. Cannot plan for that.

Plan for it no...but taking it into consideration when purchasing a reserve is IMO a prudent thing to do.

No there probably isn't a reserve other than the PEP's mentioned that will give you 'great' odds of survivability, but if 'better' odds are possible - why NOT go that route?

I went 38 years in the sport without an AAD only recently getting one, I'm not worried about inattentiveness causing me problem, incapacitation is my main concern.

When I demoed some reserves prior to purchase it was with that thought in mind... putting 5 jumps on the model I ended up with, the last jump I left the brakes on and rode it all the way in.

It was a crosswind landing, and I'll admit I gave the rears about a 1/4 pull down right before landing because I chickened out...but it sure seemed to ME anyway that the landing would easily have been not only 'survivable' but probably with minimal if any injuries. My reserve is loaded at or a hair above 1:1.1

The past few years there have been a few instances in which the jumper got their bell rung enough to cause a loop cut & a landing with no input...the ones with larger docile reserves are still vertical, the others are not.

The math seems pretty simple to me.

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

[riggerrob 643]

Sorry Riggerlee,

I was not trying to disagree with you ... rather add some numbers to your logic.

There are three or more ways to measure the size of round canopies.
Diameter, projected area, inflated diameter, fabric area, etc.

Diameter is really only an accurate measure of flat circular canopies. The only flat circular canopy still in (military) production is the 28 foot diameter C-9. I did my first few skydives on a (similar) white, C-8 canopy and have packed hundreds of C-9s in pilot emergency parachutes.
Diameter becomes less relevant as soon as you get into conical canopies. For example, a U.S. Navy 26 foot conical (ejection seat) canopy may be a 26 foot diameter flat-circular canopy missing a few gores, but it no longer inflates to 26 foot diameter, nor does in have as much fabric as a 26 foot diameter flat circular.

The height of foolishness is describing a 13 foot long wind-sock as "26 foot diameter!"
Hah!
Hah!

Projected diameter is more of a mathematical estimation of the largest diameter of a conical or hemispherical canopy. For example, the Preserve V is 60 percent of a sphere, so you calculate the largest diameter at the equator, which is 10 percent above the skirt. The skirt is slightly smaller than the equator

There is no way a 28 foot diameter flat-circular canopy has an inflated diameter of 28 feet! ... What with all the line tension, loose floppy fabric around the skirt, 4-line release, osscillations, etc.

Measuring fabric area is a clever way for marketeers to publish larger canopy sizes.
For example, a Nationnal Aerostar 26 canopy has roughly 425 square feet of F-111 fabric. But was that measured from a drawing?
... Was it measured on the cutting table?
... Was it measured after the canopy was sewn together?
... Was it measured on a canopy blowing in the wind ... ?

[RiggerLee 61]

I think I might have it. I was playing with my calculater and I think it's a 30 deg conical with a 13' radial seam. I think it's the actual sewn fabric area minus the porosity, original definition, so minus the apex vent and drive slots. I'm guessing the hight of the vents from memory but I come out at right around 425.

Also I wasn't aware that the preserve V was a parabolic hemisphere. I didn't realize that it had quite that much shape to it.

We but heads quite a bit but you're actually really interesting to talk to. Always feel free to correct or educate me.

Lee

Lee
lee@velocitysportswear.com
www.velocitysportswear.com

[mjosparky 4]

Quote

A couple of thoughts. a twenty ft diameter reserve is SMALL. I mean it's really fucking small. Only a small or very brave guy will want to land a 20 ft reserve canopy and he'd better know how to PLF. That's over 300 sq ft. The smallest reserve that was actually popular was 26 ft in diameter. any decent sized person can land it but no fatties. that's like 530 sq feet.

The R-1 Piglet reserve had an inflated diameter of around 16 to 17 feet and in its day was very popular.

Spark y

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals