20kN

If you're talking about including LPV canopies, than yes. For example, an Aerodyne Icon I5 would probably hold an ULPV 7-cell 210, a ZPX 190 and standard ZP 170. If you're talking about three different sizes of the exact same ZP canopy, than no, not really. For example, no container will do well with both a 210 Sabre 2 and a 170 Sabre 2. You're either going to have a very tight 210 that's going to be a total PIA to pack, or a loose 170.

Stall or collapse? They are not the same thing. Collapse: Occurs when the canopy loses sufficient inflation either from significant distortion or turbulence. The canopy folds in on itself and drops out of flight entirely. The pilot goes back into freefall. Stall: Occurs when the canopy exceeds the critical angle of attack of the wing and loses sufficient lift to remain in proper flight. Most commonly, this occurs after a full flare. So I think you're talking about a collapse. In that case, I have always wondered the same thing. I think it's possible it could clear the lineover if it's toward the ends. I dont think it would help if the lineover is in the center. The issue is when you collapse the canopy, when it reopens the reopening is typically a bit violent and the canopy surges forward during reinflation. If you already have a lineover this could in theory make the situation even worse by possibly causing the lineover to move in a position that now forces the canopy to spiral down. Instead of chopping a stable canopy you're now chopping one that's spinning. Of course this is theoretical. What would actually happen is anyone's guess I think.

This is Brian Germain's chart which is a good reference: https://www.bigairsportz.com/pdf/bas-sizingchart.pdf

You can usually find them cheaply on eBay.

a

I dont think that this thread is an accurate representation of the general community. Most modern skydivers when asked at the DZ would probably dismiss skydiving as not being that dangerous. I've asked. Many times. I rarely have a skydiver tell me that they do in fact believe that skydiving is dangerous. Nearly every conversation I've ever heard about skydiving risk results in most of the participants dismissing it as being a fairly safe activity. I recall where someone I know was seriously injured from landing a malfunctioning canopy and his very first post on Facebook once he recovered was him trying to reassure his friends that skydiving is in fact safe and his friends should not worry.

I think that's most skydivers in general. Every time the topic of skydiving safety comes up hordes of skydivers are quick to chime in on how you're more likely to die in a car accident or or more likely to die in your sleep, or more likely to die tripping down the stairs, ect, ect. Of course that's all completely false, but many skydivers don't seem to want to hear it. They think skydiving is perfectly safe and they get pissed off if you try to convince them otherwise. I agree that a lot of skydivers also seem to think that it cant happen to them. "Well of course that guy died, he cutaway too late, I would never do that." ect. However, if you look at the statistics, a lot of people who are dying have thousands of skydivers. They are not AFF students here and so they too thought that it would not happen to them. That's the issue. No one thinks it's going to happen to them, and then it does happen. So someone thinking it wont happen to them because they are too skilled and too heads-up does not in fact mean it wont actually happen, especially considering that chances are they are less skilled and less attentive than they think they are.

I havent had an issue with the Quattro and I've flown some pretty big suits really flat and slow. However, if the suit becomes large enough and you fly it slow enough, you're suit becomes as slow as a small canopy (hints the possibility of XRW) and there is no way for the altimeter to distinguish between the two. That's one of the nice things about the Vog altimeter. The Vog will speak the altitudes you set regardless if you're in freefall, under canopy or in the airplane riding down. When you reach the preset altitude, it goes off.

Yes the canopy can change over time. Whether the Spectre has changed I do not know. That would be a question for the manufacturer. However, unlike cars, canopes are not likely to change that much. The changes are probably going to be a bit more subtle in most cases and major changes like complete planform changes would usually institute a new model entirely.

Using double front risers is a valid method of gaining forward speed, but it's substantially less effective then inducing a hard turn.

I laughed a bit at that. Just because you can physically put a parachute into the bag does not mean that constitutes 'packing properly'. I know people with thousands of jumps that still do things nearly all manufacturers recommend against.

You dont need a packer to teach you to pack. Ask an experienced skydiver at the DZ. They may be able to help you and most of them probably wouldn't even charge you. You can also ask a rigger for some lessons as well. There are lots of YouTube videos on the topic and Performance Designs has published more than one video showing their recommended way to pack their parachutes. In the end, whatever you learn in whatever class you take will likely not be the exact method you'll be using by the time you get your D license. There are many tricks and variations to packing that over the course of time you'll pick up on new things and implement them as you see fit.

As the saying goes, "if you ever need a hook knife and dont have one, you'll never need one again." Good job. That sounds like a scary situation. I use the one hand per handle EP method, but this is one advantage of using the two hands per handle method. If you pull the cutaway with both hands, there is little chance of you accidentally pulling the reserve too soon.

Maybe in the world of Internet blogging. In the real world, not so much.

It's not that uncommon. I know several people who have mentioned it. I brought up this packing orientation to the container manufactures when I visited them in Deland last. The answer I got was, with regards to D bag orientation, if you can think of it they have already tested it and it's not approved for a reason. I have never found the need for it personally. I have tons and tons of videos of my openings and I've never seen the bag spin around during extraction. If I got linetwists, it was not because of how I positioned the D bag.

You can order the long rig option on Aerodyne containers sized I1 - I4. Also, the only WS specific container I've seen is Javalin's new Aurora. All other containers I've seen are just normal containers and the WS mod option just means they dont sew up the sides of the main packing tray and give you a longer bridle. That's it.

Manufacturers compensate by making F111 PCs larger than ZP ones. For example, if you have a larger container (Say 170 - 230) and you order a ZP PC, you're probably getting a 26 - 28" PC. If you order F111, you're likely getting a 30" PC. Same as with smaller containers. Typically a 24 - 26" ZP or a 28" F111. When brand new, a F111 PC option from the factory will typically produce more extraction force than a ZP option because the F111 PC will be larger. Both Mirage and Aerodyne ship 30" pilot chutes with their larger containers if you select the F111 option (and the Aerodyne one is closer to 32" IMO). Regarding the PC not extracting the bag fast enough, to comment without more info is a bit difficult as there are many possible causes.Yes, the PC could be worn out. That's common. The kill line could be too short. The PC could not be cocked sufficiently. The PC could be getting stuck in his burble. There are many possible causes and the best option here is to wear a camera pointed back and see what's actually happening as opposed to just guessing.

It's pretty well known that F111 PCs are more stable than ZP ones. Several manufactures have made the claim. Skydiving PCs in general are trash. If you look at BASE PCs, skydiving ones dont even compare. Skydiving PCs are made as cheaply as possible. BASE PCs are made from ZP, but they have an apex vent that makes them much more stable than any form of non-vented skydiving PC. The only skydiving PC I've seen that's halfway solid is the Squirrel SkySnatch, which is basically a small BASE PC with a killline.

Because F111 is a superior fabric over ZP for PCs. It allows some air through and so makes for a more stable PC that reduces the chances of linetwists on your main. Mirage does the same thing (Use F111) as do other companies. The better answer is to monitor your PC and replace it when it's worn out.

I know of a DZ that uses Argus AADs in student rigs for AFF use. Probably not the smartest idea if the container manufacturer does not approve their use.

they have been 'testing' the jet since before I can remember. dont get your hopes up.

Black skies? Sounds like a night jump. I'd take that as a compliment. Night jumps are so fun!

Actually it can. Pinging the GPS modem more often consumes more battery. The Flysight will have less operational time when pinging the sats at 10 Hz vs 5 Hz, as will any other device.

VOG. It's the best altimeter period, regardless of application.

Slider size has a major effect on opening, but it's far from the only variable. Brake settings of both the LCL and UCL lines have a large effect as well. Even changing in the inboard brake lines by an inch can have a small effect. In fact, when I asked how to speed up the openings on one of my older canopies the manufacture did not tell me to change the slider, instead they told me to shorten the inboard UCL lines by 2".