eames

Yeah, it works fine... I know a lot of people that have done it. But it's not practical. You're jumping from a lot different planes, with different pilots and owners.... Not to mention, who's going to drag your crap back in every time? -Jason

I use mine for distance events specifically, but I use it throughout most meets 'cause it's a pain in the @$$ to switch back and forth.... And the only practical reason to use the system outside of competition is to get used to the system. ;) Otherwise, why bother? I also try to use it only on jumps entirely dedicated to swooping. I'm sure this has been said before, but it's not a setup that should be used for routine skydives. It's not only impractical, it's dangerous to do so. -Jason

Yep. That'll happen if you have a single point of attachment to the center of the slider (imagine where that line is when the slider is quartered....). That kind of damage can be prevented by having two points of attachment near the rear grommets, i.e. the line "cascades" from the bag to the slider. Yes, you can really damage yourself if you're not careful, especially if you're playing around with a removable slider design. As SkymonkeyONE has alluded, it's not an endeavor to be taken lightly. -Jason

Early on when I made just the removeable d-bag & PC I had a pretty serious line snag... break... spin... SPIN... chop. But it was completely preventable. I used a snap-shackle (i.e. RSL attachment) to attach a line from my bag to my slider. Well, the snap shackle caught a line. In retrospect I would have used a rapide link even though it would have taken a split-second longer to remove. But the right design of removeable slider/d-bag/PC is more snag resistant and easier to remove than just the d-bag/PC combo alone (because you have to remove and stow the d-bag/PC and then stow your slider, instead of remove the whole thing, shove it in your pocket. Done.) -Jason

I'm glad that Sun Path sponsored the event. I know they do a lot for the skydiving industry. My point is that the U.S. team doesn't endorse ANY single rig on the market, whether Sun Path sponsored the event or not. I've said more than my share... I think I'll respectfully bow out of this thread. Thanks for the feedback everybody. -Jason

First: I'm not that upset. Second: It is a nice picture of me and my teammates; it's a picture of the U.S. team. I'm in the picture. I'm sponsored by Mirage. Sun Path put the picture in their ad. Do you see the conflict of interest? I never posted anything negative about the Javelin Odyssey, and I promise you Judy, I never will. bbarnhouse said: As I said before, they may not have intended malice toward any of the people in that picture. Whether they meant to offend me or not (and they probably didn't), I still don't appreciate that they put that picture in their ad. Let me also address why I brought this up in a public forum instead of contacting them directly: They ran an ad in multiple publications that are read both nationally and internationally, that featured a picture that I am in (and in which I share equal prominence) to advertise a product that I clearly do not endorse, without my permission, consent or even knowledge. I don't believe I acted unfairly or inappropriately by expressing my disapproval in a similar public fashion. -Jason

Agreed. -Jason

Yes, my point exactly. I think it was PETTY for Sun Path to use that picture in their ad. Do you see what I mean? How do you like being misrepresented? -Jason

I believe they do all wear Javelin Odysseys, and I think that's a great idea for a Javelin Odyssey ad. I'm not concerned with any legal issues. I don't want to be compensated. I'm simply expressing my opinion. That photograph has a certain meaning to me; it represents something to me; call me overly romantic, but it has sentimental value. When I look at that picture, I don't see "Javelin Odyssey." They may not have intended malice toward any of the people in that picture, but they absolutely misrepresented some of them. I really wanted nothing more than to express that fact. -Jason

By the way, let me just say that everything I have written in this thread is my personal opinion, and my personal opinion only. Although I'm sponsored by Mirage, I did not post this on their (or anyone else's) behalf. I am speaking as a member of the U.S. team. -Jason

Read more carefully: I never said I've never jumped anything else. I've jumped almost every major brand of container... but that's beside the point. I shared my brand loyalty to illustrate why I'm irritated with the ad. -Jason

My intention is certainly not to start some kind of "my brand is better than your brand" argument, and I'm not comparing this ad to any other. I don't know much about the 300-way ads... perhaps those companies sponsored the event? -Jason

Well, it is political. Sun Path is implying that the U.S. team endorses the Javelin Odyssey. Look, I'm not going to beat around the bush: I was on the U.S. team and I'm sponsored by Mirage. The ad irritates me. I truly believe that Mirage makes the best rig, bar none. I've never bought anything else, I've never owned anything else, and I endorse no other container manufacturer. I also worked very hard to become a member of the U.S. team, and I thought it was pretty unique that for one weekend, a bunch of us put brand loyalties aside and swooped for the same team. I just think that it was tasteless for Sun Path to use that picture. -Jason

Pg. 8, Parachutist, Feb. 2004. Full-page ad for the Javelin Odyssey. The center picture of the three pictures on the left is a picture of the members of the 2003 U.S. team, many of whom do not jump Javelin Odysseys nor even endorse Sun Path products. Does anyone think that the use of this picture by Sun Path is inappropriate, misleading, or in bad taste? -Jason

....or the Cypres 8-year in this case. Actually, I'm going so far as to say that a rigger is not responsible for the use of a parachute system, period. A rigger is only responsible for the proper packing of the parachute system. If it's found that a rigger packed an out-of-date Cypres, then yes, he would be liable for packing a parachute system in a way that is not in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. However, that still does not make the rigger responsible for the use of the parachute system (I'm digressing here.... I mean, we could get into whether or not the jumper knew it was in date, etc., etc., ad nauseam, but I think we're really just talking about a jumper that's trying to jump out-of-date gear that was once in date.). Jason

nbblood said: Hooknswoop said: Of course a rigger would be liable for packing a Cypres that isn't in date. I don't know a single rigger, myself included, that would risk his ticket by packing an out-of-date Cypres... that's not my point. Time passes and service dates come and go. My point is that a rigger is not responsible for a skydiver that gets on a plane with out-of-date gear. In fact, according to FAR Part 105.43, there are only two people that are responsible for the use of the parachute system and they are the person conducting the parachute operation and the pilot in command. That's it. Legally jumping the parachute system is only loosely related to legally packing the parachute system. So if someone jumps out-of-date gear, the pilot could lose his license, the jumper himself could suffer some kind of legal action, but the rigger is certainly not responsible. Does anyone disagree? Jason

Would he risk the pilot's license? Yes. Would he risk the rigger's license? Not likely. That is, unless the rigger installed an out-of-date Cypres. Otherwise, why would a rigger be responsible for someone jumping out-of-date equipment? Riggers have no control over that. Jason

It's been a while since you asked, but in case it helps anybody: Sub-terminal from a Cessna 182 from 2200 ft.. Riser covers closed. It probably wouldn't have been a problem if I would have been using a 10 ft. bridle like I use now. Jason

I'm a bit confused about why this would shut anyone up. How often is your reserve pilotchute spring exposed to the elements? I hope that it's not nearly as often as your harness rings.... I've replaced standard rings due to corrosion... I've never had to replace stainless rings for any reason whatsoever. Jason

Oh, they're all sponsored. Jason

I had a baglock when I used to use Superbandz. The stow was single-wrapped, short, and neat. Luckily, I was able to break it by yanking the risers while the bag was spinning over my head. I had to clear a bunch of line twists, but otherwise everything went well. Jason

My longest measured swoop is 398 ft. I flew a 345 and a 329 at the WC. I'm sure I've also done many downwinders that were well into the 4's. Anybody else see TJ's sick 500'+ downwinder at Perris last year? Jason

I jumped Brian's 91 the last time he was at Orange (VA). I'm not sure if it is the final version, so I won't write a review, but suffice it to say that it will be a very high quality canopy. He incorporated some new designs to help with rear risering that seem to be very effective. Jason

That's not how it works. You're talking about an instantaneous velocity. That means very little. Average velocity is what counts. Sustained speed. Trust me, I was hitting in the 70's on my runs and it was only good enough for 19th. Jason

Steel: If for some reason you think it's your calling in life to jump a 55 @ 4.0+, then by all means do so. With that said, judging by your pictures (and common sense) it is necessary to use a lot of toggle input to produce the life required to plane that canopy out at that loading. That amount of input, that I can only assume is necessary on every landing, is exactly the amount of input and lift that you won't have to help you out in an emergency, e.g. a low turn. You're already digging out on every landing (whether you think you are or not).... Every HP canopy pilot turns too low every so often.... What are you going to do when you turn too low? What you are doing is dangerous, because there is very little margin for error (even less than usual). You're getting a lot of critisizm because people are concerned for your well being, myself included. I've flown canopies at loadings of 3+ on several occasions, and I'm sure that I could land one at 4+ (and so could most any of the pro swoopers out there), but on each of those jumps I could easily perceive that the stakes were higher, and my margin for error was greatly reduced. I choose not to jump wingloadings like that because I don't think it is an intellegent thing to do on a regular basis. Jason