eames

Oops, wrong Bruno! I've also attached a pic.... Jason

If your symbol is on the seal and your signature is on the packing data card, you're responsible for everything, to include the integrity of the packjob. The answer is no, you would be liable. Jason

Thanks everybody! Here are the unofficial overall standings: 1. Clint Clawson 2. Jeff Provenzano 3. Heath Richardson 4. Jason Eames 5. Luke Aikins 6. Christopher Irwin 7. Kevin Love 8. Hans Paulsen 9. Ian Bobo 10. JC Colclasure 11. Dave Hebert 12. Jay Moledski 13. Andy Farrington 14. Francisco Neri 15. TJ Landgren 16. Jim Slaton 17. Kamuran Bayrasli 18. Jonathan Tagle 19. Keri Farrington 20. Scott Andrew 21. Robert Brockman 22. Rodrigo Fuzetto 23. Chris Gray 24. Jacob Kilfoyle 25. Paul Gurteen 26. Kirby Hughes 27. Daniel Self 28. Wyat Drewes 29. Tim Gramley 30. Tyrone Graven 31. Eldon Burrier 32. JJ Johnson 33. Jason Zaslaw Hmm, and they left out the standings for Zone Accuracy on the PD website....: 1. Jason Eames 2. Dave Hebert 3. Kevin Love 4. Jay Moledski . . . Jason

I tested both my rigs (only one of which was affected) and they both passed. However, a friend of mine tested his and his girlfriend's rigs (only one of which was affected) and they both failed--both pins bent immediately, well before 15lbs was applied. I would recommend that everyone have the test done. Jason

A VX-74 in a Mirage M3X (made for a 120 non-xbraced). Jason

Sounds to me like you made it worse by raising the right side of the harness by loosening the right side... and worse yet by tightening up the left side. Explain again why you think that helped???? Jason

That's the point; no, you can't arbitrarily say that a canopy designed for swooping is going to have lighter riser pressure. My VX 109 has higher riser pressure than any bigger canopy I've ever jumped. Jason

It will also change significantly with wing loading... or riser length, or body position, or brake setting, and so on. Jason

There is no general answer. Don't be impressed by the fact that Rhino can site a whopping one example. Here's another example: I have a VX 109 loaded at about 2.1:1. I flew a VX 74 loaded at 3+:1, and the riser pressure was no lighter. Many people will generalize, because it is what they have learned... especially people without much experience. Jason

I don't care how many smiley faces you put after what you say, you are rude and exceptionally arrogant. Do you really think you know everything? What words did I put in your mouth? I quoted you! Do you really believe there is nothing else out there to learn? Are you the expert just because you were coached by hooknswoop and charlie mullins? Give me a break.... You know, Rhino, I run a canopy school out here at Orange (I'm also an active swooper on the pro tour). Maybe sometime (if your ego will let you) you'll come by. After I humble you a bit, by out-swooping you in any manner that suits your fancy, maybe I'll be so kind as to give you a few pointers.

That's a bit of a stretch.... Rhino said: To which HCnorway replied: Jason

The dimensions of the pond itself at Rantoul were great, but the fact that there was a high embankment containing the pond made it less than perfect. The perfect pond would be dug out, and level with the ground, and not built on it. Jason

Other than not getting wet, what will help is to scotchguard your gear and get it out of the water quickly. Even after a complete submersion last year in ME, my reserve remained dry, save a little moisture around the PC and the line stows. Oh, and it really helps if you're a rigger. Otherwise, you may find yourself at the mercy of a stranger. Jason

This shouldn't be an issue on a Velocity as the control range is fairly short (unless you have really short arms). I'm sure that the average skydiver could stall a Velocity on 18" risers... but the average skydiver doesn't jump a Velocity... and most Velocity pilots already have their riser lengths figured out.... Jason

Can you stall it with the shorter risers? If yes, then you're not getting screwed out of any control range. What may be happening with shorter risers is that you're crowding your arms. Having your arms bent to accomodate shorter risers makes rear riser inputs more difficult. I finally ended up with 24" risers, because they work with my arm length and make riser inputs the easiest. Also keep in mind that changing your riser length will affect your turn rate and recovery arc, at least slightly. I doubt PD is going to tell you the Velocity was designed for a certain riser length. Different riser lengths work for different people. And a key variable in the control range of any canopy is not the riser length (except in unusual cases like extremely long/short arms or extremely long/short risers). Riser length should be determined more by personal preference and convenience. Jason

While we're on the subject, allow me to explain to you how to always turn on the high side and never have another patela tearer. If you wait until the canopy surges, it's already too late, you've missed your opportunity to fix it. You said at a certain point, pulling on your front risers was like pulling on a steel bar, right? Well, while you were swooping along at 30 ft, your speed was decreasing. Somewhere between your planeout and the surge, there was a point at which your front risers became managable again. If you take advantage of that opportunity (and go against all your instincts), and simply lower yourself a little using your front risers, you'll be left with plenty of speed to salvage a decent flare. You need to do it as soon as possible in the swoop--almost immediatly. Doing it too late may actually make things worse, so try it up high. It may look stupid, but it's better than getting busted up, and it's also better than downsizing when a person is obviously not ready to. Deal. I won't argue with that! Jason

...and I agree with that, of course. I think you're right, we're probably not quite on the same page.... a slight terminology discrepancy maybe... but still a little bit of disagreement

Well, I appreciate your interpretation, but I'll have to politely disagree. I've already shared my opinion on this point, so I'll leave it at that. Jason

I see your point, but how does a newbie who is eager to swoop work up to... ????? Wouldn't you expose them to high speed landings before they reached this point? I believe that you are describing a very dangerous leap. And if you admit that you do expose them to induced high speed landings before that point then you are conceding to the fact that you also start people out on low performance canopies, are you not? Jason

A "swoop friendly" canopy is no less difficult to get in the corner. And unless you load it at 3.1, you're going to notice that a "swoop friendly" canopy also tends to plane out when you let off the front risers. The difference being that when you pound in on a "swoop friendly" canopy you're not going to stand up and brush it off like you did. Aren't you glad that you paid your dues on a Safire 149? I'm glad that I paid my dues on bigger canopies.... I'm glad that when I pounded in it was on a Safire 169. I would advise people to err on the big, slow, high side, regardless of how stupid they look or how many ankle burners they take. There are ways to avoid the corner and still have a good swoop. I'll be glad to talk to you about it sometime. Obviously (but maybe this isn't a concern for you), too many people (that would have probably agreed with you) had decided that they needed a more "swoop friendly" canopy and proceeded to kill themselves on it. Jason

Please give me an example of a canopy that fits this billet. I only know of canopies that are either slow or have long recovery arcs. Slow canopies have a lot of drag, which shortens the recovery arc. Please explain. Jason

Yes, I'm perfectly okay with disagreeing

This is the exact trap that I have seen and why I feel learning to hook w/ too big a canopy (with too short a recovery arc) is dangerous. The pilot is constantly in the corner to prevent the possibility of planing out too high, ending up w/ an ankle burner of a landing. ...and this is where we will always disagree, Hook. A very proficient swooper needs to know a canopy's recovery arc well, but a novice swooper should not rely on it when learning to swoop. A novice should start on the high side, and with a big canopy--if they find themselves too high, they need to pull themselves down a little more with double fronts before they lose all their speed and get dropped, even if that's not the most efficient way to do it, even if that landing wasn't absolutely optimal, but because it's the safest way to learn. Jason

jdfreefly: Many people don't understand what is meant by a negative recovery arc. In fact, I don't use the term anymore for fear of a misunderstanding. There is no canopy that will not come to a shallower glide angle than its natural glide angle after a speed building maneuver. Many crossbraced canopies will not flatten out completely (with respect to the ground), but they will all tend to pull out of a dive. I had absolutely no problem getting a Velocity loaded at 2.7 to fly shallower than its natural glide angle after building speed, then getting it to completely plane out with very little input. If a person is doing HP landings and can't get his or her canopy to plane out naturally as much as is possible with that canopy before any input, then that person doesn't know the canopy well enough. After a certain familiarity is reached however, a person may push a little deeper into the recovery arc to generate more speed, but that's a whole different topic. AggieDave: Sorry, that's not quite accurate. He used his rear risers to plane out, then removed the input only after he was level. However, I do think it's possible to do what you're describing on a crossbraced canopy at the right wingloading.... But that's not what Andy did. Jason

Come on, are you serious? There are quite a few different degrees of being broken. While a Safire 300 (yes, we have one) may break an ankle if someone "panic" turns, a VX 120, even at the same wingloading will probably kill someone who "panic" turns. There may be some validity to this, but I think you're making a fairly far-fetched analogy. Students were allowed to jumps squares after it was determined that it could be done safely. Do you really think that it will ever be safe to hand a student a canopy that is so efficient it's capable of achieving high double digit speeds? There is a line at which initial training falls behind technology. Jason