teason

Although I haven't done it with the hybrids, I've seen and personally used old f111 mantas with thousands of jumps, I repeat thousands of jumps before being decomisioned. They were not taken out of service because of bottom skin issues. The wear put on an F111 bottom skin is not a mystery. I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

We don't do AFF, we do IAD. We do thousands of IADs per year. each of the canopies have done about 300-400 jumps each. Because of thye nature of the users, these canopies get alot of abuse. There is a fair difference betwenn a TM picking up his canopy and walking 100 feet to the hanger and a student that drags the canopy back from a feild a 1/4 mile away. I also have old mantas that saw 15+years of this type of abuse (mantas can really stand the test of time). I don't recall having any issues with the bottom skin because of it's f111. The product is proven. I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

A heavy guy will give you a low center of gravity. If you have a light person touching their toes on the jump, you have to get stable with a really high center of gravity. Give them some hieght and you get a high c of g and a flailing student with lots of control surface. I took a 6'7" 130 lbs jumper this year that had the most potential for an exciting tandem. I don't like excitement. I like the boring tandems. In the plus side, he did perfect.

I once had a student ask me if three hundred and twenty was too heavy. I though they had said two hundred and twenty because my cell had crappy reception. As for the big heavy I took, I thought the waiver said 235 (she didn't look 285) and that was when our limit was 230. When she mentioned being over, I read the 285 as 235 and figured an extra 5 wouldn't be a big deal. No one's perfect. Since we started doing Tandems, we have slowly starting at 210 lbs and have increased our limits based on comfort level and have only broken our set limit once (see above). I'm a strong beliver that you are never doing anyone favors by doing them favors. I other words, it is usually not wanting to disapoint a jumper that causes the bad judgement not dollar signs in the eyes.(if I was all about money I'd close the money pit tomorrow and get a real job!) It's also not limited to tandems, I've seen gear recertified because the rigger didn't want to ground a struggling skydiver's gear, I know of a big jumper with a 250+lbs exit weight learning to swoop with a 135 at 260 jumps because the DZO doesn't want to discourage him and I've seen jumpers die because of this type of favor. I'm know some DZOs will pressure TMs to take oversized students to make the money on them (I've been pressured like that as well) but when you think that it is sometimes done because we as instructors don't want to disapoint the student, we find a problem that we may all be guilty of. Making a bad choice to avoid conflict and to "cut someone a break". When you are an instructor or DZO, you have to be cruel to be kind. I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

The tread is huge and quite a challenge to read but to sum up my experience, I own a DZ in Canada. The owners of ASC own a booking company called skyride that stole my web site. I other words, they lifted text and images from my web site and produced 25 copys. Origionally, all the websites where identical to ours and even had my picture in the banner proclaiming me thier chief instructor. While looking into this theft, I learned that Skyride has hundreds (over900 last time I checked) and use them to direct internet searches to thier booking agency. For example, they will have a site called "Adventure Skydiving North Dakota" and claim it to be a DZ in North Dakota. When you call the number, they will sell yo a gift certificate and send you to the nearest DZ that will honor it even if it means you have to drive two states over. To simplify, the steal intellectual and copy righted property, use it to mislead the customer, compete unfairly with local businesses and often give gift certificate users a poor experience through these deceptions. Legal action on the part of any of the wronged businesses is futile in most respects as the cost of fighting them will outweigh any benifit and is therefore totally unfeasable. So that is my problem with skyride. As for jumpers and staff at ASC, as far as I know, they have nothing to do with the above issues. I'm sure the instructors act just as professional as any other in the business. ASC and Skyride are owned by the same people but that doesn't meanthat the offensively parasytic nature has any bearing on the quality of instruction given by any Tandem Master or staff member who works for ASC. I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

Last year a guy travels from Thunderbay to Winnipeg with his wife to spend the weekend, take in a Football game and do a Tandem on Sunday (too busy for a first jump course, a Tandem will be quick). He shows up weighing 270lbs. Having taken a 285 pounder in the past which popped my hip out on opening, I had capped the weight limit at 250 firm. Not only that, the winds were very high and no one was jumping that day. We refunded his non refundable deposit and told him that safety came first. He phones me when he gets back to Thunderbay (a place where we go for a satelite school every year) and tells me that I should pay for his expenses to come to Winnipeg. He later sends me a bill for plane tickets for him and his wife, three nights stay in an expensive hotel in Winnipeg, Car rental, gas to drive out to our DZ, meals and two days missed wages. The total that he wanted us to pay him was $1800! He also harassed other places we do business with so that we couldn't do jumps in Thunderbay(although it didn't work) In spite of that, I will still refuse service based on safety concerns. Please don't paint all DZOs with the same brush. I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

I've noticed that the tall students seem to have above average physical awareness in general. That may come from years of banging thier heads I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

Last month I took a monster. He was 6'10" and 250lbs. I looked like a monkey riding a giraffe! At first I thought he would be too big but the month before I took a guy who was 6'7" and 130 lbs. (yes he was VERY skinny) I found that all I had to do was treat him like any other tandem and it was fine. I think alot of it is mental, If you think they're too big, they are. I left the plane relaxed, had a great skydive and after I felt good about how far I'd come since my first Tandem student! (I don't know if I would've taken him before this season) I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

whoa, ZP is not the second coming of Christ! Zp is a superior fabric for a top skin but has little to no advantage on the bottom. We have both fully ZP and hybrid mantas for our student operations and there is no difference in performance. The difference comes in gathering the and packing. full ZPs are a bigger pain than a hybrid. (I've also jumped a fully ZP Firebolt and found no difference in flight with a hybrid Firebolt. F111 (not lopo) is also more resistant to tears than ZP. Just because ZP improved canopy flight characteristics doesn't main every inch has to be ZP for a canopy to be good. That's a rather narrow perspective. You have to look at pros and cons of each and observe the application. Better does not equal appropriate. It's why we have different types of suspension line. It's why we different canopy planforms and it's why we have discipline specific container systems. I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

How did you miss a PC packed so bad that you can pick up a 25lbs rig by the handle???? Either you're stretching the truth or you didn't look twice at your gear before you put it on. That is assuming you had a packer pack the rig, you won't say who packed the rig even though others have asked. Maybe you should look at the incident and ask yourself "what could I have done to prevent this" A jumper who looks to blame others for his mistakes should either get out of the sport or take a good hard look at the concept of personal responsability. Skydiving is a sport where the participants take resposibility for thier own actions. If you are looking for fellow jumpers to tell you that you had nothing to do with the incident, hold your hand and that someone else was to blame and therefore responsible, I don't think you're gonna get it here. A student who can't admit to mistakes is a hazzard because he is doomed to repeat them. A student who takes ownership and responsibility for a mistake has empowered himself and has the ability to prevent it from happening again. This sport has no room for victims. I find it very disturbing that you would blame the owner of the equipment for an error in packing that you possibly did, should have checked and decided to jump. You are responsible for your own safety and you better be buying thier rigger a bottle for the reserve! I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

If you look at the TM's left 3 ring (bottom right of the photo) you'll see the hook from the student harness. If you are wondering why manufacturers are moving toward eliptical, smaller canopies, here's some food for thought. We have several tandem canopies on our DZ, most are rectangular but some are eliptical. The rectangular planform has a very high toggle pressure when manoevering. After a day of doing 8 or more tandems, my arms really start to ache. With the ellipticals, the toggle pressure is very light allowing for lots of strength reserves for the flare. Also with smaller tandem canopies (we have a 396 and a 350 Firebolt) the flare is easier to achieve. For a shorter TM, a smaller canopy will have a shorter stroke to the flare. With my long arms, I just scratch the bottom end on the 396. If I had shorter arms, a 350 would be a must. A friend of mine took a 230lbs student with his 298 Firebolt. At his height, I don't believe that the landing would have been as good with a 396. I don't think that smaller tandem canopies are there for ground hungry front riser swoops with students, there are being designed with lighter toggle pressure and more usable control range in mind. And that's not to mention how easy it is on the packers. The difference between packing a 396 vs. a 350 is night and day. I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

This is, from what I gather, to be a packing error and/or pin check error. Sounds to me like there was absolutely nothing wrong with the equipment (I'm assuming as you have not stated why the instructor said the gear was unacceptable to jump) So here's some question: What caused the hard pull and how is it the fault of the DZ? Did you pack the gear? Are you also paying the rigger $50-$75 for the reserve repack? How much did the rental cost? And finally, if I borrowed your gear and had a malfunction on a pack job that I did or payed someone for, should I expect you to pay? So far, nothing in your posts have shown that the DZ/rental shop had anything to do with your Mal. Thuis is way too vague. I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

No Sparky! No! Thread flash backs! thread flash backs! She wasn't refering to rig manfacturers, she was refering to parachute manufacturers. Please, let's not go there, the scars are still fresh! Although, I like the comment about light weight rigs and wearing lead. It's like people who take the elevator up to thier apartment and then workout on the stairmaster! I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

Why do you dislike stitching? Are you commenting more on the simplicity of design or the unreliability of stitching? The incident in the Ukraine is out of context here and has no bearing on the joint efficiency of a proper 4 point or the reliability of TSO'd design. (Altough I do agree that there is a huge amount of Voodoo involved in apealing to the masses in the sport market. It doesn't have to work, the market just has to think it works. Coming soon: 6 ring articulation!) I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

I think we're in agreement here; I wouldn't want this rigger packing my lunch let alone my rig. What concerns me is the design of the rig that originally failled. If it was just a sloppy rigger (and we have all seen the type) the faliure could be a 1 off. Inspect all to ensure the integrity of the indivual rigs. But it doesn't look that way. It looks like the riggers do not understand the basic principal of joint efficiency as evidenced by the Racer mod. This means that instead of a couple of bad rigs due to poor workmanship, they may all be a fatality waiting to happen due to poor design. That scares the hell out of me! I think all the rigs that the company has made should be removed from service and the design should be evaluated not just the work. I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

ooops, sorry. I'm an ass. I was looking at the Original poster's container size which was a TJ. At any rate, Sunpath does recomend a J3 for a 160 - RavenI range. For a 176, they recomend a J4. I just get bent when I think someone has been decieved by someone else trying to get rid of gear. I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

Um... ok, What?! I believe manufacturers build reserves based on what design they feel will perform the best, not what they think will fit in your TJ. Now, as for your TJ... ... in what world can you squeeze a 170 of any manufacturer easily into a TJ? Did someone sell you this container saying "oh yeah, it used to have a 170 in it! It'll be perfect for your first set of gear!" If so I've seen this before. You've been had. Your rig was made for a 126-135 reserve. Call Sunpath or check out thier website www.sunpath.com I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

On the jumpshack canopy volume chart, 450-500 is the recomended container size for an Anglefire 177. 416 is the projected canopy volume. The canopy volume can change based on envioronmental conditions and your riggers ability to manipulate bulk. That's why the recomended container size is higher than the projection. As Tim does the container design at Jumpshack, his answer is probably based with the container's well being in mind. Just to compare, the recomendations on container size for a PD 176 W/Dacron are similar. As for Ravens, I can pack a Raven I into my 350 even through they recomend a 425. Doing so in ill advised, however, because you can greatly increase the wear and tear on the container. I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

True enough but the mod that was done was not that far off the mark, it just simply showed a lack of understanding on the concept of joint efficiency when the lower confluence was done incorrectly and went unnoticed because of the assumtion that the webbing continued in through the three ring and upwards. You can't blame the rigger for different design process of the original manufacturer. Racers and Talons are different animals. What is in question is not the rigger's desire to do take short cuts but his/her lack of understanding of design and the basic rigging concept of joint efficiency. The lack of understanding could be the route of the failure on the student gear. I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

Just like all Racers . Actually, the one in the pic is the right way for other rigs but backwards for a racer which is backwards to all the others which means the right direction is the wrong direction. That means if he put it on right, it would be the wrong way round for other gear but he put it on wrong because he thought it should go the right way and ... uh .... ....What the hell am I talking about?!? I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

The main error in the harness lies in the lower confluence just above the hip ring not under the mud flap. Type XVII is far too small and requires a four point stitch over type VIII. The termination under the mud flap isn't the problem, it's the poor confluence at the ring. ... well that and the chest strap is the backwards I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

you can also use cored type V suspension line as is generally used with racers. With Type V, you do not need a washer because of the thickness. I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

I saw it, I like it. I get flak for the size of the handles, they are 3" low profile as opposed to the standard 4". They're easier than capewells to get the thumbs in. I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

That ain't a "D" handle, This is a "D"handle! I get flak for these mini Ds all the time. I may have gone a bit too far. I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

The reliability of rounds is very much dependant on design. There are definate differences between a PC and a 26' lopo. There is also the issue of how much damage the canopy can fly with and the landability of a malfunctioned square vs. a malfunctioned round. I a recent decision by certain military folk, new improved square on square gear was turned down in favour of round on round. One point for this decision was the reliability of rounds vs squares. I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.